- Marcello Truzzi
The Gospel of John represents quite a departure from the synoptic gospels, so prior to shifting gears, I want to examine the statement above which is often cited as justification for rejecting the gospels. Truzzi’s claim appears to be quite reasonable and I don’t think that many of us would bother to debate its merits. If you claim something extraordinary or peculiar, you should expect the claim to be challenged, and you should expect your challenger to require an overabundance of evidence as support. The difficulty with Truzzi’s statement, however, is that “extraordinary” is inherently subjective.
We have discussed mathematical probabilities in several of the previous posts; however, sometimes mathematical probabilities are not the only things that should be taken into account. If we were to encounter historical documentation that told of the whereabouts of Abraham Lincoln when he was shot, a reasonable person would not question the historicity of the account based on the mathematical probability. Let’s assume that the balcony was about 10 square yards. If there are 3,097,600 square yards in a square mile and approximately 30% of the Earth’s surface is land, the prima facie odds that Lincoln was in the balcony at a particular instance in history would be about a 1 in 5 X 10^-14. Still, how many of us doubt Lincoln’s whereabouts? If you were to examine a historical claim, you could cast immeasurable doubt on the claim via mathematical probability. Yet, we know that historical claims can and do supersede probabilities.
BACK TO SQUARE ONE
I tried to make it clear in my first several posts that to believe in things that are not of this universe is quite reasonable. You must look no further than the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy to know that natural law prohibits the manufacture of the elements of the universe (i.e. nothing that is confined to the laws of the universe could have caused the universe). Further, unless you have severe doubts regarding the merits of the scientific community, it is also exceedingly probable that the universe is not static (i.e. it had a beginning). From these two notions, you must conclude that some event or entity which is not confined to the laws of the universe resulted in the universe. Though several have questioned what this “catalyst” might be, there has been little debate as to the necessary existence of this catalyst.
I don’t plan to rehash these posts; rather, I want to include this paragraph as a reminder of where my definition of “supernatural” stems.
Supernatural: That which is not confined to the laws of the universe.
I’ll be discussing the evidentiary requirements for supernatural phenomena this week, so I want to ensure that we’re all on the same page when we discuss this topic and to remind each of you that by acknowledging the validity of the Big Bang, we are, in essence, acknowledging the existence of the supernatural.
RECAP
I. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy governs those things that exist within the universe.
II. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.
III. The Big Bang Theory coupled with the Theory of General Relativity (strongly supported by observable evidence) shows that the universe had a beginning.
IV. (From III) As matter and energy are elements of the universe, matter and energy had a beginning.
Because III/IV eliminates the possibility that matter and energy have always existed, the only reasonable explanation that remains is this:
There must exist (or there must have existed) something that is/was not governed by the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy which resulted in the existence of the universe. This thing would (by my definition above) be supernatural.
THE SUPERNATURAL EVENT?
The supernatural is real. The universe is proof. Still, for some there exists the notion that a natural explanation is always the most reasonable… no matter how unreasonable the naturalistic explanation might be. If you concede that supernatural is true (again, as evidenced by the truth of the existence of the universe), why would you make the assumption that it is likely there was only one supernatural event? If historical evidence points to a supernatural event, is it reasonable to dismiss the event solely because of its supernatural nature? Is it sufficient to simply manufacture a natural explanation that could explain a so-called supernatural phenomenon?
DUPED
As I outlined in the Matthew post, there is zero benefit for the gospel authors to write the gospels unless they believed them to be true. As such, this week I want to begin with the assumption that the synoptic gospel authors were truthful in their accounts, but that they were themselves duped by Jesus and/or the apostles. I will work to incorporate the most plausible explanations that do not require any supernatural explanation. Some blanket assumptions that are necessary if we assume no supernatural events:
1. God does not exist.
2. Jesus is not the Son of God.
3. Neither Jesus nor His disciples possessed the power to heal or any other supernatural abilities.
4. Jesus is dead and did not “conquer death.”
I have already spoken to the truth of Jesus’ existence, so I will begin here with the idea of Jesus the Deceiver. Whether Jesus truly believed Himself to be the Son of God, He was able to perform apparent miracles that were so great He succeeded in convincing 12 men (with the possible exception of Judas) to follow Him for a number of years and to believe that He was the Son of God. His numerous healings can of course be explained using one of two possibilities:
People in His employ feigned illness then feigned miraculous recovery from these illnesses. OR
He was able to convince unsuspecting folks that He did indeed heal people using cleverness and guile (perhaps he “healed” them then called attention elsewhere while the “healed” were ushered away a la Chevy Chase in Fletch).
The rest of His miracles must have simply been later fabrications from the disciples. In any case, his ruse was so convincing that the 12 believed Him to be the messiah… that is until he was killed. Following His death and unceremonious burial, a distraught Judas killed himself. The others decided that they would save face by telling everyone around them that they saw Him raised from the dead. The group of disciples traveled the countryside regaling crowds with stories of how they too could heal people and could even cause people to drop dead. They knew that if they could convince enough simpletons of these acts, the masses would tell others of what they swore they had seen with their own eyes. Their tales were so convincing that they even led Saul of Tarsus – a leading Christian-hunter – to believe that he had learned the entirety of the scriptures via a direct revelation from the risen Christ (Saul/Paul must have obviously read the accounts before, but his belief was so real that he remained convinced of the divine revelation). Paul was then responsible for a series of letters that served to give further credence to the words of the disciples.
Here’s where it gets tricky…
The disciples found themselves in a conundrum. Saul was not the only one who had been sent to round up the Christians. People were being killed and imprisoned and they were at the top of the list. The disciples were responsible for a multitude of deaths and theirs would be right around the corner. There was only one way out:
Continue to lie and make a pact with each other that each would not be the one to squeal.
This wasn’t an easy decision of course. After all, if a disciple was Jewish prior to Jesus coming to fetch him, he would have little doubt he was now destined for hell. The Gentiles of the group had a little easier time… until they were caught and sentenced to death. Each went about his business watching fellow “Christians” die horrible, painful deaths. So, naturally, the horribly sadistic disciples decided to continue to preach and to recruit more Christians. After all, what did it matter at this point?
In Week 17, I recapped several of the attestations of the disciples via the gospels:
1. They attested to knowing Jesus first-hand.
2. They attested to witnessing and performing first-hand miracles.
3. They attested to seeing Jesus die.
4. They attested to seeing Jesus alive three days later.
We can effectively throw out #1. After all, if He wasn’t really a miracle-working messiah, the disciples didn’t know Jesus at all. Obviously, they were deluding themselves when it comes to #2. Tales of walking on water and resurrections were flat-out lies and, in retrospect, none of the healings could have been real (Gosh, I thought I saw the same guy get healed for blindness, leprosy, and gout in three different places… I really should have put two and two together then). The only one that was really truthful was #3.
The truly amazing part is that the disciples managed to confound the masses so thoroughly without ever producing a true miracle that thousands upon thousands were willing to give their lives… martyrdom soon became a fun little pastime for the early Christians and they were even allowed to be center stage in the Colosseum. Sure, there were plenty of other religions that promoted orgies and drinking, but how often does one get to be eaten, gored, or trampled in front of thousands of people by really cool wild animals?! Though no one they knew had ever really seen the disciples do anything beyond heal a headache or put some aloe on a sunburn, soon the masses were lining up to profess their collective faith, give up those despicable activities, and await their eminent deaths.
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS
If we don’t dismiss the supernatural straight away, there is simply no reason to contest the claims made in the gospels. The claim that supernatural events are rare and thus wholly unlikely is one that stems from not having directly experienced the supernatural. It’s almost like we’re caught in a loop:
We can’t believe in the supernatural because it is so very rare; yet, there are a plethora of supernatural events recorded in the Bible and tons more reported by people from all over the globe. Still, each event is so unlikely because the supernatural is so rare…
Further, if the events were ordinary, we would simply say that God was not needed to perform them. If, for instance, people were resurrected daily, a resurrection would simply be considered a regular, natural phenomenon. Doubt, in this case, often stems from doubt.
If we look at the New Testament as we would any other historical document, there is little doubt that each of the principle players believed in the divinity of Jesus. So, what is it that sets Christianity apart? Let’s revisit the core premises discussed over the last few weeks:
Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection
(Add to this the fact that the disciples themselves were responsible for performing miracles after Jesus’ death.)
The claims made in the gospel writings are indeed extraordinary. To believe these claims, the early eyewitnesses would have almost certainly required extraordinary evidence. Modern Christianity relies upon documentary evidence written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses of Christ… those who were the very founders of the early church. The membership of the early church is extraordinary. The sheer number of authors and the recreation of their accounts are extraordinary. The historical accuracy of the accounts is extraordinary. In fact, there is very little that can be called ordinary with regards to the church of the first century.
The actions of the disciples, too, are extraordinary. It is extraordinarily difficult to believe that one man could be so obstinate as to die for a lie… much less the plethora of Christian martyrs who were killed shortly after the death of Christ. Jesus and the disciples were visible. Their claims were verifiable. It is more likely that the early Christians were so very devoted because they had seen the evidence with their own eyes or because they were very close to others who witnessed the events directly.
It is perhaps even more difficult to believe that the disciples could literally believe that they had the ability to perform miracles if this was not the case. Certainly such a delusion would not beget the massive early Christian church. If the disciples merely believed they had supernatural powers, this wouldn’t translate to the masses.
A Physics professor I once had used to implore us to ask a simple question after we answered a problem: Does this make sense? For instance, if the question asked for the height of a building and your answer was given in light years, it would behoove you to check your work (probably didn’t need to divide by Planck’s constant). Does it make sense that the disciples died (sometimes torturous deaths) for a lie? Does it make sense that the disciples had no real power, but were able to convince thousands upon thousands to turn away from comfortable lives as citizens of the Roman Empire and give their lives to Christ? The realities of our universe necessitate the probability of the supernatural. The probability of the supernatural necessitates the possibility of God. The possibility of God helps us to understand the stories of the New Testament. If you don’t blind yourself to that which you already know (there is something beyond our universe), the supernatural ceases to be a weak explanation by the ignorant faithful and becomes a valid explanation from the early eyewitnesses.
Posts
26 comments:
Historical claims do not supersede probabilities; it is just that you are limiting your math to information about balcony area for your convenience. What about the knowledge that Lincoln was born in the U.S. in a time when global travel was very difficult, or the fact that he was a president and would have been in the D.C. area near Ford’s Theater, or that Lincoln enjoyed plays, or… (many, many more factors could be listed…)? Each one of the multitude of omitted factors cuts off vast swatches of improbability. Of course we could cast mathematical doubt on Lincoln’s whereabouts, but that would require ignorance of enough factors that doubt becomes reasonable.
Going backwards in time, we eventually get to a vastly hot, vastly dense state where we do not have laws that define how this state behaves (Plank Epoch - we have serious scenarios put forth [Hartle-Hawking initial state, string landscape, brane inflation, string gas cosmology, the ekpyrotic universe, …] and some less serious scenarios [Goddidit, Zeusdidit, Jesusdidit, FlyingSpaghettiMonsterdidit], but nothing that is more reasonable than reasonable agnosticism), and if we go a bit further, we can infer some sort of major explosion – the Big Bang (supporting deductions are then confirmed from this inference).
Since we have a “????” between what we call our universe and the Big Bang, agnosticism is the most reasonable position with respect anything about an event that might have “caused” the Big Bang. We have gone over this enough that I am sure we all understand each other’s position. Since we are defining “universe” as occurring “after” the “????”, we are saying that the Plank Epoch is not of this universe. Following these definitions, it logically follows that some variety of superuniverse existed (AKA the Plank Epoch). It does not logically follow that the Plank Epoch can or does have any intelligent interaction with a bit of goo on a speck of matter some 14 billion years later. If you wish to label this supernatural, it is not reasonable to say with certainty anything about the nature of it.
I think it is reasonable to believe in the existence of the Plank Epoch, and since the definitions used here are framing this as supernatural, then in this context, we can say at least one supernatural event existed (even though it would be more prudent to revisit our definition of universe and consider protouniverse, multiverse or something even more encompassing). Why do we believe in the Plank Epoch (the supernatural as define here)? It is certainly not because of oral tradition being passed down, written, transcribed, translated, told, retold, and so on. It is because of high quality evidence. Observable, empirically measurable, falsifiable, independently verifiable evidence.
Continued...
History has pointed to supernatural events countless times. Surely you do not think your myth is unique in invoking the supernatural. But what has happened in every instance where further investigation has taken place? We learn that the supernatural claims turn out to be misguided. A reasonable person is open to the possibility of supernatural influences, but only insofar as the evidence takes them. And here, we have evidence that leaves reasonable doubt wide open.
Your mock story of being duped seems to indicate the impossibility of people being duped in situations similar to the mythical story you favor. But this does not take into account the billions and billions of people who have been duped into believing similar stories throughout time and through today. Many people have performed apparent miracles that convinced millions of people, including healing and resurrection. Many of the convince people have been willing to die for this cause, or lie, as you say. If true miracles and true events is the only way this makes sense to you, how do you explain all the duped Muslims, Mormons, followers of Sathya Sai Baba, and so on?
Why do you think it is the case that instances of supernatural intervention only occur where good evidence is not available (i.e. distally in time/space, or where excellent records are unavailable)?
I do not doubt that the gospel writers believed in the extraordinary claims, but their belief in these extraordinary claims is not even on the radar as far as extraordinary evidence goes. They likely believed in plenty of nonsense such as the flood claim in Genesis, spirits, ghosts, boogeymen, and whatnot as well. The word of a present day physicist is nowhere near what is required to verify such extraordinary claims (Fleischmann and Pons?), much less the word of credulous people from the Iron Age. What is needed is good evidence, not what we have here.
You say it is “extraordinarily difficult to believe that one man could be so obstinate as to die for a lie…”, have you not been paying attention to what goes on around the world? If you believe the claims of Islam to be a lie, then this is happening every day. It is extremely ordinary. Does it make sense that Muslims die (sometimes torturous deaths) for a lie? Does it make sense that Sathya Sai Baba can convince millions of people that he performs miracles even in this day and age of technology? Well, Muslims do willing die for a lie and millions of followers of Sathya Sai Baba do believe in his miracles, despite the fact that no miracles are occurring.
Quick question:
How did we come by the knowledge of Lincoln's birth, the location of Ford's Theater, etc?
Responses to your direct questions:
"Why do you think it is the case that instances of supernatural intervention only occur where good evidence is not available?"
What, in your mind, would be "good evidence"? Do you believe "good evidence" is possible?
...Other religious fanatics...?
I wrote before about the difference between an eyewitness dying for what he knows to be false and a modern martyr dying for what he believes to be true. In your view, is there no difference between these two? Wouldn't the knowledge that your "belief" is false dramatically reduce the likelihood that you would die for this "belief"?
Randy,
Quick answer: The same way we come by Lincoln’s name, what caused the hole in his head, the location of the seating area in which he was shot, the size of the balcony, and the percentage of land on the earth’s surface. Do you think you can help yourself to this information but you cannot help yourself to the location of Ford’s Theater? This analogy is not going anywhere.
We have talked about good evidence early on in this blog when we were discussing COBE, Rrelativity, etc. In fact, you have employed it in a fine fashion at times. Good evidence is proportionate to the claim it supports. Good evidence is observable, empirically measurable, falsifiable, independently verifiable… Good evidence should not be contradictory both internally and with the physical world. Good evidence is certainly possible and there are libraries of peer reviewed papers that have been through the scientific process ensuring that the evidence meets a rigorous standard of good. Randy, you know this.
If you are talking about is good evidence possible with respect to your favored myth, then my answer is I do not know. It is completely possible that there is evidence that has yet to be found or presented that meets the rigor required by the claims being made. It is also possible that the claims are true but there just is not enough evidence to make it unreasonable to remain agnostic. It is entirely possible that the opportunities to record good evidence were lost and will never be recovered.
I make no claims about anybody dying for what they know to be false. This is just a strawman.
People are duped. Do you think the followers of Sathya Sai Baba know their beliefs in Sai Baba to be false? Eyewitnesses can believe false things to be true. Just because a million people, many of them eyewitnesses, believe that Sai Baba performs miracles, that does not mean he performs miracles or that they know their beliefs to be false.
We know that:
1. People dying for a cause doesn't mean it's literally true. (Islam, nationalism, etc)
2. Motivation is a difficult one to rely on. People are attracted to a movement in reaction to their social environment. The content is the driving force. For instance, apparitions are still common today, but it's the content of the vision that makes it compelling.
3. Fewer people accepted Jesus than those who rejected his alleged claims in Israel. Couldn't this be interpreted in the context of the miracle claim? We could say that people accepted him because of miracles, but we could also say that people rejected him because there were no miracles. or at least no miracles according to what we would describe as miracles these days. I'm not making a claim here, except that it could cut both ways.
4. Many movements have caught fire in history. The mormons have grown at an astounding rate. Islam took off like wildfire when it began. Success doesn't equal proof
5. We know the laws of physics as much as we know anything. We know that early Christians wrote theological truths in symbolic fashion. These are very important to consider.
I also think the early history of the church is extraordinary. But several interpretations are quite valid. I have no problem with the possibility of the supernatural, but as we've covered, it's difficult to prove. Especially since using what we know to be true (human nature, the laws of physics), we can offer compelling explanations for the early church.
Supernatural cosmological philosophy
1. Randy, you have referenced cosmic inflation, but there is no cosmic inflation without the multiverse it implies - Genesis happening over and over again in a possibly eternal sea of nirvana.
2. It's still difficult to understand why God needs no cause, but the universe does. The laws associated with causality, according to your view, did not form until after the beginning. Time, space, matter were not here yet. Why assign the idea of causality prior chronology to these? Is causality even relevant without time? Why shouldn't causality itself have had a beginning?
3. The beginning of time is interesting. Obviously "before time" is a non sequitur. What is north of the north pole? Your view of God is "outside of time". I think it's a cool idea. But since we agree that "before time" is nonsensical, it does not require an "outside of time".
If time had a beginning, then it had a beginning. To think a beginning required a cause is not to accept the idea that time actually had a beginning. Since time is like space, perhaps seeing the beginning of time as a boundary is the best view.
4. To say that violations of the laws of physics in today’s world are acceptable because there was once a time when those laws did not exist is untenable. It’s like saying that it is possible for me to defy gravity, because there was a time when the earth didn’t exist and therefore it had no gravity.
5. Back to causality. If the universe was once the size of the smallest particle possible, then perhaps quantum physics also shows us that cause is not needed. Quantum behavior is indeterminate and strange. Do you consider quantum physics supernatural?
6. Is "supernatural" defined as something different than our current universe and "supernatural" as defined by violations of the laws of this universe WITHIN this universe, really commensurate? I don't see that.
7. Equating an anti-gravity force, blowing up space at an unbelievably quick pace, with the God of the Old Testament or with Jesus still seems a leap.
8. Using naturalistic proof to establish violations of natural laws is still a sketchy endeavor. Imploring naturalistic accountability (reason) and applying it to alleged supernatural events which are not accountable to these standards is hazardous. That's why it should be left to the realm of mysticism and direct experience. You can't locate a spirit with radar. If you did, you might consider the possibility that it is a cloud.
Utilizing the general theory of relativity to "prove" the supernatural, and then throwing out similar physical laws to "show" the supernatural is difficult. Using the accountability of naturalism to disprove the accountability of naturalism......
I understand your points about science often assuming too much. I agree actually. But surely a literal view of religion assumes as much or more.
Fun stuff to consider.
Once again, you might be right on this stuff. But don't you think that other views might be reasonable as well?
It'd be a crime to ignore such a well thought out post, great job Steven. I sure hope Randy finds the time to reconcile each position.
Glad to be back to reality. It was getting a bit rough reading 3000 words on the value of Joseph Smith's golden plates.
Steven,
I’ll start with #6:
I defined “supernatural” for the purpose of my argument. It’s a loose definition, but one that I think we can all understand in principle. Once we start talking about an event that necessitates some sort of tweak of conservation laws, I label that event “supernatural.” So long as we’re all on the same page, we could call it “widgywager” if you want.
1. I think we’re just talking about two different things here.
2, 3, and 5. When we delve into time with no cause, super-super condensed matter that doesn’t adhere to known physical constants/laws/theories, etc, we’re talking about things that fit with my definition of “supernatural.” More on that momentarily.
4. You’re analogy doesn’t quite fit with what I’m saying. It would be more accurate to talk about “gravity” before there existed matter. Universal laws/properties simply would not apply if the universe did not exist. You’re not “defying gravity.” There is no gravity.
8. You’ve invoked this idea before: reason as a product of the universe. Reason is not a material thing, so I don’t see any reason to view it as a “material” of the universe.
Also, I’ve made some arguments against materialism where I say that X must be true because the Y property says that it must be true, so it follows logically that Z is really difficult to explain. If we maintain that the material universe is all that exists, we have to stay within this frame of mind. If we assume that there exists something beyond the material universe (e.g. God), there is no reason to assume that whatever this extra-universal entity is, it must abide by property Y. So, when I discuss the Christian worldview, I think it is fully acceptable to assume that God may or may not abide by Y.
Most of your points 1-8 break down to a central idea:
There is a sort of tom-a-to/tom-ah-to thing going on here. Regardless of what you call it, “in the beginning” there was some serious weirdness relative to our understanding of the universe. Using only the scientific tools/theories at our disposal, we have no idea how the universe came to be. For the sake of my argument, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that there existed this serious weirdness. I’ve labeled this weirdness “supernatural.” Feel free to call it whatever you want. I think Skyhook adopted “?????”. We all basically know what this ????? is (or isn’t). If we didn’t all recognize that the claims of the Bible were claims of the supernatural, we wouldn’t really be carrying on as we have been.
Your thought seems to be that ????? led to the universe, but that now we have a universe and we should always assume that events must “fall in line” with what is known about the universe. I don’t see any reason to eschew the unknown when evidence points there. We should examine what the observations tell us to examine.
Steven,
In re-reading my comments, I can't help but notice that they come off as a bit dismissive. I did not intend for them to read that way. I've addressed a few of the bullets in previous posts, so I didn't want to re-post so much information that the comment would be pages and pages long.
I appreciate the points you make here, and I love that you and Skyhook are able to think up some pretty extraordinary ideas. Throughout my posts and my comments, one thing that I want to reiterate is that I came upon this conclusion based upon the ideas that I'm trying to impart. I make no claims that I know everything or that I understand all of life's intracacies. Still, when I think I have found a valid reason for debating claims that you and SH bring to the table, I feel obligated to present them.
SH,
We've butted heads a few times here and I get the impression that your frustration is at an all-time high (as evidenced by the "You know this, Randy" comment). I was trying to make a point with regards to historical data versus laboratory data, and I wanted to use your knowledge of Lincoln as a spring board. Basically, we "know" what we know of the past because someone else told us, not because we were able to experiment and reproduce the events. There was no analogy to follow.
RB,
No worries on my end as far as headbutting goes – that’s part of the reason why I am here – you are entertaining me. I only say “You know this, Randy”, because you do.
Also, to be clear, I do not want to take credit for “thinking up extraordinary ideas” that are not mine. In fact, the ideas I have presented here are pretty much all not mine and are considered quite ordinary in their respective fields (biology, psychology, cosmology, etc…); unless we are pretending it is the early 1900s ;).
Sometimes good evidence is not available. When this is the case, we turn to the best available evidence knowing that we are accepting a greater degree of reasonable doubt in doing so. The degree of reasonable doubt is influenced in at least two ways: how good is the best available evidence and how proportionate is this evidence to the claim being made. The less the quality of available evidence, the more reasonable doubt. The greater the claim, the greater quality of evidence required.
It is reasonable to accept that Lincoln enjoyed plays by historical story alone, since this is pretty benign and does not seem to violate the laws of thermodynamics (for example). However, a claim that Lincoln created a perpetual motion machine would require much better evidence. It is perfectly reasonable to doubt such a claim until good evidence (empirical measure, repeatable, falsifiable, etc…) is available.
The claims you make are on par with a perpetual motion machine in that they violate the some of the most well founded knowledge humans are in possession of. Being so, an aggregate of stories passed orally for at least 30 years will not suffice for good enough evidence. It may be reasonable to believe many of the benign claims made in your myth, but when it comes to claims that violate well founded laws, we require good evidence, not just the best available.
Randy - “You’ve invoked this idea before: reason as a product of the universe. Reason is not a material thing, so I don’t see any reason to view it as a “material” of the universe. “
Is time a material thing? What about space? I think that reason is a word we have for our observing of how things work. Logic says that we can observe and then make inference about other things, assuming that they obey the same laws about how things work. I realize, however, that human consciousness is a crazy thing, tough to describe since it is our consciousness trying to understand consciousness.
However, I still see employing reason, which depends on reliable laws, to prove instances of the unreliability of laws, to be problematic in your assertion that your conclusion is the most reasonable. I’m not saying it can’t happen, I’m just saying we’re left with emotional, mystical....feelings about it. not testable, provable instances.
Randy - "You’re analogy doesn’t quite fit with what I’m saying. It would be more accurate to talk about “gravity” before there existed matter. Universal laws/properties simply would not apply if the universe did not exist. You’re not “defying gravity.” There is no gravity. “
I realize there were no laws before there were laws. But now there are laws. Even if defining the supernatural as "that which was not the universe, before the universe" is fine, that is not the crux of your argument. The crux of your argument is that natural laws, that seem to be in place today, can be broken. And the reason presented for that is that they were not always here. Is this a fair description of your position?
Randy - “I don’t see any reason to eschew the unknown when evidence points there.”
Anyone who knows me, knows that I love the unknown. But it’s also worth remembering that everything that we know now, or think we know, was once unknown. Let’s also remember that the idea of evidence assumes stable natural laws.
“now we have a universe and we should always assume that events must “fall in line” with what is known about the universe.”
I believe that this is a good scientific starting point. As Skyhook has said, it would take very strong evidence to cast it aside. He simply feels that ancient man's accounts are not strong enough evidence for casting aside reliable natural laws.
I am quite open to the idea that things can happen outside all this. I have never had a huge problem with your point of view - only the assertion that it is the most reasonable view compared with others - and this while referring to laws that can’t be broken to show that laws can be broken. Also, again, if things don’t always fall in line with what is known about the universe, evidence is a difficult thing to interpret as it relies completely on inference based on observation of reliable natural laws.
“There is a sort of tom-a-to/tom-ah-to thing going on here.”
Not sure what this means!
Randy, I enjoy discussing this stuff with you. I know if we kicked back with some beers we would have a super good time talking about it all. The internet conversation often leads us to focus on points of debate, but I know if we were chatting it up, we’d have lots in common as well.
The point I'm ultimately getting at here, Steven, is that you also believe in the notion that the universe is not all that is. Each of your arguments (e.g. time from nothing) necessarily suppose that something other than what we know exists. Your supposition seems to be that there was only one moment in time to which that applies.
We all believe in the validity of natural laws. My point is that we also know what these laws describe: the universe. That is not under debate. The question is whether there exists something apart from the universe.
To answer one of your objections - "Is time a material thing? What about space?" - I would have to say that yes they are. They can be bent, stretched, and shrunken. Logic, on the other hand, is a concept that cannot be acted upon. It's a reality... a tool... the essence of thought itself. By tying logic to the universe, you're excluding even the possibility of God (a thinking entity) outright. I don't believe you mean to do this.
Your summary of my argument is not entirely accurate:
"The crux of your argument is that natural laws, that seem to be in place today, can be broken."
A better statement would be that natural laws do not apply to that which is not governed by natural law. In your universe-from-nothing principle, there must exist a potential from which the universe originates. Natural law dictates that nothing can come from nothing; ergo, the potential - which does not adhere to this property - is not a subject of natural law (as we define to be the "laws of the universe").
Can we use natural laws to refute natural law? This isn't exactly a fair synopsis. We CAN use natural laws to show that they are limited. We cannot, for instance, use mathematics to describe love. There must therefore be a limit to mathematics. No one, however, says that by showing this we have disproved math. We simply know that there is a concept to which we cannot apply math. Likewise, we have used natural laws to show that the universe began. Natural law has no ability to describe an inherently unnatural (or un-universal) entity, but that does not mean we dismiss natural laws. We simply must draw the conclusion that there is something apart from the universe and that this something must have the ability to interact with the universe. Did this happen only at the inception? I have no reason to believe this.
I find it fairly reasonable to believe that there exists something apart from the universe (as we have defined it here), especially in light of the recent work on cosmic inflation. I find it fairly reasonable because of the observational data, mathematics, testable predictions, and because it is the only tenable model we have that explains phenomena such as the uniformity of the observable universe. It turns out that being open to existence beyond our universe is a kind of side effect of having an explanation for the uniformity of our universe. But fairly reasonable is not most reasonable; it seems most reasonable still resides with the agnostic (not 50/50).
I see that you would like to say that logic transcends the universe and is a permanent fixture even beyond what we have any authority to reasonably talk about. This is a fine belief, but it is a poor candidate for most reasonable belief. I can just as easily say that extra-universal logic is different than universal logic. Whether this excludes the possibility of God or not has no bearing on the reasonableness of the argument. The problem with both of these statements is there is no reason to believe one way or the other that logic has to work in a specific way once we are in a state where physical laws don’t. We run into the problem of induction here.
As I touched on in a previous comment, it is more reasonable to say our universe (as defined here) comes from the Plank Epoch, not nothingness, nor the Big Bang (Big Bang -> Plank Epoch (or ????) -> universe). The Plank Epoch does not follow known laws and cannot be described as nothing.
The possibility still remains that what was once extra-universal (Plank Epoch, ????) transformed completely into our universe, or into our universe in addition to various other universes, or any other of the various combinations we can envision. Many of these scenarios leave no room for inter-universal interaction to happen after the inception while others might leave room for it to occur again and again. In order to determine which scenario is most likely, we will need good evidence, not the kind of ancient story telling you champion here.
But, the Planck Epoch assumes that the universe has already formed... it begins at 0 time.
Randy - “In your universe-from-nothing principle, there must exist a potential from which the universe originates. Natural law dictates that nothing can come from nothing; ergo, the potential - which does not adhere to this property - is not a subject of natural law (as we define to be the "laws of the universe").”
Your argument has been heavily dependent on the fact that the universe had a beginning, and that time was created at this point. To argue a potential existing, based on the idea that time had a beginning, is to make a non-sequitur argument that something must have existed “before time”.
If we back away from the non-sequitur “before time” argument, and suggest that everything that exists needs a cause, then the justification for God not needing a cause falls apart. If God did not need a cause, why does the universe need a cause? Then we’re back to “but the universe needed a cause because it had a beginning” which takes us back to the non-sequitur.
I have read the argument that all things need causes that had a beginning. Surely this is problematic when the thing in question is time. the word beginning, without time, is meaningless.
“By tying logic to the universe, you're excluding even the possibility of God (a thinking entity) outright.”
I don’t see the implication of this at all. If one did believe in God, why would one assume that He is constrained by anything? It would be wiser to assume that our understanding, our common sense even, are no match for God. In this case, our only chance (assuming that we WANT to believe in God) is to experience God through direct experience, not logical progression. As you mentioned, trying to experience God through logic may be like trying to experience love through mathematics. And I mean the qualia of love, not how much oxytocin or serotonin is active in the brain at the moment, which we can measure through mathematics.
But what is logic? First of all, I regret mentioning time and space earlier - I will take that back. Moving on however, logic is inference based on observation. If a rat pulls the red lever and he gets a treat, and he pulls the blue lever and gets a shock, then he will develop a memory. If he only pulls the red lever from then on, he has shown us logic. It’s a system of labeling how things work. Remove how things work and logic is out the window. Staircases to nowhere, square circles, cats and dogs getting along..... I suppose you could argue that reason is immaterial, others with argue, but even if it is, without the universe as we know it, our sense of reason is worthless.
Question - Can you imagine logic existing outside of time? There would be no chronological sequence of thoughts.
Randy - “We simply must draw the conclusion that there is something apart from the universe and that this something must have the ability to interact with the universe.”
Let’s assume that there is a multiverse, or timeless realm, or God (even though I argue that they are not necessarily logically required giving the premises of this blog concerning the beginning of time, etc.). As Skyhook wisely reminds us, isn’t it fruitless to make any assumptions about it? It lies outside our understanding. Assuming that something outside this universe has the ability to act inside this universe does not seem in any way a necessary conclusion.
Kristin,
If I understand Randy's ideas correctly, the universe is not the universe until laws are fixed. That would mean that the Planck Epoch is not the universe.
That last comment was Randy's, not mine! Sorry, I must have been logged in and he didn't notice!
Susan and I do that all the time! this is actually Steven though.... ;)
Steven,
We’ve got a little bit of “having your cake and eating it, too” going on here. If the universe began from nothing, this beginning would be an act of the universe. The universe would, therefore, have defied its own laws. If there exists something from which the universe sprang, that something would not be subject to the laws of the universe. There is but one resolution to the supernatural (as defined here): Time is infinite. We have great evidence to the contrary, so I believe it is most reasonable to follow the evidence.
I implore you not to mischaracterize my arguments. Each time you restate my thoughts, there appears to be a slight distortion that represents a huge difference. The arguments are based on taking physical principles to their logical ends. If the natural laws of the universe were sufficient to explain its beginning, we wouldn’t be talking about these theories. Time is but one component of that which began. It’s simply that we think in terms of time, so it’s the easiest component to single out. Something changed. Of that, there can be little doubt.
With regards to logic, I think there is confusion between logic and “cause and effect” or the idea of “logical progression” (which is oft misused). Logic does not dictate that each time the rat pulls the lever, he receives a treat. This is an inference. The consequence would then be that if the rat pulled the lever and no treat fell, we would have to acknowledge a break in the principle of logic. That is not what we would do; instead, we would assume a break in the mechanism that distributed the food.
Logic is not based on memory or mechanism. As an example, the logical notion of identity (A=A) is not broken if A is an atom that is converted into energy. The logical identity principle is still true, even though the solitary item (the atom) is no more.
“Can you imagine logic existing outside of time?”
Absolutely! We been focusing on cause and effect because of the arguments I introduced, but logic is not contingent on a notion of chronological cause and effect. The term “chronological” itself clearly denotes a subset of logic (“chrono” & “logical”). If we were to define “chronological” I would image we would begin with something like, “Given the premise of time….” Obviously, without time there is no “chrono” logic, so let’s focus on a few other logical identities:
IDENTITY (A = A)
God is God.
NON-CONTRADICTION (A and “not-A” cannot both be true)
God cannot both exist and not exist.
These suppositions are not dependent upon time or cause. They are simply principles upon which all thought must rely (i.e. without such principles, reason would have no meaning). The very notion of existence is a logical one, so when you say that logic does not exist outside the universe, or that God can exist without logic, what are you referring to? What could it mean to exist apart from logic when the notion of existence is a logical notion?
Steven-
“If God did not need a cause, why does the universe need a cause?”
Honestly, it simply does not matter whether God needs a cause. Let’s say a dead body was found and a later autopsy report indicated that the person did not die of natural causes, but rather was murdered. The police would not say, “well, we don’t know who did it or all the details about how they did it, therefore we need to go back and try to look for a way to explain this death by natural causes.” The question of the identity of the murderer is secondary. (Whether a murder occurred or not does not depend on knowing who the murderer is). Just as the questions about the nature of God are secondary.
The point here is that the evidence we have points toward the conclusion that the universe had a cause. This evidence stands whether or not we can answer the secondary questions of who or what the causer is, whether it had a cause itself, etc. So while the discussion about God having a cause may be interesting, it is not relevant to the discussion of whether the universe had a cause.
“If one did believe in God, why would one assume that He is constrained by anything?”
You’ve misunderstood the Christian view here. Believing that God is logical does not mean that God is “constrained” by something. It simply means that he is, by his very nature, logical. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive. We are not saying that God CANNOT do something illogical because it’s against some kind of rule. We are saying that he DOES NOT do anything illogical because that would be contrary to the person that he is. (I’m not trying to convince you that God is logical, but just trying to make sure our view is not misrepresented).
“But what is logic?”
I think Randy covered this well.
“Let’s assume that there is a multiverse, or timeless realm, or God. As Skyhook wisely reminds us, isn’t it fruitless to make any assumptions about it? It lies outside our understanding.”
I think it is reasonable to follow the evidence where it leads- the universe had a beginning, it could not have created itself (existing and not existing at the same time), and therefore it must have been caused by something other than itself.
Based on this argument alone (the cosmological argument), we don’t necessarily come to a point of belief in God, but to a belief in a universal causer. Making any further assumptions about this causer without more information may indeed be “fruitless,” but that’s where other arguments come into play (teleological, moral, evidence for the resurrection, etc.) Taking all of the known evidence into account, I think it is in fact very fruitful to draw a conclusion.
CAUSALITY AND TIME
first off, I apologize if I have mischaracterized any of your views! If I have, it's from misunderstanding your point, not from attempting to mischaracterize....... or is it? ;)
Randy - “If the universe began from nothing, this beginning would be an act of the universe. The universe would, therefore, have defied its own laws.”
I still haven’t read anything that convinces me that a beginning of laws would be dependent on the laws themselves. If Congress passed a law that stated that all laws must be passed by referendum, then the original law itself would not be nullified, even though it was not passed by referendum, right?
You have argued that that which existed before universal laws were in place was not the universe. The proto-universe, the Planck era, etc. was not the universe according to your view. Am I characterizing this correctly? If there were no universal laws, then how could the universe (as we know it now) deny these laws (which don't exist) by arising spontaneously, without a catalyst, from the proto-universe? Of course acknowledging a "non-universe" before the universe, is getting into the dangerous non-sensical idea of "before time".
I think it’s worth really, really thinking about the idea “The beginning of time required a cause.” It’s a nonsensical notion (that could be true. But “No time” pretty much equals nonsense from our current perspective).
“Time is but one component of that which began.”
But by using the term “began” we can see in this sentence our utter reliance on time. Isn’t it non-sequitur reasoning to say that time required potential? Doesn’t this imply the idea of “before time”?
If we argue that it isn’t the beginning of time which requires a cause, but just the fact that time exists, then that would apply to everything in an infinite regression. But if time is not infinite, as you say, then we can’t think this way. Unless there is another form of time outside this universe, which I still feel your argument implies. Or if time simply began, then its only cause is that it exists. Which is, of course, tautological. As John Cage said, “No why. Just here.” Who knows?
It’s a another good example of the “mind screw” when we take time out of anything. It’s wholly bizarre. And awesome to try to thing about. “Try” being the important word!
LOGIC
Randy - “Logic does not dictate that each time the rat pulls the lever, he receives a treat. This is an inference. The consequence would then be that if the rat pulled the lever and no treat fell, we would have to acknowledge a break in the principle of logic.”
I think that logic pretty much is inference. We could ask ourselves is logic “the phenomena of how things are”? Or is logic “thought that matches how things are?” I would argue that the latter is true. This is evidenced by the fact that we can think things that are illogical. If the former were true, then anything “illogical” would be non-existent, as anything we can think is still part of “the phenomena of how things are”. If the latter is true, then we can think things that are illogical, that still exist, but do not match how things are.
I realize this line of reasoning could be controversial, as we could argue that anything “illogical” ultimately does not exist and that’s why it is illogical. Although we are still thinking about it and discussing it as a concept. Tough stuff. Whew.......
And I meant that the rat was demonstrating its own use of logic. Not that the mechanism of “lever = treat” is an unbreakable natural law.
Randy - “These suppositions are not dependent upon time or cause.
IDENTITY (A = A) God is God.
NON-CONTRADICTION (A and “not-A” cannot both be true)
God cannot both exist and not exist.”
This is really engaging stuff to think about!
1. I would argue that the physical world of this universe is what informs us that “A=A” and “A does not equal not-A”.
2. These statements are tautological. Stating that “I am myself” or “I cannot NOT be myself” doesn’t seem to demonstrate much.
3. Now let’s assume that logic does exist apart from time. The problem is that thinking about anything requires time. Even recognition requires time to think. So we would be arguing that something (logic) exists beyond our ability to apprehend it. This is inherently unprovable. And it’s a good example of the tautology expressed earlier “we can only apprehend what we can apprehend” - “A=A”.
4. I could also argue that this line of thinking is irrelevant, because the “logic” employed on this blog to support its assertions are based on logical progression and cause and effect - not on the fact that “Skyhook=Skyhook”. Basically, “logic”, for our purposes here, is contingent on time.
If we argue that "Skyhook = Skyhook" is completely necessary here, then we can look at another "thought law" which is that "Of everything that is, it can be found why it is." This would not apply to God, unless you argue that God exists necessarily simply because we exist. If we argue this, then why not do the same for time? or the universe? It exists because we exist, with no need for a further cause.
5. I could also argue that A=A is not logical, because it creates a delusion, however slight, that A can be two things at once. It’s fine in formula, but in practical perception it can be delusional. And we are dealing with our practical perception in these matters.
(cont.)
Randy - “The very notion of existence is a logical one, so when you say that logic does not exist outside the universe, or that God can exist without logic, what are you referring to? What could it mean to exist apart from logic when the notion of existence is a logical notion?”
Good question. This is the type of “mind screw” that is in store for us if we speculate outside of our universe. It’s where the idea of God being truly transcendent would come in to play. If there is a “?????”, which I would speculate there is (though quite possibly not logically required given our limited point of view inside the universe), any requirements we put on to it would be pure speculation at this point.
And existence is only logical because we do exist. If we did not exist, then wouldn’t non-existence be logical? Except that we wouldn't be here, so existence must be logical. This is really close to getting back to the anthropic ideas......OK, my brain is shutting down now....
I personally feel that existence is very paradoxical, seemingly illogical in its origin. I find this very aesthetically pleasing, as it leaves open the idea of things existing beyond my ability to comprehend and explain.
Kristin,
I did not mean to imply that WE are constraining God to logic. I just meant that God, if He is outside the universe, does not need to be logical. Of course, this gets to the argument about what logic is, as presented in the other comments.
Steven,
Let’s make a BIG assumption. You do not call yourself an atheist, so let’s assume that the possibility of a thinking Judeo-Christian God is actually a reality. This God can exist without the universe and can therefore exist without time (a component of the universe). Before I continue, ask yourself whether you truly believe this is a possibility.
Really. Think about it for a second and be honest with yourself.
Seriously. Take a minute or two.
If not, I don’t think there’s any reason to follow the rest of this argument. If so, however, we can carry this argument to its logical ends.
If this God thought the universe and “then” (yes, a loaded term, but it’s how we think) caused the universe, both logic and causality could necessarily exist without time. Isn’t this possibility enough to keep us from linking time with logic? Any links would be assumptions on your part
I am very open to possibility. As simply as I can put it, I believe there are things that we do not understand. And I believe it highly likely that there are things that are beyond our ability to understand. I also believe it highly likely that if there is a God, then our notions of God reflect our limitations as much as any insight into the nature of God.
Yahweh was a warring God when the Israelites needed him to be. He was forgiving when they needed him to be. He was the master of the universe when they needed him to be. He became Jesus when (some of them) needed Him to be.
If God exists outside of time, He must be beyond our ability to comprehend. Some people, some atheists, may think that "outside of time" is therefore not worth thinking about. I can understand. I, however, believe that these things are worth trying to think about, although a personal, paradoxical, mystical, direct experience is the only way I can see how to approach it, given the limitations of our minds (since we are of THIS universe).
But I can't place this "thinking" into a dogmatic belief system, except perhaps to argue that it isn't a waste of time! I can argue that it's function is useful, even that we all do it to a certain extent, but I can't place specific, concrete beliefs into this "spiritual impulse" and say that they are the most reasonable.
Randy - "If this God thought the universe and “then” (yes, a loaded term, but it’s how we think) caused the universe, both logic and causality could necessarily exist without time."
I think this self-refutes. But I can accept it as a paradoxical, mystical statement.
Post a Comment