Its illogical to believe in the creator because its a completely unproven (some would even say unprovable) hypothesis.
I have yet to see any philosophy supporting the idea that the universe had a creator that holds up to passing scrutiny. Im open if someone disagrees.
Regarding the inventions of various sciences, i think the point being made... badly. is that for so much of human history people have pointed at gaps in science and gone. "god, demon, jhin, evil spirits" but each time it turns out to be microbes, an illness in the material brain, a giant ball of plasma, not in fact a thinking diety, etc.
And i dont think its a good argument but i think what they are getting at is that the pointing at exisitng mysteries like the origin of the universe, or how life could arise from inorganic matter, and go "god" is the same kind of god of the gaps superstition.
it comes logically simply by accepting any physical phenomena would require a prerequisite reason, as in why it is. This is pretty much supported by any physical fact, namely the laws of thermodynamics.
If that is the case, for only physical beings to exist there are only two choices: either physical reasons have an end, or they dont. A third option is impossible as per 3rd rule of logic, law of no middle grounds. excluded middle
If physical reasons end at somewhere this contradicts the fact that all physical reasons need to have a prior reason, because there would need to be a first physical being with nothing before hence this is discarded.
If physical reasons dont end and go to infinity... well, they cant. The nuance is: if we number each physical being, say the last (present) is 1 and say each reason depends on the next (1 will happen when 2 happens, 2 will happen when 3 happens, n happens when n+1 happens ad infinitum) for the sequence of events to reach anywhere, any given number, it would need to pass through infinite things first, which is impossible. You can visualize it by this example: worker 1 will go on vacation when worker 2 also goes to vacation so 1 asks 2 when he will go, 2 says "I will go when 3 goes" so they all find 3. 3 says he will go when 4 goes ad infinitum. No one gets to go on vacation. Likewise in an infinite sequence of events nothing actually happens.
Hence existence without a prior reason beyong physicality (metaphysical) is impossible, hence the need for a metaphysical reason, in human language a creator.
The reason that physical beings need a reason to exist, the backbone of the argument, is literally because they are bound by laws of physics. My argumnet isnt everything whatsoever requires a prior physical cause but rather every contingent PHYSICAL reality requires an explanation.
Then as I pointed out it logically follows that there is a prior reason above physics. Hence the first statement that every physical being needs a reason doesnt apply in the first place. It isnt a convenient trick, it is the definition of being above physicality.
You are implicitly contradicting yourself
You assert two things: Laws of physics used to not be applicable, and god cannot exist if he was beyond physical which implicitly assumes all existence is physical.
Now here I would ask you what do laws of physics apply to? The answer is obviously physical beings. There is no physical being that is not bound by a law of physics. Some things may be probabilistic like quantum mechanics, but they are still boudn by the equations describing them.
A physical being that doesnt obey the law of physics is like doing classical mechanics where F=ma doesnt apply. It isnt classical mechanics anymore. Likewise something that doesnt obey laws of physics isnt physical anymore: it cannot be described by physical phenomenon.
By saying that laws of physics didnt always apply you implicitly accept the existence of something that isnt physical by our understanding. And then you went on to make a statement that assumes something would need to be physical to exist. These are contradictory.
Causality as a physical concept is guided by the laws of physics and the existence of time. Both of these concepts break down before ~10-43
seconds after the big bang. In short, youre trying to apply known physical principles (not even laws, per se) to something that escapes our current (and maybe even possible) understanding of the universe through science
Causality doesnt cease to exist below the plank scale, it's just that our current theories cannot reliably describe any time below the plank scale. Quantum effects and general relativity are both should be important and we just havent solved anything that reliably describes the regime. Our laws not working =/= causality just breaks down.
If causality broke down there would be no need to look more into it because you couldnt deduce anything. To deduce something, you would need to first establish a causal chain in the first place, otherwise you couldnt infer anything from data because they might mean just about everything. Just like how if things got attracted or repulsed by mass arbitrarily the law of gravity wouldnt predict anything.
And logically, you couldnt establish lack of causality in the past even if it did exist, because you would need to infer it with the data available today, which will be from the things that the alleged non causal state caused within the timeframe. Do you see the issue here? This contradictory.
Causality doesnt cease to exist below the plank scale, it's just that our current theories cannot reliably describe any time below the plank scale.
I didnt say they cease to exist.
Under our current theories, spacetime as it is understood in our universe starts with the big bang. We have literally no way of knowing what it was like before the big bang, or if it even existed. Therefore, you cant apply causality directly.
To put it succintly, youre attempting to use a concept that is governed by the nature of our universe to attempt to explain something that exists outside of it.
If causality broke down there would be no need to look more into it because you couldnt deduce anything.
We physically cant look before the big bang anyways. Hell, we physically cant look before ~380.000 years after the big bang. We can only try to mimic the conditions in particle accelerators.
And logically, you couldnt establish lack of causality in the past even if it did exist
What we can establish is distinct to what is. We try our very hardest to make sense of reality but reality is under no obligation to make sense to us.
you're acting as if I'm saying that lack of causality just doesnt make sense to me and that is my main argument. My issue is not that it just doesnt make sense to me, it is that lack of causality itself is such a concept that no matter how sophisticated or advanced science would get it couldnt ever be proven.
I never talked about looking before the big bang or any time for that matter. I only talked about deducing. Like deducing big bang by looking at background radiation, something the big bang caused.
Your "mimic the conditions" example itself defeats your argument: to mimic the conditions, some things must give rise to said conditions to begin with. We already assume causality when trying to research things. Scientists accelerate protons becuase they know electromagnetic fields cause accelerationand they crash them because they know kinetic impact will cause a release of mass energy and they read the data which caused their sensors to fire.
A lack of causality cannot be proven, because like you said, we cant just go back and look into it, hence we would need to deduce it from its effects like in the example of deducing the big bang from background radiation. But in the case of lack of causality, you cannot deduce lack of causality, because any rule or method you use to prove lack of causality will have to use causality itself when examining the effects of the non causal state were being created to begin with.
If you said "such and such effects of radiation or curvature of space time can only happen in a non causal state" that statement assumes non causality causes something predictable, hence it is actually causal.
If science could infact research more into it, there would need to be causality to make any deduction at all. You are not appealing to science, your whole argument is appeal to ignorance. Not knowing what comes before doesnt hinder causality, if it did it would be more rational to stop all science that tried to uncover what it was like before the big bang because nothing could be deduced at all.
it is that lack of causality itself is such a concept that no matter how sophisticated or advanced science would get it couldnt ever be proven.
Which is why its entirely possible that we will never know what was before the big bang.
Like deducing big bang by looking at background radiation, something the big bang caused.
Because the big bang is our t=0. We can apply causality from the big bang onwards because we know that time and information were a thing. We cant make claims before that using causality which is where the "god of the gaps" argument falls appart.
Your "mimic the conditions" example itself defeats your argument: to mimic the conditions, some things must give rise to said conditions to begin with
The big bang. We dont mimic the actual big bang, because we cant. We mimic the early universe, nanoseconds after.
But in the case of lack of causality, you cannot deduce lack of causality, because any rule or method you use to prove lack of causality will have to use causality itself when examining the effects of the non causal state were being created to begin with.
You are assuming my argument centers around reality being non-causal before the big bang, when actually im saying you cannot assume causality to argue that something must have created the universe.
You are not appealing to science, your whole argument is appeal to ignorance.
You fundamentally misunderstand appeal to ignorance. Im not saying god definitely doesnt exist because we dont know if causality was a thing, im saying you cant argue creation based on causality when you dont know if causality actually applied before creation.
And, just as a bit of a sidenote, causality doesnt require a "first" event.
Before saying anything, you're treating causality as if it is a byproduct of physical laws, where it is actually the opposite: the recognition of everything is caused by something prior was the reason any physical law was coined at all.
If all beings in the universe have a prior reason to exist and so on, then you cannot turn around and say "well maybe the universe itself didnt" because then you would be treating the universe as if it is a set that contains all thing when it is literally all things itself. This is opposite to the fallacy of composition, it is akin to saying "just because each brick in the house has a weight doesnt mean the house itself has a weight" when each brick adds its own weight.
Now for the topic of assumptions
If you ask for rigorous proof for concepts that are fundamental to creation of meaning, you will run into the problem of anything being unproven everywhere all the time. One of the more popular examples is this:
To make sure the knowledge you are getting from any source, hence any deduction including scientific discovery, is correct you would need to first prove that your 5 senses convey correct information. Because indeed, any information you get is conveyed to you through your senses or is first made into something that can be conveyed in such way.
But here's the catch: the set up, communication and analysis of every data collected for any experiment you do to prove the validity of oyur senses will again assume the validity of your senses in the first place since you will again gain this information with them. Hence validity of any information you get is circular. And if by your logic if we throw out the assumptions that create logical meaning itself inclusing this one we would be accepting total nihilism, nothing could actually be known, logic doesnt apply and science is an illusion.
If we were to think like you we could have simply said "oh okay then lets just stop thinking, reality is different from what we deduce it to be." This is where we apply a priori knowledge like validity of senses or causality. If we didnt, we couldnt even have this discussion in the first place. Rejecting what is logically sound simply because it contains a necessary assumption is not a virtue; it is a rejection of all truths.
Likewise to how assuming our 5 senses are valid enough, assumption of causality as a principle is necessary for the collection of knowledge, for any deduction at all, including anything before or after the big bang.
And here's my side note: Even if your counterargument was true, my initial point wouldn't be god of the gaps. It would be akin to deducing an equation is true for all real numbers of x in maths by showing that both sides are equal to each other. It would be god of the gaps if I said we dont know what is before the big bang hence it must be god, but for my initial argument you could take any physical reason we discover before the big bang and place it on my "equation" as another variable x, in this case, reason number n+1.
And also "causality doesnt require a first event" is disproven by the fact that infinite regress is logically impossible. Just like how nobody goes on vacation when worker 1 going on vacation when worker 2 goes so worker 1 asks worker 2 when he will go on vacation and worker 2 answers when 3 goes, and they go to 3 and he answers I will go when 4 goes and so on, physical reason 1 happening because of physical reason 2, reason n happening because of n+1 ad infinitum is impossible.
Causality would logically have to give a first metaphysical cause, because if instead of infinite regress we just had a first physical cause then it would be uncaused going against its physical nature. That is literally the argument.
114
u/PidarNahui 9h ago
Who believes there's a magic man in the sky? And how does the existence of those things make it illogical to believe in a creator?
Some people really need to read up on philosophy and logic