Arguments and evidence for deism, theism, and miracles

[otseng]

We have agreed to debate the following:

Is there sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of a deistic God?

And if so, is there sufficient evidence to conclude a theistic worldview whereby this God intervenes in human affairs? Specifically, is there evidentiary justification for concluding that some claims of intervention are authentic whereas others aren't.

---

A thread has been created for followers of this debate to post comments:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24538

[no evidence no belief]

In our very first exchange we agreed that claims must be supported by evidence.

Again, the only evidence that is presented is that the universe began to exist. Frankly, I'm surprised that you don't accept this. But, since you insist, I'll argue that the universe began to exist.

1) Provide evidence the universe began to exist
2) Provide evidence it began existing en nihilo

"According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"Physicists think that even time began with the big bang. Today, just about every scientist believes in the big bang model."
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/

"The CMB had been predicted by a theory that few believed at the time called the Big Bang. This discovery was the first evidence that the Universe had a beginning."
http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasi ... iverse.htm

"Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant."
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberi ... nning.html

If all forms of matter and energy were formed at this instant, then it follows that the universe was formed ex nihilo. The point is that there was no pre-existing matter/energy in our universe for the Big Bang to arise from.

I think this may be an issue of semantics. I will temporarily accept, for the sake of argument, that the universe began to exist, but I have some reservations, and reserve the right to get back into it later if need be. But for now, lets assume your point made.

Now, it certainly is possible that there was pre-existing matter/energy from another universe. But from our perspective, it would appear to be ex nihilo. We cannot detect in any way energy or matter in another universe, so from our perspective it would be ex nihilo.

1) We cannot directly detect the existence of matter/energy from outside/before the universe
2) Therefore from our prospective matter/energy outside/before our universe does not exist

Is this the argument you are making?

Can you please explain how it's different from this argument below?

1) We cannot directly detect the existence of an intelligent agency from outside/before the universe
2) Therefore from our prospective an intelligent agency from outside/before the universe does not exist

Please explain in which way the first argument is valid but the second one isn't.

3) Provide evidence an intelligent entity outside the universe exists

I thought you already agreed that no direct evidence is required - "I'm sorry, did I say you need to provide direct evidence? If so I retract. In principle you shouldn't have to provide direct evidence."

Am I hallucinating? I am looking intently at my quote directly above. I see the number three, then I see a closed parenthesis, then I see the word "Provide" and then I see the word "evidence". I swear, between the word "Provide" and the word "evidence" I do NOT see the word "direct". I truly do not. Is it there? If so, I need to go see a neurologist immediately.

Otherwise, if this is just a misunderstanding, please do go ahead and provide all the INDIRECT evidence for the existence of God that is currently in your possession.

4) Provide evidence it created the universe

Your shifting the goalpost again. As I stated, "it is only necessary to show that it is better than all competing alternative explanations."

Yes, and "better" according to the general principle you presented in post 1 means, quote, "If logic and evidence support it, and all other explanations do not have as much support".

So please start by presenting all evidentiary support. Once we have that, we will have to see if the evidence can be used to construct viable premises which can then bring to the conclusion that an intelligent entity caused the universe to begin. Then we will repeat the exact same process with alternative explanations, and in the end we'll compare the strength of the evidence and logic for all alternatives.

By your own admission, the only evidence you've provided so far is that the universe began to exist.

Therefore, so far your argument looks like this:

1) The universe began to exist
2) Therefore God did it.

I don't see how this is a more valid argument than this:
1) The universe began to exist
2) Therefore something other than God caused it.

Since all naturalistic explanations have internal contradictions in them, and a deistic god does not have any, then on this fact alone it is better than naturalistic explanations.

Now your argument looks like this
1) The universe began to exist
2) I can't figure out how that happened
3) Therefore God did it


To address specifically your argument about naturalistic explanations having internal contradictions, let me ask you this:

Do you agree, if not with the exact wording, with the general spirit of the statement below?

"The universe began to exist as the result of a causal interaction with an antecedent intelligent entity"

Would you say the statement above does NOT have internal contradictions? If so, could you please tell me what the internal contradictions are with this explanation:

"The universe began to exist as the result of a causal interaction with an antecedent non-intelligent entity"

[otseng]

1) We cannot directly detect the existence of matter/energy from outside/before the universe
2) Therefore from our prospective matter/energy outside/before our universe does not exist

Is this the argument you are making?

No. All I'm saying is that anything outside of our universe is unobservable and undetectable.

3) Provide evidence an intelligent entity outside the universe exists

I thought you already agreed that no direct evidence is required - "I'm sorry, did I say you need to provide direct evidence? If so I retract. In principle you shouldn't have to provide direct evidence."

Am I hallucinating? I am looking intently at my quote directly above. I see the number three, then I see a closed parenthesis, then I see the word "Provide" and then I see the word "evidence". I swear, between the word "Provide" and the word "evidence" I do NOT see the word "direct". I truly do not. Is it there? If so, I need to go see a neurologist immediately.

Your implication is that I have provided no evidence. Since I have already provided indirect evidence (the beginning to the universe), it implies that you are requesting direct evidence.

Otherwise, if this is just a misunderstanding, please do go ahead and provide all the INDIRECT evidence for the existence of God that is currently in your possession.

Before I go on to my next argument, do you have any further rebuttals of my first argument based on the existence of the universe?

Therefore, so far your argument looks like this:

1) The universe began to exist
2) Therefore God did it.

No, my argument is:
The universe began to exist. What are all the possible explanations for this? In effect, there are only two: a supernatural entity caused it or natural processes caused it. I've argued that all naturalistic explanations have self-contradictions in them, so they are not logically viable. I've asked you to provide self-contradictions in a supernatural explanation and you have not provided any. Thus, the supernatural explanation is the most viable explanation.

"The universe began to exist as the result of a causal interaction with an antecedent non-intelligent entity"

It is inconsistent because of the example I raised with a signal of prime numbers from outer space. Nobody would argue that it came from a non-intelligent lifeform. The universe demonstrates much more complexity than a simple sequence of prime numbers. If nobody would argue that a signal of prime numbers is from a non-intelligent agent, why should someone believe that the universe itself was a result of a non-intelligent agent? It would be inconsistent to believe that ET is intelligent and a creator of the universe is non-intelligent.

[no evidence no belief]

1) We cannot directly detect the existence of matter/energy from outside/before the universe
2) Therefore from our prospective matter/energy outside/before our universe does not exist

Is this the argument you are making?

No. All I'm saying is that anything outside of our universe is unobservable and undetectable.

Ok, so if something, because it is outside of our universe, is unobservable and undetectable, should we operate under the assumption that it does not exist?

3) Provide evidence an intelligent entity outside the universe exists

I thought you already agreed that no direct evidence is required - "I'm sorry, did I say you need to provide direct evidence? If so I retract. In principle you shouldn't have to provide direct evidence."

Am I hallucinating? I am looking intently at my quote directly above. I see the number three, then I see a closed parenthesis, then I see the word "Provide" and then I see the word "evidence". I swear, between the word "Provide" and the word "evidence" I do NOT see the word "direct". I truly do not. Is it there? If so, I need to go see a neurologist immediately.

Your implication is that I have provided no evidence. Since I have already provided indirect evidence (the beginning to the universe), it implies that you are requesting direct evidence.

This was just a misunderstanding. I acknowledge that you have presented the notion that "the universe began to exist" as evidence for your claim. I disagree with it of course, and we'll argue it in the next few exchanges, but I don't deny you presented it in good faith. I also understand that you have other arguments based on different evidence, and I look forward to getting into those once we're done with this first argument of yours.

Otherwise, if this is just a misunderstanding, please do go ahead and provide all the INDIRECT evidence for the existence of God that is currently in your possession.

Before I go on to my next argument, do you have any further rebuttals of my first argument based on the existence of the universe?

I believe that I do, so please hold off just a little bit on the next argument. Below I summarize your positions - it helps me if I verbalize my opponents arguments. Please do tell me if I do so inaccurately.

Therefore, so far your argument looks like this:

1) The universe began to exist
2) Therefore God did it.

No, my argument is:
The universe began to exist. What are all the possible explanations for this? In effect, there are only two: a supernatural entity caused it or natural processes caused it. I've argued that all naturalistic explanations have self-contradictions in them, so they are not logically viable. I've asked you to provide self-contradictions in a supernatural explanation and you have not provided any. Thus, the supernatural explanation is the most viable explanation.

I don't want to put words in your mouth or argue against a position you do not hold, so could you please tell me if the syllogism below accurately summarizes your argument?

1) The universe began to exist
2) The notion that this event was caused by an intelligent entity contains no internal contradictions, whereas the notion that it was caused by a non-intelligent entity contains internal contradictions
3) Therefore the notion that it was caused by an intelligent entity is more viable.

Is this pretty much the gist of it?

If, so could you elaborate on premise 2? Is your only opposition to the notion of a non-intelligent cause the "Prime numbers from ET" argument you make below, or are there additional considerations?

"The universe began to exist as the result of a causal interaction with an antecedent non-intelligent entity"

It is inconsistent because of the example I raised with a signal of prime numbers from outer space. Nobody would argue that it came from a non-intelligent lifeform. The universe demonstrates much more complexity than a simple sequence of prime numbers. If nobody would argue that a signal of prime numbers is from a non-intelligent agent, why should someone believe that the universe itself was a result of a non-intelligent agent? It would be inconsistent to believe that ET is intelligent and a creator of the universe is non-intelligent.

Again, allow me to summarize your argument, so I'm sure I got it right.

1) The universe is novel and complex
2) Novel and complex entities are observed to always be caused by intelligent entities.
3) Therefore it's reasonable to assume that the universe too, like all these other observed novel and complex entities, was caused by an intelligent entity.

Is this your argument?

If so, I have a very simple question for you: Do you agree that if one of the premises of a syllogism is demonstrated to be not-true, then the syllogism is no longer valid?

[no evidence no belief]

Hey otseng, I have a quick question.

I could totally be misreading this, but it seems to me that you're using the concept of "supernatural entity" and the concept of "intelligent entity" interchangeably, which is a category error.

I think that the definition of "intelligent entity" is pretty self explanatory, but I was wondering if you could clarify your use of the word "supernatural".

Is your presupposition that only intelligent entities can be supernatural?

Because I just thought that if your definition of supernatural is "an entity that is outside of the universe and not bound by the laws of physics of this universe", then a lump of rock in a parallel or antecedent universe, or in any dimension/location/time NOT of this universe, is supernatural.

"The big bang was caused by the random collision of two rocks in a dimension/location/time outside of the universe" would be a supernatural explanation by the definition of supernatural I presented above.

Do you accept that? If not, what is your definition of supernatural?

[otseng]

Ok, so if something, because it is outside of our universe, is unobservable and undetectable, should we operate under the assumption that it does not exist?

Good question. I am not making that assumption. Just because something is unobservable and undetectable does not mean it could not exist.

I believe that I do, so please hold off just a little bit on the next argument.

Sure. I also would like to hold off on going on to different subjects without some sort of closure on the current subject. Otherwise, this thread is going to get messy.

I don't want to put words in your mouth or argue against a position you do not hold, so could you please tell me if the syllogism below accurately summarizes your argument?

1) The universe began to exist
2) The notion that this event was caused by an intelligent entity contains no internal contradictions, whereas the notion that it was caused by a non-intelligent entity contains internal contradictions
3) Therefore the notion that it was caused by an intelligent entity is more viable.

Is this pretty much the gist of it?

It's closer. The only thing I would modify is the internal contradictions part. Yes, it's important not to have internal contradictions, but there can also be additional factors to judge if an explanation is viable. I mentioned some earlier: "Does it conform with the facts and laws? Does it conform to logic? Is it consistent with what we know to be true? Is it falsifiable? Is it internal consistent?" And there could also be other factors in addition to these.

Is your only opposition to the notion of a non-intelligent cause the "Prime numbers from ET" argument you make below, or are there additional considerations?

Another issue is agency. I'm positing a god that is a being that is powerful and intelligent. I'm not positing some mechanistic cause.

When we say something is non-intelligent, it refers to a mechanistic cause. So, it would not make sense a describe a being as non-intelligent.

So, you'll have to clarify your proposal when you say the universe could have been created by a non-intelligent entity.

Do you dispute the claim that if we receive a signal of prime numbers that we can deduce it came from an intelligent agent?

1) The universe is novel and complex
2) Novel and complex entities are observed to always be caused by intelligent entities.
3) Therefore it's reasonable to assume that the universe too, like all these other observed novel and complex entities, was caused by an intelligent entity.
Is this your argument?

For the case of ET that likes prime numbers, not really.

But, let's defer this to my next argument where we can concentrate on intelligence. Right now, I'm just arguing that God is a creator and cause of the beginning of the universe.

Is your presupposition that only intelligent entities can be supernatural?

No. Of course there are intelligent entities that are natural.

Because I just thought that if your definition of supernatural is "an entity that is outside of the universe and not bound by the laws of physics of this universe", then a lump of rock in a parallel or antecedent universe, or in any dimension/location/time NOT of this universe, is supernatural.

I agree. Would you agree as well?

[no evidence no belief]

Ok, so if something, because it is outside of our universe, is unobservable and undetectable, should we operate under the assumption that it does not exist?

Good question. I am not making that assumption. Just because something is unobservable and undetectable does not mean it could not exist.

Perfect. This statement destroys your argument for the universe having began to exist ex nihilo.

Do you see why? Let me know if you need me to explain what I mean.

I believe that I do, so please hold off just a little bit on the next argument.

Sure. I also would like to hold off on going on to different subjects without some sort of closure on the current subject. Otherwise, this thread is going to get messy.

I don't want to put words in your mouth or argue against a position you do not hold, so could you please tell me if the syllogism below accurately summarizes your argument?

1) The universe began to exist
2) The notion that this event was caused by an intelligent entity contains no internal contradictions, whereas the notion that it was caused by a non-intelligent entity contains internal contradictions
3) Therefore the notion that it was caused by an intelligent entity is more viable.

Is this pretty much the gist of it?

It's closer. The only thing I would modify is the internal contradictions part. Yes, it's important not to have internal contradictions, but there can also be additional factors to judge if an explanation is viable. I mentioned some earlier: "Does it conform with the facts and laws? Does it conform to logic? Is it consistent with what we know to be true? Is it falsifiable? Is it internal consistent?" And there could also be other factors in addition to these.

Ok, so your argument is this:

1) The universe began to exist
2) The notion that this event was caused by an intelligent entity contains no internal contradictions, it confirms with facts and laws, it confirms to logic, it's consistent with what we know is true, it's falsifiable and is internally consistent, whereas the notion that this event was caused by a non-intelligent entity is not, or is - but to a lesser degree
3) Therefore the notion that it was caused by an intelligent entity is more viable.

Is your only opposition to the notion of a non-intelligent cause the "Prime numbers from ET" argument you make below, or are there additional considerations?

Another issue is agency. I'm positing a god that is a being that is powerful and intelligent. I'm not positing some mechanistic cause.

I want to make sure I don't misunderstand you here.

Are you positing God created the universe and did so specifically in a non-mechanistic way, or are you positing just that God created the universe, and not specifying one way or the other whether he did so in a mechanistic or non-mechanistic way? I assume the latter, but I want to make sure.

When we say something is non-intelligent, it refers to a mechanistic cause

I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe your answer to this question will help clarify things: Could you give me an observed example of an intelligent entity causing something to exist in a non mechanistic way?

So, it would not make sense a describe a being as non-intelligent.

Could you please rephrase? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

So, you'll have to clarify your proposal when you say the universe could have been created by a non-intelligent entity.

Right now, I am not positing any specific attribute to the process of the universe coming into being, other than the fact that this event was caused by a non-intelligent entity.

You are stating that "God [an intelligent entity]is the cause of the beginning of the universe", without providing other specifics at this time.

I am merely mirroring your statement but substituting "intelligent" for "non-intelligent".

Once we're done clarifying exactly what our respective positions are (and we're very close to being done with that), we can test premise 2 of your syllogism above, by trying to determine if an intelligent cause contains no internal contradictions, it confirms with facts and laws, it confirms to logic, it's consistent with what we know is true, it's falsifiable and is internally consistent. Then we do the same with a non-intelligent cause hypothesis, and see how they stack up.

Do you dispute the claim that if we receive a signal of prime numbers that we can deduce it came from an intelligent agent?

I do dispute that, actually. But I think I can make a strong case without having to persuade you on this, and I don't want to clutter the thread with tangential issues. So I will concede the point for now for the sake of argument, but reserve the right to return to this if it becomes necessary.

Do you in turn dispute that tremendous novelty and complexity has been observed to come into existence thanks to non-intelligent causes? E.g. Evolution?

1) The universe is novel and complex
2) Novel and complex entities are observed to always be caused by intelligent entities.
3) Therefore it's reasonable to assume that the universe too, like all these other observed novel and complex entities, was caused by an intelligent entity.
Is this your argument?

For the case of ET that likes prime numbers, not really.

But, let's defer this to my next argument where we can concentrate on intelligence. Right now, I'm just arguing that God is a creator and cause of the beginning of the universe.

. We are already concentrating on intelligence. That is our only point of contention at this time.

We had 4 disputes. That the universe began to exist, that it did so ex nihilo, that an intelligent entity outside/beyond the universe exists, and that this entity caused the universe to begin existing.

I conceded that the universe began to exist for the sake of argument, and you demonstrated with your words that your argument for ex nihilo doesn't stand.

The only two items left on the agenda are the notion that God exists and that it caused the universe, as opposed to a non-intelligent entity existing and causing the universe.

So please do present whatever arguments you have which demonstrate that the existence of an intelligent entity and it's causing of the universe contains no internal contradictions, it confirms with facts and laws, it confirms to logic, it's consistent with what we know is true, it's falsifiable and is internally consistent, whereas the notion that this event was caused by a on-intelligent entity is not, or is - but to a lesser degree.

Is your presupposition that only intelligent entities can be supernatural?

No. Of course there are intelligent entities that are natural.

Ok, but what I'm asking is: Are there (or can there be) non-intelligent entities that are supernatural, or as I like to say, "extra-universal" (see below)?

Because I just thought that if your definition of supernatural is "an entity that is outside of the universe and not bound by the laws of physics of this universe", then a lump of rock in a parallel or antecedent universe, or in any dimension/location/time NOT of this universe, is supernatural.

I agree. Would you agree as well?

Yes. Would you mind if to represent this concept we both agree with, instead of using the word supernatural - which may be confusing because of its theistic connotations - we used the word "extra-universal", meaning outside of the universe and thus not bound by the laws of the universe? Same concept we both agree on, just different label for the sake of clarity.

You are arguing that the universe was caused to exist by an "extra-universal" entity which is intelligent, I am arguing that the universe was caused to exist by an "extra-universal" entity which is non-intelligent.

Your job is to demonstrate that your position contains no internal contradictions, it confirms with facts and laws, it confirms to logic, it's consistent with what we know is true, it's falsifiable and is internally consistent, whereas the notion that this event was caused by a non-intelligent entity is not, or is - but to a lesser degree.

Go ahead and present what arguments you have.

[otseng]

Ok, so if something, because it is outside of our universe, is unobservable and undetectable, should we operate under the assumption that it does not exist?

Good question. I am not making that assumption. Just because something is unobservable and undetectable does not mean it could not exist.

Perfect. This statement destroys your argument for the universe having began to exist ex nihilo.

Do you see why? Let me know if you need me to explain what I mean.

The term ex nihilo needs to be agreed upon.

I use the term in the theological sense regarding creation. It is used to compare to creatio ex materia and creatio ex deo. The former refers to God forming the universe out of some preexisting matter in our universe (Greek ideas of creation). The latter refers to God being the universe (Eastern ideas of creation). Ex nihilo was a Christian doctrine that was formed to contrast from the other philosophical/religious ideas of universe.

Now, ex nihilo does not rule out the creation of our universe from something outside of our universe. It only means that there was a state of nothing in regards to our universe, then our universe came into being. Interestingly, science has only recently considered seriously the idea that things exist outside our universe (multiverse, brane, other dimensions, etc).

Ok, so your argument is this:

1) The universe began to exist
2) The notion that this event was caused by an intelligent entity contains no internal contradictions, it confirms with facts and laws, it confirms to logic, it's consistent with what we know is true, it's falsifiable and is internally consistent, whereas the notion that this event was caused by a non-intelligent entity is not, or is - but to a lesser degree
3) Therefore the notion that it was caused by an intelligent entity is more viable.

Before we go on, what exactly do you mean by non-intelligent entity?

Are you positing God created the universe and did so specifically in a non-mechanistic way, or are you positing just that God created the universe, and not specifying one way or the other whether he did so in a mechanistic or non-mechanistic way? I assume the latter, but I want to make sure.

I'm not arguing how God created the universe. I'm using the term mechanistic to some process that can be purely described by laws that are devoid of teleology.

Right now, I am not positing any specific attribute to the process of the universe coming into being, other than the fact that this event was caused by a non-intelligent entity.

It seems then you are using the term process and entity interchangeably. Is that true? Would an entity and a being be different?

Do you dispute the claim that if we receive a signal of prime numbers that we can deduce it came from an intelligent agent?

I do dispute that, actually.

Interesting. OK, we can talk more about it later.

Do you in turn dispute that tremendous novelty and complexity has been observed to come into existence thanks to non-intelligent causes? E.g. Evolution?

I would classify evolution as a process, not an entity.

We are already concentrating on intelligence. That is our only point of contention at this time.

To be more specific, you introduced a non-intelligent entity as a cause of the universe. I'm still trying to understand what that really means. How is that different than naturalistic explanations?

and you demonstrated with your words that your argument for ex nihilo doesn't stand.

How does it not stand?

Ok, but what I'm asking is: Are there (or can there be) non-intelligent entities that are supernatural, or as I like to say, "extra-universal" (see below)?

I don't like introducing terms that are unconventional since they can have ad hoc definitions. But, if you agree that supernatural and extra-universal are functionally equivalent, then I can agree to using that term.

Because I just thought that if your definition of supernatural is "an entity that is outside of the universe and not bound by the laws of physics of this universe", then a lump of rock in a parallel or antecedent universe, or in any dimension/location/time NOT of this universe, is supernatural.

I agree. Would you agree as well?

Yes.

OK, good.

Would you mind if to represent this concept we both agree with, instead of using the word supernatural - which may be confusing because of its theistic connotations - we used the word "extra-universal", meaning outside of the universe and thus not bound by the laws of the universe? Same concept we both agree on, just different label for the sake of clarity.

Sure, if I can likewise redefine things in the future if they have a naturalistic connotation.

You are arguing that the universe was caused to exist by an "extra-universal" entity which is intelligent, I am arguing that the universe was caused to exist by an "extra-universal" entity which is non-intelligent.

Again, how is it different than all the naturalistic models that you had proposed earlier? Or are you saying that they are the same thing?

Your job is to demonstrate that your position contains no internal contradictions, it confirms with facts and laws, it confirms to logic, it's consistent with what we know is true, it's falsifiable and is internally consistent, whereas the notion that this event was caused by a non-intelligent entity is not, or is - but to a lesser degree.

Go ahead and present what arguments you have.

No internal contradictions - The onus is on you to provide internal contradictions. Since you have not provided any, it cannot be charged that there exist any internal contradictions. Actually, I do know of an argument to attempt to show an internal contradiction, but it's not my job to argue against myself.

Conforms with facts and laws - The laws of thermodynamics only apply to a closed system. God is not part of the universe, but is a distinct entity from the universe. So, the first law of thermo does not apply to God creating the universe. Energy/matter did not have to spontaneously arise, but came from outside the system.

The second law says that entropy cannot decrease. As a corollary, order cannot spontaneously increase without information being brought into the system. For example, if you have a deck of cards sorted in order (like when you first open a brand new deck) it contains order. But with each shuffling of the deck, there is less order and becomes more random. Unless a person specifically puts the deck in order again, in all likelihood it cannot get back to when you first opened the deck.

Likewise, since God created the universe, order was at its maximum at the beginning. Generally, over time, things will lose order on the scale of the universe.

So, God creating the universe is consistent with laws of thermo.

Conforms with logic - One classical argument is the Kalam cosmological argument:

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal�m_cos ... l_argument

Consistent with what we know is true - As the example of ET, we can deduce its existence from a complex signal. With God, we can likewise deduce its existence from the universe. I'll get into this more when we talk about fine-tuning.

Falsifiable - If any naturalistic model for the origin of the universe is found to be true, God is falsified.

[no evidence no belief]

Ok, so if something, because it is outside of our universe, is unobservable and undetectable, should we operate under the assumption that it does not exist?

Good question. I am not making that assumption. Just because something is unobservable and undetectable does not mean it could not exist.

Perfect. This statement destroys your argument for the universe having began to exist ex nihilo.

Do you see why? Let me know if you need me to explain what I mean.

The term ex nihilo needs to be agreed upon.

I use the term in the theological sense regarding creation. It is used to compare to creatio ex materia and creatio ex deo. The former refers to God forming the universe out of some preexisting matter in our universe (Greek ideas of creation). The latter refers to God being the universe (Eastern ideas of creation). Ex nihilo was a Christian doctrine that was formed to contrast from the other philosophical/religious ideas of universe.

Now, ex nihilo does not rule out the creation of our universe from something outside of our universe. It only means that there was a state of nothing in regards to our universe, then our universe came into being. Interestingly, science has only recently considered seriously the idea that things exist outside our universe (multiverse, brane, other dimensions, etc).

Ok, good. It was a semantics issue. I understood ex nihilo to mean when something started existing from truly nothing. Not "from nothing I can measure from where I'm standing", nor "from nothing within a specific closed system".

Because whatever may have existed outside/beyond the universe is beyond our event horizon and is thus (with current technology) impossible for us to detect, observe or measure, then we use the term ex nihilo to describe this stuff from our own prospective as entities inside the universe and on this side of the event horizon.

Now that we're on the same page, I want to be clear that "the universe coming into existence ex nihilo" could mean either of these two:

1) The universe come into existence ex nihilo. This event happened with the assistance of an intelligent entity.

2) The universe came into existence ex nihilo. This event happened WITHOUT the assistance of an intelligent entity.

The point is that the concept of ex nihilo, as defined by you, is compatible both with a process of the universe coming into existence which involves a contribution from an intelligent entity, and is also compatible with a process of the universe coming into existence which does NOT involve an intelligent entity.

If we are on the same page, we can proceed with the assumption (for sake of argument) that the universe began to exist ex nihilo.

Before we go on, what exactly do you mean by non-intelligent entity?

It seems then you are using the term process and entity interchangeably. Is that true? Would an entity and a being be different?

Sorry. I guess I did not word this as clearly as I could have.

I guess we both agree that the universe going from not existing to existing was a process.

Your contention is that this process took place with the aid/action/activity/contribution/intervention of some kind of intelligent entity.

My contention is simply that this process took place WITHOUT the aid/action/activity/contribution/intervention of some kind of intelligent entity.

I did use the term "process" and "entity" interchangeably and that was my mistake. It's a semantics issue, not a conceptual one, but you're right that it's important to be clear.

Rather than "non-intelligent entity", I should have said "absence of an intelligent entity".

Do you in turn dispute that tremendous novelty and complexity has been observed to come into existence thanks to non-intelligent causes? E.g. Evolution?

I would classify evolution as a process, not an entity.

Fair enough. Would you agree that evolution is a process that generates novelty and complexity without contribution from an intelligent entity?

We are already concentrating on intelligence. That is our only point of contention at this time.

To be more specific, you introduced a non-intelligent entity as a cause of the universe. I'm still trying to understand what that really means.

I should have said "the universe came into existence by means of a process (the details of which we are not specifying or speculating on at this time) which did not entail any contribution by an intelligent entity".

My position above is different from yours in that yours is: "the universe came into existence by means of a process (the details of which we are not specifying or speculating on at this time) which DID entail some contribution by an intelligent entity".

How is that different than naturalistic explanations?

A naturalistic or intra-universal explanation (see below) is an explanation which posits that the universe began to exist by virtue of a process strictly within the universe's closed system, and uniformly and without exception in conformity with the laws of physics of this universe. Neither of our hypotheses make such an assumption, hence neither of our hypotheses is naturalistic/intra-universal. We both assume an extra-universal element to the process of the universe beginning to exist, and we both allow that this process need not have happened in accordance with the laws of our universe or within the confines of our space/time.

Our only difference is this: You are speculating the involvement of an intelligent entity in this process, I am speculating that there was NOT any involvement from an intelligent entity in this process.

Now we will compare the two claims by the parameters you presented and I accepted, and we'll let the chips fall where they may.

and you demonstrated with your words that your argument for ex nihilo doesn't stand.

How does it not stand?

This matter has been resolved, I believe.

Ok, but what I'm asking is: Are there (or can there be) non-intelligent entities that are supernatural, or as I like to say, "extra-universal" (see below)?

I don't like introducing terms that are unconventional since they can have ad hoc definitions. But, if you agree that supernatural and extra-universal are functionally equivalent, then I can agree to using that term.

Supernatural and extra-universal are functionally equivalent when it comes to the deistic position. Extra universal means any entity, event, process, agency, person, object, thing, energy, matter, dimension exiting or happening beyond, outside, not-within, out of reach of the universe, not directly observable, measurable or manifest from within the universe, and not subject to the same natural laws.

I think it's crucial to use a word other than "supernatural" for that, because otherwise we'll run into problems when we start using "supernatural" to describe things like the resurrection or a personal spiritual experience, or Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse. Those would be entities, processes, events happening WITHIN the universe, and observable by us. Thus I believe that two words are necessary to label these two completely different concepts.

Cool?

As a corollary, for the same purpose of clarity, in this context the opposite of "extra-universal" shouldn't be "natural". It should be "intra-universal".

Would you mind if to represent this concept we both agree with, instead of using the word supernatural - which may be confusing because of its theistic connotations - we used the word "extra-universal", meaning outside of the universe and thus not bound by the laws of the universe? Same concept we both agree on, just different label for the sake of clarity.

Sure, if I can likewise redefine things in the future if they have a naturalistic connotation.

Deal.

You are arguing that the universe was caused to exist by an "extra-universal" entity which is intelligent, I am arguing that the universe was caused to exist by an "extra-universal" entity which is non-intelligent.

Again, how is it different than all the naturalistic models that you had proposed earlier? Or are you saying that they are the same thing?

I made a mistake earlier by trying to prematurely introduce specific models.

You are not providing any specific details about the process of the universe beginning to exist. You are just positing the involvement of an intelligent entity in this process.

I am retracting all the specifics I put forward earlier about Big Bounces, Multiverses, etc, and like you, I am not providing any specific details about the process of the universe beginning to exist. I am just positing that no intelligent entity was involved in this process.

We are not getting specific. Our only difference is this:

Otseng: Does not yet focus on details of how universe began to exist. Assumes intelligence was involved in process. Let's call this the intelligence hypothesis.

NENB: Does not yet focus on details of how universe began to exist. Assumes intelligence was NOT involved in process. Let's call this the no-intelligence hypothesis.

Your job is to demonstrate that your position contains no internal contradictions, it confirms with facts and laws, it confirms to logic, it's consistent with what we know is true, it's falsifiable and is internally consistent, whereas the notion that this event was caused by a non-intelligent entity is not, or is - but to a lesser degree.

Go ahead and present what arguments you have.

No internal contradictions - The onus is on you to provide internal contradictions. Since you have not provided any, it cannot be charged that there exist any internal contradictions. Actually, I do know of an argument to attempt to show an internal contradiction, but it's not my job to argue against myself.

Let's see if, as the debate progresses, I can think of any internal contradictions in the hypothesis that the universe went from not existing to existing with the aid of an intelligent being. Without admitting that I cannot think of any, I will not be submitting any at this time.
In the meantime, will you be submitting any internal contradictions in the no-intelligence hypothesis that wouldn't also exist in the intelligence hypothesis?

If you do not, then the "internal contradictions" argument does no more to detract form my hypothesis than it does to detract from yours.

Conforms with facts and laws - The laws of thermodynamics only apply to a closed system. God is not part of the universe, but is a distinct entity from the universe. So, the first law of thermo does not apply to God creating the universe. Energy/matter did not have to spontaneously arise, but came from outside the system.

Ok, but the notion that energy/matter didn't spontaneously arise but came from outside the system is also compatible with my no-intelligence hypothesis. The problem of conflict with 1st law of thermo is resolved if we assume the process of universe coming into existence involves matter/energy flowing into system from a source that is not part of the universe, irrespective of whether intelligence was involved in this thermo-compatible process.

Your argument above does no more to support your hypothesis than it does to support mine.

The second law says that entropy cannot decrease. As a corollary, order cannot spontaneously increase without information being brought into the system. For example, if you have a deck of cards sorted in order (like when you first open a brand new deck) it contains order. But with each shuffling of the deck, there is less order and becomes more random. Unless a person specifically puts the deck in order again, in all likelihood it cannot get back to when you first opened the deck.

Likewise, since God created the universe, order was at its maximum at the beginning. Generally, over time, things will lose order on the scale of the universe.

The second law of thermo says that entropy will increase in any closed system. The universe is a closed system, and in accordance with 2nd law of thermo, its entropy is increasing. The point of maximum order was at the beginning when matter/energy was infused into the closed system.

These observed facts are compatible with the notion that energy/matter/space/time were introduced into the closed system, irrespective of whether we assume this process was aided by an intelligent entity or not.

Your argument above does no more to support your hypothesis than it does to support mine.

So, God creating the universe is consistent with laws of thermo.

The notion of the universe coming into existence without God's involvement is also consistent with laws of thermo.

Your argument above does no more to support your hypothesis than it does to support mine.

Conforms with logic - One classical argument is the Kalam cosmological argument:

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal�m_cos ... l_argument

There are counterarguments to Kalam, but they address the notion that there was a contribution by an eternal, non-contingent entity to the process. You haven't specified yet that this entity is eternal and non-contingent, just that it is intelligent, hence my counterarguments do not apply at this time, but probably will later.

At this time all I need to say to refute your point is this: Sure, if we posit the universe began to exist (I have some reservations but will allow it), then the universe has a cause for its existence. But why assume that the cause is an intelligent entity or that an intelligent entity was involved in any capacity whatsoever? How does Kalam preclude the possibility that the cause of the universe beginning was an extra-universal process or event that did NOT involve intelligence?

I think that insofar as it is valid, Kalam's argument equally well supports the notion that the universe's beginning was caused by a process in which an intelligent entity was involved, as it supports the notion that the universe's beginning was caused by a process without an intelligent entity being involved.

Your argument above does no more to support your hypothesis than it does to support mine.

Consistent with what we know is true - As the example of ET, we can deduce its existence from a complex signal. With God, we can likewise deduce its existence from the universe.

We are able to observe extremely novel and complex entities emerging through a process which is NOT aided by an intelligent entity. Intelligence-aided processes leading to complexity are possible, NOT-intelligence-aided processes leading to complexity are also possible. The universe beginning to exist is a process leading to complexity.

Since complexity can arise with or without the assistance of intelligence, I don't see how the complexity of the universe is suggestive of either assistance or non assistance of intelligence.

This is the argument you're making:

1) Complexity can be either formed with intelligence or without intelligence
2) The universe is complex
3) Therefore intelligence was involved

That's as absurd as saying:
1) Ford trucks come with or without built-in stereo sound systems.
2) My 2014 F-150 is a Ford truck
3) Therefore it has a built in stereo sound system.

Complexity and novelty in the universe is as much evidence for intelligence's involvement as it is for intelligence's non-involvement.

Your argument above does no more to support your hypothesis than it does to support mine.

Falsifiable - If any naturalistic model for the origin of the universe is found to be true, God is falsified.

I'm not sure what you mean by naturalistic. In the sense that in this context "supernatural" is synonymous of "extra-universal", my hypothesis is not naturalistic, it's supernaturalistic, it's not intra-universal, it's extra-universal. My hypothesis involves events outside of the universe, and not subject to the laws of physics as we know them. Our only difference is that you posit the involvement of intelligence. That being the only difference, if my hypothesis is naturalistic, so is yours, and if yours is not naturalistic, neither is mine.

Nonetheless, hopefully my statements below address your position irrespective of this misunderstanding:

We are both claiming that the universe began to exist by virtue of an extra-universal process.

You claim intelligence was involved in this process, I claim intelligence was NOT involved.

If it is found to be true that intelligence was NOT involved, then your claim that intelligence was involved is falsified. If it is found to be true that intelligence WAS involved, then my claim that intelligence was not involved is falsified.

Insofar as your claim is falsified by my claim turning out to be true, my claim is also falsified by your claim turning out to be true.

Your argument above does no more to support your hypothesis than it does to support mine.

Here's another answer to your falsifiability argument: If we find out that the universe didn't begin to exist, or we find out that no extra-universal process was involved in the universe's existence (irrespective of intelligence being or not being involved), then BOTH of our claims are falsified.

Your argument above does no more to support your hypothesis than it does to support mine.



Your governing principle is "If logic and evidence support explanation A and all other explanations do not have as much support, then it's reasonable to accept explanation A"

The exact same concept, spelled out in reverse is this: "If logic and evidence support explanation A, but other explanations have as much support, then it's not reasonable to accept explanation A".

So far, your explanation is not better than alternatively explanations. Specifically, it isn't even better than the explanation which is the exact diametric opposite - the antithesis - of your explanation!

A hypothesis that has as much evidentiary and logical support as its antithesis is not a very good hypothesis, and an argument which supports a hypothesis but equally well supports its antithesis, is not a very good argument.

In your presentation so far, there isn't a single argument, evidence, concept that supports your intelligence hypothesis which doesn't also support my no-intelligence hypothesis, and there is no argument, evidence, contradiction that detracts from my no-intelligence hypothesis that doesn't also detract from your intelligence hypothesis.

Can you think of any argument that supports your hypothesis without also supporting mine, or detracts from mine without also detracting from yours?

[otseng]

Now that we're on the same page, I want to be clear that "the universe coming into existence ex nihilo" could mean either of these two:

1) The universe come into existence ex nihilo. This event happened with the assistance of an intelligent entity.

2) The universe came into existence ex nihilo. This event happened WITHOUT the assistance of an intelligent entity.

Yes, I think we are on the same page. I agree that it could mean either of the two.

I did use the term "process" and "entity" interchangeably and that was my mistake. It's a semantics issue, not a conceptual one, but you're right that it's important to be clear.

Rather than "non-intelligent entity", I should have said "absence of an intelligent entity".

OK, good.

Would you agree that evolution is a process that generates novelty and complexity without contribution from an intelligent entity?

For sake of argument, I'll agree with this. As to whether it is in fact true, I'll defer this for later.

Extra universal means any entity, event, process, agency, person, object, thing, energy, matter, dimension exiting or happening beyond, outside, not-within, out of reach of the universe, not directly observable, measurable or manifest from within the universe, and not subject to the same natural laws.

I can accept that definition.

I am retracting all the specifics I put forward earlier about Big Bounces, Multiverses, etc, and like you, I am not providing any specific details about the process of the universe beginning to exist.

OK, but it shows to me then that all naturalistic models fail to provide a viable explanation for the beginning of the universe.

We are not getting specific. Our only difference is this:

Otseng: Does not yet focus on details of how universe began to exist. Assumes intelligence was involved in process. Let's call this the intelligence hypothesis.

NENB: Does not yet focus on details of how universe began to exist. Assumes intelligence was NOT involved in process. Let's call this the no-intelligence hypothesis.

Sure, we can go down that path.

In the meantime, will you be submitting any internal contradictions in the no-intelligence hypothesis that wouldn't also exist in the intelligence hypothesis?

I'll try to come up with problems with your hypothesis (incuding internal contradictions).

If you do not, then the "internal contradictions" argument does no more to detract form my hypothesis than it does to detract from yours.

Sure.

Conforms with facts and laws - The laws of thermodynamics only apply to a closed system. God is not part of the universe, but is a distinct entity from the universe. So, the first law of thermo does not apply to God creating the universe. Energy/matter did not have to spontaneously arise, but came from outside the system.

Ok, but the notion that energy/matter didn't spontaneously arise but came from outside the system is also compatible with my no-intelligence hypothesis. The problem of conflict with 1st law of thermo is resolved if we assume the process of universe coming into existence involves matter/energy flowing into system from a source that is not part of the universe, irrespective of whether intelligence was involved in this thermo-compatible process.

Yes, I agree with that. And to make this post shorter, I generally agree with everything you've stated onwards too.

But, if you are arguing for an extra-universal explanation, would you agree then that methodological naturalism is false?

[no evidence no belief]

Now that we're on the same page, I want to be clear that "the universe coming into existence ex nihilo" could mean either of these two:

1) The universe come into existence ex nihilo. This event happened with the assistance of an intelligent entity.

2) The universe came into existence ex nihilo. This event happened WITHOUT the assistance of an intelligent entity.

Yes, I think we are on the same page. I agree that it could mean either of the two.

I did use the term "process" and "entity" interchangeably and that was my mistake. It's a semantics issue, not a conceptual one, but you're right that it's important to be clear.

Rather than "non-intelligent entity", I should have said "absence of an intelligent entity".

OK, good.

Would you agree that evolution is a process that generates novelty and complexity without contribution from an intelligent entity?

For sake of argument, I'll agree with this. As to whether it is in fact true, I'll defer this for later.

Extra universal means any entity, event, process, agency, person, object, thing, energy, matter, dimension exiting or happening beyond, outside, not-within, out of reach of the universe, not directly observable, measurable or manifest from within the universe, and not subject to the same natural laws.

I can accept that definition.

I am retracting all the specifics I put forward earlier about Big Bounces, Multiverses, etc, and like you, I am not providing any specific details about the process of the universe beginning to exist.

OK, but it shows to me then that all naturalistic models fail to provide a viable explanation for the beginning of the universe.

We are not getting specific. Our only difference is this:

Otseng: Does not yet focus on details of how universe began to exist. Assumes intelligence was involved in process. Let's call this the intelligence hypothesis.

NENB: Does not yet focus on details of how universe began to exist. Assumes intelligence was NOT involved in process. Let's call this the no-intelligence hypothesis.

Sure, we can go down that path.

In the meantime, will you be submitting any internal contradictions in the no-intelligence hypothesis that wouldn't also exist in the intelligence hypothesis?

I'll try to come up with problems with your hypothesis (incuding internal contradictions).

If you do not, then the "internal contradictions" argument does no more to detract form my hypothesis than it does to detract from yours.

Sure.

Conforms with facts and laws - The laws of thermodynamics only apply to a closed system. God is not part of the universe, but is a distinct entity from the universe. So, the first law of thermo does not apply to God creating the universe. Energy/matter did not have to spontaneously arise, but came from outside the system.

Ok, but the notion that energy/matter didn't spontaneously arise but came from outside the system is also compatible with my no-intelligence hypothesis. The problem of conflict with 1st law of thermo is resolved if we assume the process of universe coming into existence involves matter/energy flowing into system from a source that is not part of the universe, irrespective of whether intelligence was involved in this thermo-compatible process.

Yes, I agree with that. And to make this post shorter, I generally agree with everything you've stated onwards too.

Ok, good. Let's recap:

Your general principle is that it's only reasonable to believe an explanation if evidence and logic support it more than alternative explanations.

Your explanation was that intelligence was involved in the process of the universe coming into being.

The evidence/logic in support of that claim is just as strong or weak as the evidence for the diametric opposite claim - the absence of intelligence.

You have failed to demonstrate that evidence and logic support this explanation more than they support alternatives - including the diametrical antithesis of your explanation.

Therefore we conclude that even if we allow that the universe began to exist, and did so ex nihilo, it is not reasonable at this time to believe that an intelligent entity caused the universe to begin to exist.

Do you concede?

Keep in mind that you haven't lost yet. Theism is contingent on deism, so if deism were disproved, then theism would be out as well. BUT, we haven't disproved deism. We've merely conclude that there isn't sufficient evidence/logic to justify believing in it at this time. But if we moved from debating deism to debating theism, and if you made a sufficiently strong case for theism, that would retroactively call into question the conclusion that deism is unjustified. See what I mean? If you could make a case that evidence and logic support, say, the notion that "Jesus rose from the dead by virtue of an extra-universal intelligent entity which created the universe", more than they support alternative explanation, that would implicitly call into question today's conclusion that believing in an intelligent extra-universal entity is unjustified.

Therefore, if you're up for it, I'd be happy to allow (strictly for the sake of argument) that an intelligent entity caused the universe to begin existing (despite the fact that it's unreasonable to do so, given the lack of evidence/logic), and then use that as a starting point to argue for and against the theistic position, and see where that takes us.

Let me know if you're game.

But, if you are arguing for an extra-universal explanation, would you agree then that methodological naturalism is false?

I think I know what you are trying to argue, but I could be wrong. Before I go on a long tirade in response to an argument you weren't actually making, could you elaborate on what you mean?

For now I'll just say this: If we define methodological naturalism as the position that only that which is inside our event horizon exists, and our space-time and physical constants are immutable no matter what, then I DO agree with you that methodological naturalism is false. Demonstrably so.

What do I mean? The universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light. This means that our event horizon is actually shrinking by quintillions of cubic miles per nanosecond (I made that number up, but it's surely enormous whatever it is). If we were to posit that only that which is within the observable universe exists, then we would have to believe that entire galaxies stop existing every second, as they go outside our event horizon. Patently absurd. We must be smart enough to realize that that which existed a moment ago doesn't necessarily stop existing because we can't see it anymore.

Also, the notion that physical constants are immutable is also patently false, because we observe the breakdown of physical constants at singularities. We literally have empirical evidence that physical constants are not immutable.

So if methodological naturalism is the position that nothing whatsoever exists or could possibly exist other than an immutable intra-universal reality and intra-universal set of constants, then of course I disagree with it, as does every physicist on the planet.

But I don't know if that's what you mean. Please let me know.