Summary of the argument:
A. The existence of the universe’s natural laws is self-evident.
B. There is current no consensus upon a naturalistic explanation for why our natural laws exist.
…c. There are potential problems with seeking out a purely naturalistic explanation.
D. An unnatural explanation for our natural laws exists.
E. Given A–D, an unnatural explanation is the most natural conclusion at this time.
A. The existence of the universe’s natural laws is self-evident. - Granted (with reservations)
B. There is current no consensus upon a naturalistic explanation for why our natural laws exist. - Granted
…c. There are potential problems with seeking out a purely naturalistic explanation. - Tentatively granted for the sake of the argument (although I may come back and reject this).
D. An unnatural explanation for our natural laws exists. - NOT granted
E. Given A–D, an unnatural explanation is the most natural conclusion at this time. - NOT granted at all.
My reservations about A stems from quantum theory which tells us that there are no laws of nature, just probabilities that are very, very, very, very likely.
I now reject C on the grounds that the “problems” you’re probably referring to have nothing to do with our limited epistemology or disagreement among thinkers, but with certain supposed logical problems with the very notion of naturalistic explanations, which I don’t think are genuine problems.
I reject D on the grounds that I have not come across any. God, or any supernatural force, is not an explanation in my books on account of its unfalsifiability and its reinforcing the initial problem (which leads to an infinit regress). In other words, it suffers exactly the same problems as you propose naturalistic explanations do in C.
I believe the point was made that this “one simple principle” would lack explanation. Thus, the “one simple principle” leaves one back at step one… Where did the “one simple principle” come from? I believe that was the point being made. If we could identify “one simple principle” we’d still need to identify where it came from.
The one simple principle didn’t come from anywhere…it just was
Same as one could say god just is…then he came up with the principle…then the universe was.
Both rely on the existence of one thing without explaination.
Well it depends what this god does…if he just created the universe and sits back(as i believe is impied by the essay?!?) then theres no difference. This idea of god seems to me meaningless. If there is a god that uses his super natural powers of the world then fair enough theres a big difference.
“One can say that the natural laws have simply always existed and leave it at that. This seemingly simple solution attempts to act as though no further questions need be asked. This willful ignorance is naïve at best and, although a sufficient solution for many, avoids discussing the white elephant in the room.”
False, I do not believe they are both “without explanation”. Saying “one simple principle didn’t come from anywhere…it just was” is certainly not an explanation. I agree. It is nice that you agree that this is not an explanation.
On the other hand, suggesting that assigning the creation of all that we know to exist a point of origin which itself need not be defined by the creation which “it” “preceded” IS an explanation. Why, you ask? I believe this explains how we can have a point of origin of all which exists which requires nothing from that which now exists.
Note: Further, It explains how there could be a “beginning” of the concept of “beginning” which alleviates the “beginner” the need to “begin” since the idea/concept/logic of “beginning” can easily be just one more part of the creation which may not have existed prior to the beginning of the creation of all which now exists. Though I’m having fun with words a bit in that last sentence, if you you follow the logic, I believe it is sound… and again explains why this is an explanation.
Is this not a law? If you say yes, I’d like to hear you justify how this quantum theory is not “a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.” (New Oxford American Dictionary) On the flip side, if you change your mind and say “no”, I’d hope you’d have less reservations.
Please explain further. I’d like to understand how the problem with a naturalistic explanation mentioned in the link is not a genuine problem.
1st - “God, or any supernatural force, is not an explanation in my books on account of its unfalsifiability”
I don’t know why it would be unfalsifiable within the context of the argument, in particular with B and C. Within the context of the discussion one need only give a naturalistic explanation for all which exists (including the explanation itself) and a creator would be essentially falsified in that a creator would not need to be mentioned any longer. Nothing would need explaining. The argument as a whole is CERTAINLY falsifiable. D depends upon the lack of a naturalistic explanation. Please explain how this argument is not falsifiable by the reasons I’ve just given.
2nd - “its reinforcing the initial problem (which leads to an infinit regress). In other words, it suffers exactly the same problems as you propose naturalistic explanations do in C.”
FALSE. I think this is clearly false. It seems an infinite regress problem must presuppose the existence of a system which the infinite regression takes place within. The problem would not seem to apply when the system does not exist. The “unnatural” argument is suggesting that the system which “infinite regress” discussions apply to could have come into existence at some point. Prior to to that “point”, infinite regress need not apply. If the system doesn’t exist, then it seems infinite regress problems would no exist either.
Fair enough for now… hopefully we can continue the dialogue.
Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by “law”. The standard meaning is that it is a rule governing the nature of events in the universe such that you can predict the outcome of particular processes given the initial conditions - and I have to stress the particular in that statement, because probabilities can only be deduced (or should I say induced) from a whole series of particular outcomes, and even then the probability is just a ‘rough’ figure.
So is it a law? Sure, I guess you could say it is, but it’s certainly not the same kind of law as those found in classical physics. There the laws of nature allow for absolute certainty. In the quantum universe, things appear more random. The particulars don’t seem to obey laws in the strictest sense, only whole series do.
Why should it be a problem? As I said, it reeks of epistemic problems, as well as problems of objective consensus, but as for the logical coherence of such accounts goes, I fail to see where it falls short… you tell me.
But one cannot have a naturalistic explanation for all that exists - like I said, there’s epistemic limitations at play here. This goes for God too. It goes for metaphysics and the supernatural. We simply cannot know the nature of the deepest strata of the universe and why it exists. You can posit almost anything, natural or supernatural, and at this level of depth, you couldn’t prove it true or false.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. If the ‘system’ you speak of didn’t exist (presumably the natural universe + supernatural God), then you’re right - there would be no infinit regress to worry about. But I’m assuming you do mean to posit the existence of such a system, in which the infinit regress goes something like this: no natural explanation can explain the universe in totality. Therefore, we need a supernatural explanation. But how do we explain the existence of the supernatural explanation? We need another supernatural explanation (super-supernatural?). And we need another for that. And another for that. And another. And another…
Occam nicely did away with the supernatural extension, asking why it was needed if it posed exactly the same problem as the natural explanation.
Well recall the link…
“As I’ve pondered this question I’ve encounter the following: There is no established naturalistic explanation for the origin of the natural laws which govern our universe. More weighty than this however, it seems that any potential naturalistic explanations would rely on natural laws which themselves would then need to be accounted for naturally. It is at this point that naturalistic explanations begin to chase their own propositional tail. Any purely naturalistic explanation would require some preexisting natural principles which governed the creation of our natural laws, but clearly these would need some naturalistic explanation for their preexistence of which would then require some preceding natural principles for that formation. This is a mouthful, but the concept is simple. Those very first natural laws would need some naturalistic explanation and that explanation would need an explanation, and obviously this explanation would need a naturalistic explanation, and so on. The problem here is obvious. The pursuit of a naturalistic explanation becomes without end. Additionally, it seems a bit counterintuitive to imagine these regressive steps of natural explanations existing at all.”
Again, I’d like to understand how this problem with the pursuit of a naturalistic explanation mentioned in the original link is not a genuine problem.
Isn’t this close to the point of referenced used in the original link… recall that it states: “It is here that the reader should guess where the natural laws (1) came from. After all, nobody knows for sure… So what is your best guess?” The argument seems good… If GIVEN we don’t know and GIVEN a naturalistic explanations seems problematic (I know you don’t agree with this yet… but it seems key to the argument nonetheless), then from our ignorant position it would seem an unnatural origin would be the best guess. So… Yes, we don’t know. Yes, there are epistemic limitations at play. Yes, this goes for “God” too. Yes, it goes for the metaphysics of the supernatural. Yes, I don’t think we know the nature of the deepest strata and why it exists. We agree on quite a bit here… except you seem to think this justifies a naturalistic explanation for all that exists (I’m guessing, not sure). I don’t see how. I believe I affirm all these things you bring up, but I’m convinced, as of now, that within these epistemological limitations an unnatural explanation seems the best guess.
Hi… well… I don’t know how to put it, but I think you need to keep thinking this through until you see clearly the following problem stated in the original link:
“It is at this point that many scream, “But wait! That is no solution at all, for your architect must have an origin also!” From this, many then suggest that I’ve just created another endless paradigm, for who then created the architect and who created him… It is at this juncture that I find the most misunderstanding takes place. Most have difficulty understanding that upon invoking an unnatural solution, that solution is no longer bound by what is natural. It would be foolish to suggest that something defined to be unnatural must be bound by the natural, yet this is what many do. They forcefully mandate that the architect suggested must have a starting point. They fail to recognize that it is possible that this architect may have designed what we know to be a “starting point” and set this into motion at some point. This unboundedness to the natural laws is the reason the proposition of an architect is a successful explanation for the origin of our natural laws. To then discount it due to its unnaturalness is an invalid criticism at the most basic level.”
Read my previous quoted response again too… it is just a restatement of the above.
KEY CONCEPT: “Most have difficulty understanding that upon invoking an unnatural solution, that solution is no longer bound by what is natural.”
For example: You made the statement, “but how do we explain the existence of the supernatural explanation? We need another supernatural explanation (super-supernatural?)” which reveals that you’re locked into this idea that what we know to exist now must have somehow always existed. So, you make statements consistent with this understanding such as the aforementioned one. You seem to think that an “architect” which potentially created the foundations of all that exist, within which things like “explanation” exist also, MUST also have an “explanation”. You seem to forget that IF that “architect” created the foundations of all that exist within which things like “explanation” exist also… then things like “explanations” need not “pre-exist” the creation. This is where I believe your mistake lies.
AGAIN:
““Most have difficulty understanding that upon invoking an unnatural solution, that solution is no longer bound by what is natural.””
and
“They forcefully mandate that the architect suggested must have a starting point. They fail to recognize that it is possible that this architect may have designed what we know to be a “starting point” and set this into motion at some point. This unboundedness to the natural laws is the reason the proposition of an architect is a successful explanation for the origin of our natural laws. To then discount it due to its unnaturalness is an invalid criticism at the most basic level.”
Hope that helps.
I can see where you’re going with this, but I still think the problem you hit on is epistemic rather than logical. I think if there is to be a natural explanation for the existence of everything, it’s going to be one that is beyond our ability to grasp. The human mind seems to be limited to conjuring up explanations that, although good for whatever problem they are brought to bear on, always leave something to be desired (namely, a further explanation). I don’t think there’s anything logically wrong with any one particular explanation insofar as it explains what it was built to explain, but it does lead to the infinit regress that you pointed out. This is not a logical problem (for every step in the regress works to explain the previous step) but an epistemic one (for we are bound to conjuring explanations that only further the regress).
What we need is an explanation that puts a stop to the regress. Such an explanation is beyond our grasp. However - and this is key - I don’t see how that makes the explanation ‘supernatural’. I don’t see why there can’t be an ultimate natural explanation that so happens to be too far beyond the grasp of our puny human intellect.
If you’re saying that the supernatural has no need for explanations, then it can’t be an explanation itself. An explanation is something that answers questions. It answers questions like “How is it so?” “Why does it work that way?” “What brought it into existence?” I can conceive of the universe itself needing no explanation. I don’t need an extra variable in the equation called ‘God’. But I assume the problem lies in our demand for an explanation, and so your explanation-free supernatural first-cause doesn’t fit the bill. You’re saying it happens by magic. The universe depends on magic for its existence, and magic, being magic, magically exists.
I’d prefer to think that a natural explanation must exist (however incomprehensible it may be to us) whose necessity is grounded in itself. The supernatural that defies its own explanation - which is magic - is by definition unnecessary but happens nonetheless.
Who knows. Maybe the universe does work that way after all. I can’t prove it one way or another. Neither can you. But an incomprehensible natural explanation that justifies its own necessity is more parsimonious to me. Maybe not for you, but to each his own I guess.
Yes, we currently don’t know either way.
But, quick Note:
incomprehensible = unnatural
In my mind it wreaks of it, a least…
First, if it were natural it would seem to have the potential to be comprehensible. (Though admittedly there may be many things we’ll never figure out or be able to comprehend…)
Second, and more important, a reason it is not more parsimonious (cheap?) to me is that I know of NOTHING which “justifies its own necessity”. Give me an example of this phenomenon within the “natural” world. I am honestly ignorant regarding anything like this. I know of none.
Well, then, the universe is fundamentally based on the supernatural - but this is based on a definition of your own crafting.
To me, the supernatural is a power that preempts the natural - that is, it suspends the laws of nature to make possible ‘magical’ outcomes. Whatever it is that’s at the base of the universe, I don’t think it preempts the laws of nature but serves as the reason for which they exist. As the basis for the laws of nature, it is, by my understanding, natural. It has little to do with comprehensibility.
I don’t see why.
First, it is more parsimonious because it doesn’t require the supposition that something extra to the natural universe is needed. All that nature needs in order to exist is in itself. Instead of two entities (universe + God), you have just one (universe).
Second, I can and can’t give the kind of example you’re asking for. I can’t in the sense that, like I said already, such an example would be beyond the reach of the human intellect. But it’s still better than the idea of something equally incomprehensible that isn’t necessary but happens anyway.
On the other hand, I can give the example of logical necessity. The standard form of your typical syllogism is as follows:
A is the case.
If A then B
Therefore, B is the case.
Everything that makes this necessary is exposed in the above layout. It’s ‘imbedded’ in the logic. Arguably, this isn’t the best example since it’s not one of a natural or physical phenomena, but it is an excellent example of a mental phenomena. It’s an example of thought and how the necessity of its flow is internal to itself. So if thought, or mind, is an example of a natural phenomena (it sure seems to be since we have it), it might pass as the example you’re looking for.
EDIT: I can see that last point I made openning a whole other can of worms, so maybe I should say it stems from my own philosophies of mind and how it relates to nature. Essentially, I believe mind is that fundamental strata of existence that makes everything else, including the laws of nature, possible. I don’t think of it as supernatural though. In any case, it all leads to a whole mess of other philosophical questions, arguments, and objections, so I’d recommend becoming familiar with my views before harping on that one (ask me for links if you’re interested).
Hmmmm… it seems you’re saying:
We have an epistemic problem…
We don’t know!
But from your lack of knowledge… from this admitted epistemic lack you extend:
You guess that something we’ve yet to discover and may never discover is the answer to the logical problem.
You guess that this unknown naturalistic solution will be beyond our ability to grasp.
You suggest that the strength of these guesses alleviate the need to consider something unnatural.
Talk about unfalsifiable!!!
You’ve made quite a bit of conclusions out of nothing. That is, you’ve taken a en epistemic lack and run wild.
Also, tucked in there, you said:
I believe you’re in error here. As a matter of fact, this is quite odd. It almost sound like a dogmatic christian fundamentalist’s answer when you start asking about contradictions in the text. “The problem here isn’t a logical problem with the text… the problem is that you keep asking questions. If you just stop asking… we’d have no logical problems!” That is, “this is not a logical problem but an epistemic one (for we are bound to conjuring explanations that only [require further explanation]).” So your answer is that we should be content with an explanation that has no explanation because “hey! we just don’ know pal… get over it. There’s no logical problem!!! We just don’t have an explanation. Understand???” No. I don’t understand how this in any way proves there isn’t a logical problem. It seems you’re just answering: “I don’t know. But it’s not a problem. Happy?”
I don’t think you get it. I’ll try again:
“Most have difficulty understanding that upon invoking an unnatural solution, that solution is no longer bound by what is natural. It would be foolish to suggest that something defined to be unnatural must be bound by the natural, yet this is what many do… This unboundedness to the natural laws is the reason the proposition of an architect is a successful explanation for the origin of our natural laws. To then discount it due to its unnaturalness is an invalid criticism at the most basic level.”
You don’t seem to understand the possibility we are considering here: “need for explanations”, “can’t be an explanation”, “itself”, “answers”, “questions”, “How is it so?”, “Why does it work that way?”, “What brought it into existence?”, “the universe”, “need”, “extra variable”, “cause”, “equation”, “problem”, “fitting the bill”, “magic”, “depends”, “exists”… All words or ideas which you are using can have come into existence at some point. That is the unnatural possibility we are discussing. To then discount [this possibility] due to its unnaturalness is an invalid criticism at the most basic level. Can’t you see the problem? You keep binding this explanation up with the things that define our current reality and forgetting that the explanation is regarding what “pre-existed” (using our currently realities terminology) our current reality.
And most certainly, it is an explanation by your definition:
How is [the universe] so?"
Our universe exists via an unnatural cause.
“Why does [the universe] work that way?”
Our universe has “cause” built into it. The unnatural cause is needed to get the system started lest we end up with an infinite regress of causes inconsistent with the universe.
“What brought [the universe] into existence?”
The unnatural cause.
Now you don’t have to agree with what I just gave as an explanation. It is likely a slipshod job, off the cuff. You may even think it is the dumbest thing you ever heard… but it answers your questions and is an explanation by your definition. I don’t see how it isn’t an explanation. Please explain. : )
Something beyond the reach of human intellect that nobody currently knows about and which is incomprehensible.
You don’t support this:
Something equally beyond the reach of human intellect that nobody currently knows about and which is incomprehensible.
Why?
2 isn’t necessary.
What?
And, somehow 1 is?
Huh?
I’m confused. Please explain how you come to the conclusion that 1 is “necessary” while 2 isn’t.
Nope. It don’t believe it does. Either I’m confused or you are. Your example assumes A. Your example doesn’t cause A to be. Your example provides no necessity for A to be the case. Your example assumes A is the case and draws a conclusion about B. Recall that I was noting the lack of anything which “justifies its own necessity” within the “natural” world around us. That is, you’re suggesting that an explanation that explains everything including itself is natural, and I’ve asked you to justify your position by showing that this type of explanation you suspect exists is derived from some natural phenomena by showing me an example of something like this in the natural world. I don’t see how your example suffices.
Quick note:
I believe the standard form of your typical syllogism is as follows:
If A then B
If B then C
A is the case.
Therefore, C is the case.
I didn’t say it wasn’t unfalsifiable. I just claim it makes more sense.
Wrong! I’m not denying there’s a problem. I’m not saying that if you stop asking questions, the problem will go away. I’m just saying the problem isn’t a logical one. Since you seem to like bolded text as a means to emphasize, I’ll repeat one of my own assertions in bold: “This is not a logical problem (for every step in the regress works to explain the previous step)…”. A logical problem is one where we find a contradiction. The problem with infinit regress isn’t a logical one. It doesn’t lead one to a contradiction. Rather, the problem is the explanation can never be complete. It’s a problem with striving for knowledge that can’t be attained (or completed).
A thing can’t “pre-exist”. It either exists or it doesn’t. If it exists, it’s part of the world.
And how is this unnatural cause so? Oh yeah, it’s unnatural - it doesn’t need an explanation. Therefore, it can’t be explained. Therefore, it can’t be an explanation for anything else.
And why does this unnatural first-cause work that way? Oh yeah, it’s unnatural…
And what brought this unnatural cause into existence… well, you get the picture.
I understand what you’re saying about unnatural causes needing no explanation, and I’m not against things needing no further explanation - that’s what my natural explanation that is self-justifying and self-necessitating is - but the key difference between this and your unnatural cause that needs no explanation is that the unnatural (from what I understand) defies necessity and self-justification - that is, it happens by magic. Something that is natural and suffices for its own self-justification and self-necessity is thereby also an explanation, the ultimate one, for its self-justifying and self-necessitating puts a stop to the infinit regress of questioning. If we could understand this self-necessity, we would say “Ah! That’s how it is. There is nothing left for me to question.” If we could understand an unnatural cause that exists by magic (i.e. not necessary but happens anyway) we’d be left wondering “I see how it works, but I fail to see why it is necessarily so. I don’t understand what makes it so. But I guess I don’t get to understand - it’s magic - it just happens.” Therefore, I don’t take unnatural cause that come into being by magic as true explanations.
I wasn’t. It’s your definition. You said incomprehensible=unnatural. If we both agree that the universe, at its most fundamental level, is incomprehensible, then QED.
Now you’re taking me out of context.
It should be:
Something beyond the reach of human intellect that nobody currently knows about and which is incomprehensible but necessary
and:
Something equally beyond the reach of human intellect that nobody currently knows about and which is incomprehensible but not necessary
I’m saying 1 makes more sense to me.
It’s like saying “everything can be explained” vs. “not everything can be expained - some things happen by magic”. The first statement just seems more… “holistic”.
I’m not saying A is necessary. I’m saying B is necessary given that A is the case and if A then B.
And I noted this shortcoming.
I don’t think you understand my example. I did say it was an example of a mental phenomena, which many believe to be natural. But I admit this probably isn’t enough for you, and that’s partly my fault because, as I said, it stems from my own theory of the relation between mind and the universe, and you’d really have to understand my theory first before seeing how it works.
In any case, maybe I’ll approach this from a different angle. I don’t think any evidence of a natural foundation for the universe that justifies itself is needed. Considering the fact that no evidence exists for an unnatural, or supernatural, one either, I think this whole argument boils down to what’s more reasonable to believe. As I said above, I feel it’s more reasonable to assume a natural and internally necessary reason for the universe’s existence over an unnatural or supernatural one.
Anyhow…
I’m a bit busy…
And there are too many details to patch with so little time…
I believe your responses are limited and somewhat silly. However… you’d likely say/think likewise 'bout me… or at least think I’m simply wrong.
Anyhow…
I’m bowing out lest I hear something else thought provoking.
With love… ~ Philalethia
(Thanx for the thoughts)
The natural “laws” don’t “exist”… they are mental tools for predicting the behavior of the universe.
so premis B becomes a statement about not knowing WHY things behave in this way and not another way… well… I’d like to know if it’s even possible for those same things to behave in another way first… before i demand an explination of any kind as to why NOT.
