The Unity of God in the Physico-Theological Argument

I have two unresolved questions.
First, if you acknowledge that his thoughts are complex and that he is at least as complex as the complex things he created, why doesn't he have a component? Just because regression sounds strange to us doesn't give us permission to stop it wherever we want.
Second, how do you know that the law of every complex thing having a component existed before the big bang? How does it make sense that all the laws that lead to the theistic God are always true regardless of the laws of nature in this world? Sounds suspicious to me, very suspicious actually.

Ohad,
Infinite regression not only sounds strange to us, it is a fallacy (and many thought experiments and mathematical proofs)
The law that says that every complex has a component, is a priori, a fundamental concept in logic, and what is derived from it is an analytic truth. It does not depend on our universe, (it is not learned from observation, see daily talk on the principle of causality) That is, you can say “Maybe there is a universe in which there is no causality” but that is a meaningless sentence (a sentence gains meaning when it negates its opposite and a sentence said about an illogical framework is meaningless. A full explanation is a bit long and short)

If it is a failure, please explain why. If we have reached a failure like regression, it is much more rational to assume that we made a calculation error than to escape the regression with an illogical step that says there was a first cause without a cause. This contradicts the principle of causality that you claim is always true and not justified just because the second option is a logical fallacy.
Regarding Hume, I read his words and he unequivocally says that the principle of causality is derived from our experience and previous experiences that we have seen. There is also agreement that if we lived in a world where balls just fly around like that for no known reason and natural laws were violated for moments and then maybe also repeated for no reason, we would not assume causality. Obviously, the principle of causality is not derived from observation, you cannot observe a ’cause’. There is no such thing as a physical one. Just like probability is derived from ’observation’ Because I don't imagine anything tangible when I think of it. We simply see that nature works according to probability and causality and therefore assume that they are true, true in nature as we know it! Hume was skeptical of causality in the sense that he suspected that it was not true even in our universe, certainly not that it was ‘always true’ or some logical law.

Infinite regression fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_infinite_descent

I would be happy if you could offer another solution – point out the mistake along the way – It is of course possible that the physico-theological argument is wrong somewhere along the way, but because of this doubt, I will not rule out the argument. Dayan has nothing but what his eyes see and that is how everyone behaves.

It seems that you stopped in the middle of a daily conversation, he criticizes exactly what you say in his name (this is the induction fallacy). The form of his arguments is structured so that he first presents the concept that he wants to criticize and apparently that is where you got confused.
PS Your words about the inability to derive causality from observation are very puzzling, it is like saying that gravity cannot be derived from observation (it is of course possible to argue this, but not for the reasons you give)

What you shared is about a fallacy in a certain situation in mathematics, I am honestly not sure that it tells us that there is a logical fallacy in an infinite regression of causes. In any case, I agree that it is irrational to accept such a regression. In my opinion, what is truly rational would be to simply acknowledge that the argument falls apart. There is a series of arguments called the ‘homunculus fallacy’ that always lead to infinite regression, and Wikipedia explains: “Homunculus arguments are always fallacious unless some way can be found to “stop” the regression”. Of course, assuming an initial homunculus without a cause is not a way, otherwise there would have been no regression in the first place and there would have been no question at all (the homunculus we know is simply without a cause).

I will not offer another solution, nor is one needed to refute the argument. It is enough that to justify it we have to do something unsubstantiated (like assuming that there was once a cause for which there is no cause) in order to understand that something in the argument is wrong.
What I am striving for, personally, is that the principle of causality is really not true in every possible reality. I also have scientific evidence for this (I can point to something in quantum mechanics that is unsubstantiated) but we will not get into that. I should first understand why in the first place you think the principle of causality is always true if it is true in this universe.

I do not think I missed something in the daily talk, I am copying for you from English:
Hume was an Empiricist, meaning he believed “causes and effects are discoverable not by reason, but by experience”. He goes on to say that, even with the perspective of the past, humanity cannot dictate future events because thoughts of the past are limited, compared to the possibilities for the future.
That's exactly what I understood from him, he was skeptical of the principle of causality in this reality. And you assume based on his words that this principle is always true?

By the way, I would be happy to refer to the “agreement on a world where balls fly”; I would be happy to see who is talking there and about what. Because I just can’t imagine a world without causality. In such a world, even if the laws of nature decided for some reason (by chance, regardless of causality) to proceed as they should, we wouldn’t assume causality, nothing could cause it. I can’t even imagine the first seconds of a baby in such a world, and this powerful intuition is enough for me to assume causality as an a priori factor.

Luckily, what you think is true doesn't indicate anything about reality, otherwise causality would definitely always be true.
The part with the flying balls is just my example, I was referring to one of the comments on the post Michael Avraham's concluding remarks on the debate with Aviv. Someone wrote that if all sorts of things happened without a reason, then he would seriously consider not believing in causality, and Michael responded, "I agree with the gist of what you said (that if causality were hidden from observation, I might throw it away. Or I would complain that I didn't find the reason)."

Sorry for using intuition, how dare I. Being skeptical is always possible, I'm not trying to reach certainty, but rather probability – something that feels right to me to live by, and even if it's not scientific or whatnot, that's how everyone! behaves.
Regarding the concept “God” I have an initial assumption that it would be outside my knowledge and my causality, and therefore I accept the regression stop even more easily. It helps me define it.
I think that the above summary of Hume (what you copied in English) is simplistic and it is not even the fault of the summarizer, because these are very complicated issues (after all, we all, including Hume of course, behave as if causality will continue to exist in the future despite the inductive fallacy - and this behavior is illogical, and according to Hume, to the best of my recollection, is motivated by an a priori assumption - which, as mentioned, is not derived from other laws of logic). In the first place, I take from Hume only the negation of causality as a result of logic and observation (the problem of induction) not his overall skeptical empiricist view. He did not claim that causality - specifically - does not exist, but, as I understand it, that nothing exists, everything is our induction from experience.

For some reason my comment isn't showing up. I hope yours is.

I have no problem, your response appears.
In general, I didn't mean that you shouldn't use intuition or be skeptical, God forbid. Be. Whatever you want, and it's even rational. The point is that not everything that ’seems’to us’ is true. What can we do, reality doesn't work according to our brain. I'll give you an example to close the issue, our logic says that something can't be in several places at the same time, and we really can't think how such a thing is possible. However, it is possible, and there are particles that are simultaneously in different places. Yes, you read that right, the same particles. I read the words of a physicist. In any case, our intuition is right many times but things that are certain or even just probabilistic – I don't agree that can be deduced from it.
Yom didn't claim that causality doesn't exist, but that it can't be proven and known to occur in future cases.. You know, the familiar example with the billiard balls. Therefore, causality comes from our experience and it is not certain that it will always be true in our reality or in any other reality.
In any case, even if it is always true, I do not find justification for stopping the regression that involves a contradiction of the constant truth of the principle. If it sounds reasonable to you, then good for you, as Michi says.. Personally, I believe that if there is a God, it should be even clearer to us, beyond such philosophical arguments.

I don't have time to continue discussing the subject and I certainly won't start explaining about superposition and how it is not a good example and certainly does not contradict logic – most of all our experience with large scales – (You wrote: Our logic says etc’, so no, it doesn't say anything like that. I easily imagine a wonderfully logical universe with superpositions for the most part, I'm sure Hollywood has already commercialized the idea)
Instead, I'll leave you with this:
Despite everything you wrote and your position, you will continue to make decisions and conduct your life according to what seems reasonable and right to you. Even if you are inevitably sometimes wrong, and bringing examples of mistakes does not change anything.
This is what you do and this is what I do, it is our ’best’

PS I must point out that we are discussing a specific philosophical argument. He's definitely not the only reason I believe in God, although I don't know why you think God would have to be more obvious to us in order to exist. I believe (and probably you do too) in things with much weaker arguments in their favor (for example, consciousnesses of others besides me).

You are right about logic versus things that contradict it, my phrasing was incorrect. I meant more about assumptions. Our reason assumes that an object cannot exist simultaneously in several places or in several different states, but in practice this is not true and there is superposition. Similarly, it would be unwise to listen to what you ‘seem’ to you or your intuition about causality, because despite what we know in this universe, it is not necessarily always true in it and certainly not in other universes. Superposition is a good example of this.

We really lead our lives according to what seems reasonable and right to us. In the case of God, it is a controversial issue that what seems right to me is unequivocally to check whether the rational conclusion of the findings is his existence or non-existence. So far I am inclined to atheism, although I would really like them to be gods (the thought of the injustice that may exist in a world without a judging and punishing God horrifies me).

Regarding PS, it is not really possible to live properly when you doubt every little thing like the consciousness of others besides your own. But when it comes to a subject that some claim has very strong evidence for, and some claim that it is fundamentally unfounded, and is so relevant to my life and everyone else's lives in fact, I have to check how credible it is so that I can live by it. Even if it is all an illusion and the consciousness of others does not exist, it is simply irrelevant to me. In any case, I have no way out of this illusion or simulation, so I just let it be and continue to live in the best way for me. In the case of God, it is different, I am still in my teens and want to know if I will believe in him and live by him for the rest of my life. You have to agree with me that this is an important question that I simply cannot let the thought of ‘I think’ determine my belief in.
By the way, in the end, I did not say that God should have been clearer to us in order for him to exist, not at all. After all, there is a possibility that deism is the truth. My point was that if the theistic and intervening God existed, or more specifically the God of Abraham who desires our belief in him, there would have to be, in my opinion, much more evidence to the point that I would not turn to philosophy as the last chance to prove him (unfortunately, God did not stand the test of scientific theory, nor did the Torah as a historically reliable book). Philosophy is truly the most powerful weapon of believers.
I hope you understood me, thank you very much for the discussion.

It's not our reason either, it's experience and superposition is still not a good example. Reason deserves to be listened to much more than experience. But no matter, we've had enough.

I agree with you that this is an important decision and I hope you come to a conclusion that you're happy with. Good night, thanks for the discussion.

Is reason worth listening to much more than experience? I very, very doubt it.. My reason can imagine a world without causality (and of course things like balls flying without a kicker, that's very easy) and yet we believe that my experience of the world, according to which everything I've encountered had a cause, is probably right. Superposition tells me that even though it's not my experience that something exists in multiple places at the same time, it's still true. Therefore, I question my experience and what I think about matters where truth is of crucial importance to me.
Good night, my esteemed.

The beginning of your words repeats concepts that we discussed at the beginning of the discussion.
It is very easy to imagine a ball flying without a kicker, but nothing more than that, I very much doubt that you can imagine a universe without causality. What makes a ball float? One moment it will float and the next it won't, and in the third moment it has to break down into factors. Or do you imagine another metaphysical law that is no different in the essence of causality that holds this universe together.

Reason sometimes tells you that it is better to prefer experience over reason – only in places where reason is limited, where you are not sure you know about all the variables but do know the result from experience. So you work from the end to the beginning, acting according to the known result and trying to learn about the factors through it. If all the factors were clear to you from the beginning, it is clear that reason is preferable, experience is the one that is hidden every day and at all times, and this is the inductive fallacy, things happen all the time for the first time. The sun will disappoint one morning, reason will not disappoint one morning.

Do you really think that cause-effect relationships are similar to the laws of physics (kinetic energy of an object is mass times velocity squared over 2)? Just something local learned from experience?

At least for me, the brain shuts down completely when I can't ask “why” (what else do we have?) And without causality, you don't ask why. In a universe where the brain has shut down, it's impossible to engage in the way I started to explain in the first response (we learn from the law of non-contradiction)

So far I have not intervened, but I will only make a comment on the last discussion. The fact that it is possible to imagine a ball flying without a cause is of course true. But the criterion that if something can be imagined then it is necessarily a posteriori is not true. It only means that there is no logical contradiction here, that is, that the principle of causality is not logically necessary. But no one claims that the principle of causality belongs to logic. The claim is that the principle of causality is not learned from experience but is an a priori principle. Not everything that is a priori is analytic (or logical).

David,
It's really hard to imagine a universe without causality in the sense that people live in the universe and do their daily activities without causality. But that's not necessarily how there is (and probably not like that). Cause-effect relationships are not similar to the laws of physics for me, but that's where I think the highest chance of breaking causality is. I realized that in quantum mechanics there are several things without a cause, personally I only know of one of them (tunneling). And that's where the world began.
At the point where the Big Bang began, the energy was so high that there were laws that we simply don't know how they worked.
I don't think reason will fail one day, again, superposition. I'm not sure how it makes sense to you that something would exist in several places at the same time. Did it replicate itself? Did it run and come back quickly? What happened to it? Yes, you can imagine it, just like you can imagine a volleyball without a kicker.
Unfortunately, the fact that the brain has turned off and that we have no possibility of engaging with such a world has no slight bearing on its existence or non-existence. You believe in any case that there was one point where there was no cause, God, after all, is the first cause without a cause.
In other words, the argument could be about why not simply precede it and assume that the world itself had no cause?
Thanks for the comment, Michi, I didn't say it was a posteriori, but that it really is logical. The point is that logically it is possible for such a universe to exist, even if the example with the sphere is not good, beyond the fact that rationally it doesn't exactly work out.

Does superposition disappoint your intelligence? It took me very little time to get used to the knowledge that superposition exists, explain it however you want, “multiplying itself” or simply existing simultaneously in two places, it in no way disappointed my intelligence. I'm repeating ourselves a bit here.
And by the way, I wrote that I wouldn't explain superposition and I'm really tempted to explain it, so just a small touch on one aspect; your entire building about superposition is supported by its popular interpretation, in practice it is impossible to observe superposition and for any concrete application – it almost doesn't exist (“wave function collapse” “observer effect”) bringing it as an example of an anomaly as simple as that is a bit problematic. I know I'm leaving you with many openings for debate here, but the subject is truly vast.
The fact that it's possible to imagine it doesn't mean much. It's like I can describe paradoxes eloquently. The question is whether it's possible to understand it. I mean, can I ask you a question about it that the answer to which will not be: “That's how”.
I'm happy to inform you that the mind turned off at the beginning of the sentence before you assumed the existence or non-existence of the thing. It's impossible to assume that and not deal with it just as I can't say that there is a reality in which logic doesn't work and I don't deal with it, because even when I assumed such a reality, its existence does not negate its non-existence and therefore I didn't say anything.
And finally: I'd rather assume that the world itself (say, the “singular point”) is the initial cause. On it I build my divine theology (:

You say the singular point is the initial cause and your theology? The physico-theological argument says there is an initial cause and this is not it. That's what it deals with at least.
Anyway, there are 3 possibilities I can think of:
– An infinite regression of causes and we are just one step in them or a ‘side branch’ of one of them. Neither you nor I accept regression so we won't get into that.
– The principle of causality is not always true. We both agree on that, we're just arguing about the specific point. You claim that it's God who breaks the principle, I see no reason to push it that far and simply assume that the Big Bang already had a cause that is not certain.
– Something else that we don't know. There are things in physics that are unknown and may never be known for the rest of the human race. Perhaps a reality in which the principle is partially true and there is only a causal effect but not a decisive one. Or some other type of reasons that we do not know

At the moment I am inclined to believe in the third option, although nothing is certain. It seems to me less problematic than the other two.
It is important to note that if the physico-theological argument is for you a rational way to reach God, I very much agree and I think that Micky won that argument. But in the end it is also rational not to accept the argument.

I have a few comments on points that I disagree with or that I think are inaccurate. But I see that we agree on the majority, so I'll leave it at that.
I of course agree that it is rational not to accept the argument. (Not in the sense of not adopting the conclusions. Not in the sense of claiming that it is unfounded)

No problem. Thanks.
But what's the difference between not adopting the conclusions and claiming it's falsified? In either case, you don't think it proves the theistic God, do you?

There are simple analytical arguments that cannot be honestly avoided, and there are complex arguments full of axioms that, even without deconstructing them, it is difficult to say that their conclusion is binding on those who feel skeptical about them.

And you think the physico-theological argument is one of them (the second kind full of axioms)?
What do you say, keep looking for another argument for God?

Of course, except what of the first type?
But it is not a refutation of the argument and you do not throw it away and look for another. Simply by itself, you would not expect all atheists to wear a kippah because of it.
If he does not convince you to adopt his conclusion, write it down in the table and continue to fill it with additional evidence and arguments here and there, guaranteeing you that you will not reach a certainty, but perhaps a heuristic (and rational) conclusion that you will feel comfortable with.

Great idea.. thanks for the advice.
I think I'll read the first one soon if I can find it at a local library, maybe something will progress from there