Challenging the Physico-Theological+Cosmological Argument
Hello Michi
Before I present the claim, I will say that I will not go into scientific evidence (which probably does not exist) that supports the claim. I assume that there could be such evidence.
There is a claim that the universe has always existed, infinitely long, and is expanding and contracting, so that we are simply one of many species that have existed and will exist in the universe. The claim also says that the physical constants also change at the end of each contraction (and the beginning of each expansion). Of course, the proponents of the claim do not explain how this happens, and so on.
Ostensibly, this claim undermines both arguments: It undermines the cosmological argument by saying that the universe has always been, and therefore there is no point in a creator. It also undermines the physico-theological argument by claiming that there have been and will be infinite sets of laws, and thus there is no need for a designer. I will just point out that this is not the same argument as the one you dealt with in the series on faith, meaning that there are not infinite universes and a generator of universes, but rather there is one universe that each time creates other sets of laws.
Of course, one could ask what creates the different sets of rules. Their answer would be randomness.
What do you think about the claim? How would you respond to it?
What am I supposed to say about that? Maybe. It’s also possible that we’re dreaming the universe. Anything is possible. When there are such alternating universes, there’s no need to explain who creates them all?
It seems that there is no need to explain who creates them all, because as mentioned, there is simply randomness that creates different sets of laws, and these create the world around us and life in it (if created).
What does “randomness creates systems of rules” mean? Is randomness the name of someone or something?
Randomness is, for the purposes of this argument, a lottery between all logically possible sets of rules (infinity), in such a way that it is not caused by anything (an analogy can be made to the spontaneous formation of an electron in quantum theory, only without the formation of a positive charge to balance it, that is, without quantum character. So the rules are created as the electron was created).
If you don't accept the principle of causality (that things must be caused by something) then these arguments are irrelevant to you anyway. So what's the discussion about? Why invent random universes?
I will just point out that I do believe in God, and I am trying to be kind to the argumenters
They can say that they accept the principle of causality, except for quantum states and such states of law creation. In essence, they are arguing that this explanation, of infinite sets of laws that materialize over infinite time within one universe, which are created randomly, is as good an explanation as or even better than the explanation that God created the one set of laws that exists with us.
My question is, is there a counterargument to their argument, or at least a reason why God's explanation is better than theirs?
Why do you need a counterargument? You can also deny the principle of causality altogether, and there are no arguments against that either. It's simply not true. That's all. You can come up with a lot of ad hoc inventions, and there are no arguments against any of them.
I don't think God is an "explanation" for any question. The simple insight of every person who sees something in the world is that it has a reason, and this is in light of the experience that a reason can be found for everything (but that there must necessarily be a primary reason that is outside this system). The explanations of infinite systems and universes, etc., contradict this simple insight, and there is no logical reason to accept them, other than the (in my opinion puzzling) unwillingness to accept the possibility of an unknown reality.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
