From: D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:43:58 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


>
>WOW! I certainly provoked a response. It would be repititious for me to
>reply to each person individually, so I'll just post one response. I'll
>mention the main objections which people have raised and why I think they
>are in error. Sorry if I miss out your favourite objection!
>
>THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN: There were two major objections to the argument
>from design. The first was that many universes which I claimed were possible
>were not actually possible, and that in fact the universe as it exists
>may be the only possible one or one of a few possibilities all of which
>are law-governed. The second was that many or all possible
>universes have or do exist and hence the probability of this particular
>one is not too low - draw the cards often enough, and you're bound to get
>all ace of spades, so to speak. Both of these arguments, I believe, fail to hold
>water. I'll explain why here:
>
[First Argument Deleted, I prefer the second as an objection.]
>
>MULTIPLE UNIVERSES: There were a number of varients on this same theme.
>One varient was that the dice had been rolled many times before, so
>to speak, that multiple other universes randomly selected from the set
>of possible universes do exist or have existed. The more radical variant,
>known in philosophy as *modal realism*, is that all possible universes
>actually exist.
>	If these views are correct, they do indeed provide a satisfactory
>explanation for the fact that we have such a remarkable universe. The problem
>with all of these theories is that there *is no evidence whatsoever* for any
>universe other than our own. These other universes are being introduced not
>to explain any evidence, but to save the theory in question i.e. athiesm.
>This constitutes the ultimate violation of Occam's Razor: do not postulate
>entities unnecessarily. Faced with having to postulate a huge or infinite
>number of other universes or having to postulate God, a very good
>case can be made that God is by far the better solution all round, including
>that it is far simpler and postulates just one entity for which I would
>claim there is some other evidence (this is not critical to the argument)
>rather than a huge/infinite number of entities for which there is not a
>skeric of independent evidence.
>	In conclusion, I think the fact that most athiest's had to resort to
>this argument as evidence of the unsatisfactory nature of athiesm.

It in fact postulates an infinite number of versions, variations on a theme of
something that we know does and can exist.  The same does not apply to 'god'
Surely possibilty of two versions of something known for which there is no
evidence is less unreasonable than arbitrary invention of an ill-defined concept.

>THE `FIRST CAUSE' ARGUMENT: 
[Stuff Deleted]

>	No good reason was given, either, as to why thiesm was not a simple
>hypothesis (I think, the most simple appart from that nothing exists). I
>will deal with supposed contradictions in thiesm in a minute. I might point
>out that I am not postulating a God with the Christian characteristics or
>those of any other religion; merely an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent
>perfectly good sentient being. Any other hypothesis is more complicated
>and more arbitrary.

What are the minimum requirements of a 'god' that could while being 'uncaused'
itself, cause the universe to exist.

Omnipotence? Not required within the universe for its creation.
Omnipresence? Not required to create the universe.
'perfectly good'? Not required.  If 

The First Cause argument would be better expressed as

Either the Universe is not subject to causality as reguards its own existance, or
did something else outside of the Universe, itself immune from causality cause the
universe?

Both require something immune from the rules of causality.  The possibility of
a closed universe would provide a mechanism for this, a continual bang-crunch-
bang-crunch.  That requires no postulations outside of what we know for the
cycling through of an infinite number of variations on this universe.  This fits
with present knowledge, and requires no theorising of things outside our sphere
of knowledge.


THE COHERENCE OF THIESM: 
[Deleted out of disinterest]

>CONCLUSION: In conclusion, I would like to say that, contrary to people's
>expectations, I am not a Christian nor an adherent to any other religion.
>I therefore am not responsible for any incoherencies/silliness on said
>religions part. I do happen to believe in God, though not one who
>intervenes in the course of nature. I believe there are good rational grounds
>for doing so. Thanks to everyone who sent responses - I think these matters
>are fun to argue about, as long as you don't take them too seriously.

You therefore believe in a Omnipresent, Onmipotent, Omniscient God that never
uses said abilities.  This God is then, as far as I can ascertain from your
post, of absolutely no relevance to your existance apart from your own belief in
it, and the resulting logical discussions that are just a fun parlor game.
The judgement that this rather meaningless God exists, which after the few fuzzy
points above, is pretty much just an opinion, seems such a little distance from
agnosticism 'I believe that a God exists, but has no relevance to my life.' as
compared to 'I do not know wether a God exists'.
They are fairly different conceptualy, but are in effect the same.

(If I am wrong in what I infer I'm sorry.. I stand ready to be corrected.)

>I HUMBLY APOLOGISE FOR THE LENGTH OF THIS POST!!!
>
>Cheers everyone,
>Albert.

Surely that 'Humbly' is redundant? :-)

Dave.


Nb.- Witty Quote goes here.

	D.Butcher@ncl.ac.uk