Uberkuh has made an interesting argument concerning Deism and its logical grounding. I responded in his comments section, and wanted to paste the response below. It should be noted first and foremost that I have no particular grievance with a deistic concept of our universe a priori. There are metaphysical considerations, such as the TAG, to consider, and, to the contrariwise, the contingent metaphysical subjectivity of the universe, given deism were true. If someone can make a logically-sound argument that requires I accept an impersonal, unknown deity as a conclusion to the argument, I would give it serious consideration. I do not think deism is stupid, per se. Everything that follows is pasted from the comment, with some links added:
Qualifier: When we make a positive claim, we are expected to have some sort of evidence/knowledge to substantiate and justify the claim.
Do you agree with that qualifier, or not?
It seems that in the case of a Deistic god, given your last few sentences, you may be saying that:
i) information establishes a god
ii) the nature of the big bang/origin of our universe establishes a god
There are atheists out there (I think especially of Francois Tremblay) who would likely tear into these with vigor, dropping epithets like "jackass" and "moron" along the way, to show you that you are wrong. I will not. For one thing, I do think that these two things are interesting (esp ii), but I don't think they work because of how I set up the "qualifier".
I think that both (i) and (ii) are more arguments from ignorance than positive claims, with the possible exception of (i):
When we refer to 13.7 B years, we are actually discussing measurements made on the CMB radiation, recent ones, that basically give us the span of events between the universe's initial expansion and heat and now. That does not mean, however, that there were no events before this, not exactly.
It is only if one assumes that:
iii) space/time/matter all came into existence with the BB
that this holds. I think that assumption is poor for the reason of conservation. The singularity is like peering into complete ignorance, and so trying to claim (iii) is very very difficult [even though I am aware that many scientists do]. All we know is that the universe as it is now came from a very small and very hot state 14 Bya. Certainly, time did not exist in the same way that it does now, and it is likely that matter and energy were not as they are now. However, this does not imply that we can conclude that the expansion was the first event involving the singularity, or (iii). The cyclic universe is gaining academic respect.
Our current universe may not undergo contraction, since it appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. This does not imply, though, that the singularity was not a sort of "equilibrium" state beyond which we cannot peer, which was the result of an infinite number of cycles and fluxes (net E = 0), that gave rise to this particular universe with its particular fundamental constants.
In short, I would say that (i) is more interesting than (ii) for these reasons -- we cannot establish (iii). Also, this is a sort of defeater for (i), if you consider that the flux between matter and energy has been eternally established. Constant change between states of order and disorder, the latter correlated to "free energy/heat" and the former correlated to "cold matter" seems to be the basis for (i). Being able to differentiate between these states is possible for us, and we know that the 2LoT gives us pause for thought -- but, if the universe is infinite in size, and if the net effect of gravity/attraction of matter will cancel out and equal the net effect of expansion of matter/heat, then we can see that the highly disordered state of the universe as it exists now can continue to collapse into a highly ordered state (leading to another singularity?).
Conclusion: It seems we have very little solid ground upon which to say that we have a knowledge claim, or evidence, that requires (i) or (ii) to be true. Reasonable explanations exist which undercut our confidence in (i) and (ii), and both are almost exactly arguments from ignorance. The ignorance is, "Why are things as they are? What was the earliest state of our universe like? Is our univese infinite in scope wrt time and size?" No one really knows these things.
While I have no personal aversion to the idea of some sort of god, and thus no real motivator to try to destroy any possibility thereof, it just seems the hypothesis is without evidence. As such, I will maintain the same position of skepticism towards god that I hold towards supersymmetry and loop quantum gravity and etc. -- I will wait until we know a little something more, and then re-evaluate my position of unbelief. I have no persuasive grounds upon which to accept claims of the truth of these propositions, nor upon which to prove them false. I can only show that a position of skepticism, witholding belief, is rational and reasonable.
________________
Technorati tags: God
Do you agree with that qualifier, or not?
It seems that in the case of a Deistic god, given your last few sentences, you may be saying that:
i) information establishes a god
ii) the nature of the big bang/origin of our universe establishes a god
There are atheists out there (I think especially of Francois Tremblay) who would likely tear into these with vigor, dropping epithets like "jackass" and "moron" along the way, to show you that you are wrong. I will not. For one thing, I do think that these two things are interesting (esp ii), but I don't think they work because of how I set up the "qualifier".
I think that both (i) and (ii) are more arguments from ignorance than positive claims, with the possible exception of (i):
Moreover and to be precise, given that space and time are interdependent, neither space nor time would exist in any form without some level of difference both within and between them. Something cannot come from nothing. That is, difference cannot arise from sameness. Difference must come from something different.Now, I would only say that the premises here are not supported, but merely stated, yet I think I can still follow your argument. Let us consider something preliminary -- the age of the universe and time. [I should also point out that "something cannot come from nothing" applies to a god as well]
When we refer to 13.7 B years, we are actually discussing measurements made on the CMB radiation, recent ones, that basically give us the span of events between the universe's initial expansion and heat and now. That does not mean, however, that there were no events before this, not exactly.
It is only if one assumes that:
iii) space/time/matter all came into existence with the BB
that this holds. I think that assumption is poor for the reason of conservation. The singularity is like peering into complete ignorance, and so trying to claim (iii) is very very difficult [even though I am aware that many scientists do]. All we know is that the universe as it is now came from a very small and very hot state 14 Bya. Certainly, time did not exist in the same way that it does now, and it is likely that matter and energy were not as they are now. However, this does not imply that we can conclude that the expansion was the first event involving the singularity, or (iii). The cyclic universe is gaining academic respect.
Our current universe may not undergo contraction, since it appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. This does not imply, though, that the singularity was not a sort of "equilibrium" state beyond which we cannot peer, which was the result of an infinite number of cycles and fluxes (net E = 0), that gave rise to this particular universe with its particular fundamental constants.
In short, I would say that (i) is more interesting than (ii) for these reasons -- we cannot establish (iii). Also, this is a sort of defeater for (i), if you consider that the flux between matter and energy has been eternally established. Constant change between states of order and disorder, the latter correlated to "free energy/heat" and the former correlated to "cold matter" seems to be the basis for (i). Being able to differentiate between these states is possible for us, and we know that the 2LoT gives us pause for thought -- but, if the universe is infinite in size, and if the net effect of gravity/attraction of matter will cancel out and equal the net effect of expansion of matter/heat, then we can see that the highly disordered state of the universe as it exists now can continue to collapse into a highly ordered state (leading to another singularity?).
Conclusion: It seems we have very little solid ground upon which to say that we have a knowledge claim, or evidence, that requires (i) or (ii) to be true. Reasonable explanations exist which undercut our confidence in (i) and (ii), and both are almost exactly arguments from ignorance. The ignorance is, "Why are things as they are? What was the earliest state of our universe like? Is our univese infinite in scope wrt time and size?" No one really knows these things.
While I have no personal aversion to the idea of some sort of god, and thus no real motivator to try to destroy any possibility thereof, it just seems the hypothesis is without evidence. As such, I will maintain the same position of skepticism towards god that I hold towards supersymmetry and loop quantum gravity and etc. -- I will wait until we know a little something more, and then re-evaluate my position of unbelief. I have no persuasive grounds upon which to accept claims of the truth of these propositions, nor upon which to prove them false. I can only show that a position of skepticism, witholding belief, is rational and reasonable.
________________
Technorati tags: God
