Hacker News Reader

To clarify, H and O and H2O are weakly emergent entities out of the artifacts of electrons/protons, similar to the copper in your example. The behavior of electrons and protons/neutrons completely explain the behavior of atoms and molecules.

And when electrons say annihilate by combining with a positron, then the artifact in this case is the say particle physics and energy conservation, whose behavior completely explains electrons and positrons, which then are emergent entities.

The naturalist claim is this happens all the way down to the base rules, which are the core never changing artifacts out of which all properties/behavior is emergent.

So it seems I completely misused the word artifact above. I'll try again.

So my naturalist view is bottom up rather than top down. It is not that H2O exists and I'm trying to explain if the parts explain the whole. I'm saying the only thing that really exists is the First Cause. Everything else is an artifact (say) originating from different arrangements of this base reality.

I think it misleads us to try start with the concept of H2O and ask, is it made of its parts or is it something more. We should instead start with the base rules and see where they end up. In our universe, we end up with electrons and protons and when they combine in different ways, the behaviors of H and O and H2O emerge. And in general, any universe that starts from the physical laws of our universe but say different initial conditions will likely have H and O and H2O in it (there are caveats but the general idea holds).

In short:

Q: Why do lions exist and unicorns don't, even though it could have been otherwise?

A: Because of the physical laws and initial conditions of our universe.

Q: Why these particular physical laws and initial conditions and not something else?

A: Impersonal First Cause

Q: Could there be other universes with unicorns or anti-gravity?

A: Possible but unknown. This multiverse could still be based on an impersonal First Cause.

My takeaway remains the same: A personal God is a logically valid possibility, but not a logical necessity, contrary to what the book claims.

Again, it will be 2-3 more days before I can reply. Thank you!

Yeah for sure. Money and kids, as you had warned :)

Ok, I'm going to try and put your argument in my own words, since I have been so eager to make my own points that I have probably been (inadvertently) attacking a straw-man at times. Please let me know if the following is accurate:

There is no reason to think that the FC is personal. One reason for this is that there is no reason to think that the FC can choose what it causes. The fact that lions exist and unicorns don't may be because the FC is choosing to cause lions and not unicorns, but there is no reason to think this. How could we know whether it could cause unicorns but doesn't, or simply can't cause unicorns? And in a universe where unicorns popped into existence at random points in history, the same would apply -- the FC would be causing such things, but how would we know that it is choosing to do so? Could random unicorns not be 'bursting forth', in the same way that laws-of-science-obeying lions already are?

[I am not clear which of the next two paragraphs reflects your view, since they seem to contradict, and I think you've said things that could imply either:]

Even in the absence of a FC, logical possibilities (concepts) would still exist. Given these concepts, and regardless of the existence of the FC, the entire history of the universe (including whatever caused the Big Bang) would also exist hypothetically, since the interaction of every object with every other object would already be 'mapped out'. The script would be written, so to speak; the source code would be written even if it were never compiled and executed. Even if the universe never came into existence, its full history would already be theoretically written, given logic and concepts. Logic/concepts lead to the entire theoretical history of the universe, just as the axioms of geometry lead to the details of triangles. The FC's role is limited to making this theoretical history an actual history.

[OR]

Even in the absence of a FC, logical possibilities (concepts) would still exist. The FC is one set of rules (or chooses one set of rules), out of infinite logical possibilities, that governs the universe's behavior. Given these concepts, and this set of rules, the entire history of the universe (including whatever caused the Big Bang) would also exist hypothetically, since the interaction of every object with every other object would already be 'mapped out'. Etc etc. The FC, as a ruleset, governs the behaviour of the 'theoretical' universe, AND makes the theoretical univese actual.

It is therefore false to say that the FC in some sense chooses to make the lion exist but not the unicorn. The FC simply brings the ruleset, and the subsequent theoretical history of the universe that necessarily follows from the ruleset, into actuality. OR: The FC is simply a ruleset that governs things' behaviour. IN BOTH CASES: the ruleset determines everything that will happen subsequently, including the existence of the lion & gravity and the non-existence of the unicorn & anti-gravity.

Is this a fair summary of your views, or have I unwittingly misrepresented them?

More to follow on water and hydrogen when I get another spare minute...

Quite well put, thank you.

> And in a universe where unicorns popped into existence at random points in history, the same would apply -- the FC would be causing such things, but how would we know that it is choosing to do so?

So this particular event, if it happened, would actually be in favor of a personal God! For lions, we can trace a history from big bang to earth to life to evolution to lions, everything consistently explained by emergence. Popping into existence would violate conservation laws for example and would make it more likely that a personal God is causing unicorns, not impersonal laws.

The second paragraph seems closer to what I have in mind. But I'm not sure what the contradiction is between the two paragraphs. To me, "the FC's role is limited to making this theoretical history an actual history" seems to be a variation of "FC is one set of rules out of infinite logical possibilities, that governs the universe's behavior." Perhaps you can clarify a bit more?

The bigger picture: my discussion of logical possibilities and FC as rules is mainly in response to "certain concepts (lions, gravity) are willed into existence, and continue to be so willed here and now; and certain other concepts (anti-gravity, unicorns) are not." or "there is nothing about a lion as such that makes it real." as you wrote a while back. And I am positing that instead of saying "God causes their existence from moment to moment", we can say: the axiomatic rules (physical laws + initial conditions) of our universe causes their existence from moment to moment. And everything else was to try show how axiomatic rules can cause the concept of lions without referring to one particular arrangement of particles or something in human minds.

Side note: even if there is a personal God, it seems to still be the case that God chose to create a universe based on a set of rules, because it is consistent with what we observe, right? A personal God can still intervene as He wishes (and presumably did at least once), in the same way that I can arbitrarily intervene at any generation of the Game of Life to change the state without any regard to the rules. But in general, I only need to make sure the computer is running, but otherwise let the rules do their thing. In the same way, we can say God is letting the universe do its thing based on its rules. But of course in this case, He can change the rules anytime, say by bringing unicorns into existence tomorrow even if they are not implied by the rules.

> IN BOTH CASES: the ruleset determines everything that will happen subsequently, including the existence of the lion & gravity and the non-existence of the unicorn & anti-gravity.

Yes. "Why lions and not unicorns" is explained by axiomatic rules of our universe, and "why these axiomatic rules and not something else" is explained by the First Cause.

I think the contradiction is as follows:

In the first paragraph, the ruleset is distinct from the FC; the FC simply actualizes the ruleset. It makes the theoretical history an actual history. In the second paragraph, the ruleset is the FC. (If I could, I would strike out the part "or chooses one set of rules", since it muddies the issue, and makes the second appear more like the first).

So case 1: the FC actualizes the rules, but is distinct from them; in case 2, the FC is identified with the rules. To me that seems a contradiction.

> So this particular event, if it happened, would actually be in favor of a personal God! For lions, we can trace a history from big bang to earth to life to evolution to lions, everything consistently explained by emergence. Popping into existence would violate conservation laws for example and would make it more likely that a personal God is causing unicorns, not impersonal laws.

I don't know that this follows. Suppose the unicorn popped into existence (let's call this event E). There would be nothing to stop you saying that before time T1, the FC was unable to perform E; but at T1, it was able to do so. And you could say the same thing about conservation of energy, the consistency of emergence, etc etc. So the existence of events such as E would not imply a "willing" FC. You could equally well say that events such as E are, nonetheless, acting according to the FC's necessary actions.

Likewise, the fact that things behave in observably regular ways does not, of itself, imply that the FC is bound to act in a certain way. I would be wrong to use this as an argument in favour of the FC's freedom. Like if I were to say "we know God exists because things act in certain ways, and therefore we can see God is constantly willing them to do so", it would obviously be faulty. And similarly, if event E happened, it would be no argument in my favour.

So there is no connection between the regularity of the universe, and necessity on the FC's part.

So your position cannot arise from empirical considerations; and therefore the following statement, insofar as it claims to be empirical, is faulty:

> given the axioms of mathematics, 2+2=4 is true and not even God can change that. In the same way, as a naturalist, I'm saying that given the laws of our universe (whatever they are) and the initial conditions, lions exist and unicorns don't and even God cannot change that. I'll freely agree that the former is from logic and hence necessarily true. But the later is just from empirical observations.

There is a further problem, though. Let's grant your position that

> the axiomatic rules (physical laws + initial conditions) of our universe causes [lions'] existence from moment to moment.

Of all the possible rulesets that could exist, why this one and not another? (Or if multiverses exist, why this ruleset in our universe?) There are infinite (or at least very many) logical possibilities and therefore infinite or very many possible rulesets. Why this one? We agree that there is no logical necessity about the ruleset being what it is. For me, it's easy to say that God willed such a ruleset out of the infinite ones He could have willed. (To will something just is to bring about X instead of Y, where X contradicts Y, but where X and Y are both possibilities prior to the actualisation of one of them.) Since you have no recourse to willing, what is it about the FC that makes it be (or makes it actualise) one set of rules instead another? Why is it X rather than Y?

We agree that logic is prior to the existence of the universe, so any answer implying that logic doesn't apply here will not be accepted :-)

On that subject, do you think logic precedes the FC? I don't think your position allows logic to be 'downstream', so to speak, of the FC, so I think your argument implies this. But I want to hear your thoughts on this before continuing.

I had to write this in a hurry so hopefully I haven't missed something. Again, I haven't forgotten the talk of hydrogen and oxygen, hopefully will have time to return to it at some point :-)

Okay I'll try to lay out my reasoning from base up. I hope you'll find some time to indulge my brain dump and let me know at which point we begin to diverge in our reasoning.

---

We can only be sure of two things with 100% certainty.

G1: "I" exist.

G2: logical truths.

Everything else is contingent, right? We observe certain things with our senses. And we're trying to surmise what it is. How it works. What's causing it. Etc. And any knowledge we gain can never be given 100% certainty, can it? Because our senses are fallible. Can we guarantee we are not living in a simulation, being experimented on by showing Divine events such as a resurrection just to see how we react? Can we guarantee that we are not a brain in vat being fed signals that generate our universe. Can we guarantee there is no unknown unknowns we can't even think of because of our vantage point in reality? I don't think we can. And until we can eliminate these logically valid causes, we can only talk about how likely one possibility is over another. We can try to do the best we can, but we have to be humble. But as long as we are dependent on our own senses, no other knowledge we gain can ever go up to 100% certainty apart from G1 and G2. I hope there is not much to disagree about here?

(For the purpose of our discussion, let's eliminate the other possibilities and assume that the world we see is "real" with say 99.99% certainty. Thus G1 implies "I" and world we see.)

Using G1 and G2, we can come to a conclusion with 100% certainty that:

C1: An eternal First Cause exists.

---

What piqued my interest in this conversation was the book's claim that a personal God can be shown with 100% certainty, just from logic. If true, that'd be amazing. We'd settle the question of God once and for all. I won't be able to deny logical truths.

But I don't think the book succeeds. It shows FC for sure. But it does not succeed in showing that FC has free will. My claim is that there are still (at least) two possibilities for FC: FC is a personal God or FC is a set of impersonal rules. Both these possibilities can explain everything we see in the world. And our quest is to try figure out which one reflects the True nature of FC.

---

> Of all the possible rulesets that could exist, why this one and not another?

If you notice, G1 is also an observation. By which I mean that it could have been the case that I didn't exist, right? Which means even FC doesn't have a 100% certain reason to exist. Given G1, FC definitely exists. But:

P1: it is logically possible that nothing (neither I nor FC) existed.

I'd love it if you could show that P1 isn't a valid possibility.

So given P1, we can then ask the question: why does FC exist in the first place, right? From our vantage point, we are asking, what causes/sustains us and the world we see. The answer is FC. But what causes FC? Well:

C2: FC is a brute force fact of reality.

Given G1, FC always has to have existed. We can ask "why FC?", but is has no answer. I think you'd agree to this?

So let's say FC=God. That is, God is real and He caused G1. We can ask the question: why does God exists? And the answer is C2. He just does. I've heard it put this way: that God is His own cause. So the takeaway is that C2 is valid: base reality FC can (and must) exist without any reason attached to it. Makes sense?

Thus, when you ask: "why this one and not another?", my answer is the same: C2. That it is a brute-force fact of reality. We cannot expect a reasonable answer to the question because there isn't any. The difference is what we are applying C2 to. Theism applies it to FC=God. Naturalism applies it to FC=base ruleset.

---

> So case 1: the FC actualizes the rules, but is distinct from them; in case 2, the FC is identified with the rules. To me that seems a contradiction.

Right sorry. The difference to me is which rules we are talking about. One is the rules of our universe. General relativity. Quantum mechanics. Whatever base rules lie underneath them. However, I am thinking in more general terms. As I said in the first paragraph, it is not necessarily the case that there is FC and then our universe, right? It could be the case that our universe is a simulation in supercomputers of another universe. It could be the case that I am a brain in vat being fed signals that match the rules of our universe. More realistically, we could be one out of many universes originating from eternal inflation. And FC would then be some base rules causing base realities, inside which the rules for the universe we actually see embedded in an emergent way.

So more generally, I think of: FC -> emergence1 -> emergence2 -> ... -> our universe -> physics -> ... -> lions.

I don't know if you agree yet, the idea is that the explanations for the world we see comes in layers of what I am calling emergence. Why lions? Because biology. Biology can completely explain lions, except the question: why biology? Then we say because chemistry. Why chemistry? Because physics. Why physics? Because FC. Why FC? Brute force fact. (Note that there could be more layers between physics and FC, as per above.)

The important takeaway I want to convey is that FC can be just an impersonal set of rules out of which everything emerges

---

> So the existence of events such as E would not imply a "willing" FC. You could equally well say that events such as E are, nonetheless, acting according to the FC's necessary actions.

Words are tricky. Especially in discussions like this one. When I said "in favor of", I meant more in a probabilistic manner. E wouldn't imply with 100% certainty that there is a personal God. But it will make Him more likely than it is currently.

Let me put it this way. Take Conway's Game of Life (GoL). We humans created this "GoL universe" that runs on a grid based on a simple set of rules. Say I am running a GoL instance on my computer with an initial generation G0. G0 is a choice. There are infinite number of possibilities for G0 and I chose one of these to start with. But as soon as I fixed G0, the state of G1 to G-infinity is then automatically implied, right? I don't have to then setup G1, G2, etc. I can just let it run according to the rules. But I can intervene at any generation if I want to. At any generation Gi, I can modify the state in a arbitrary manner without regard to the rules and the state of Gi-1.

Now let's posit some observers embedded inside GoL. Say they start observing at generation k, such that 0<k<i. And say they don't know the base rules when they start. What will they see? For generations Gk to Gi-1, they might eventually be able to figure out that the state changes in a highly regular manner and thus surmise what the base rules are. However at Gi, they will see that the rules they thought were true break down.

So then reality for these observers could be 3 possibilities. Reminder that this is an analogy, so focus is on the ideas rather than the details.

P1: FC=I, sdht0. I setup the computer and choose to run GoL instead of say chess, and I chose the state of G0. This explains why the rules broke down at Gi.

P2: FC=rules of GoL + G0 (+ the computer). In this case, I sdht0, don't exist. Base reality started with G0.

P3: FC=rules of GoL + G0 + unrelated changes at Gi not implied by G0. This basically implies a discontinuous function for the rules.

I hope you can see how the analogy maps to our universe. (The random change at Gi is the popping in of unicorns.) So yes, as you said, we can never eliminate P3. But my point is: say we're only choosing between P1 and P2, theism vs naturalism, the fact that unicorns popped into existence would make P1 more likely. Conversely, the fact the universe has never broken its regularity would imply P2 is highly likely, because then God will be an extra things that we would not need to explain what we see. But none of the cases can be asserted with 100% certainty.

---

> Likewise, the fact that things behave in observably regular ways does not, of itself, imply that the FC is bound to act in a certain way.

Again, "bound to act" is a claim of certainty that I'm not making. I'm only saying it makes it highly possible that regular rules is all there is to it.

To briefly summarise what I wrote yesterday:

Let P be "observation shows us that the universe 'unfolds' predictably"

Let Q be "the FC lacks free will"

You are claiming that P implies Q, and !P implies (or at least suggests) !Q.

But I am claiming that there is no connection between P and Q. P may be true, and Q may be true, but there is no necessary connection between the two. P is an empirical observation, but you cannot thereby claim that Q is an empirically-derived statement. And therefore, I think, we have no reason to believe Q.

Hopefully this very short summary clarifies things, and not the opposite :)

Thanks. Yes nice and helpful summary of your earlier comment. I'll respond more later, but briefly myself:

From my earlier comments: "I'm not saying that the First Cause is definitely impersonal. I'm only claiming that given our current observation as of today, impersonal physical laws can explain all of our observations"

To use your format:

W: Observe that world has causes, parts, etc.

FC: Eternal First Cause as a brute-force fact.

M: FC has will.

N: FC does not have will.

Claim0: W -> FC.

Claim1: W -> M.

Claim2: W -> N.

I think we both agree on Claim0.

The proofs in the book (and you) are asserting Claim1. W is true, hence M is true. In other words, FC has to have free will in creating this world.

Me: !Claim2. So no, I'm NOT claiming FC has to have a lack of free will. I agree with you, that doesn't follow.

Me, instead: W -> (M or N). That's all. If you agree with this, then my job here is done. The book claims: "The real debate is not between atheism and theism." My objective is to show this statement is not true. Atheism is very much still on the table.

Thus, given the observations as of today, we cannot assert Claim1, as the book is doing. Why not? Because we have NOT eliminated N, as it also fits the observations. So no, not everyone should turn into a theist. (But we cannot assert Claim2 either.)

> There is no necessary connection between the two.

There is no necessary connection. But there is a possible connection. P from your comment can explain W (all that FC is is the unfolding of rules) and if so, then Q/N will be implied.

Where does that leave us?

Today: Either M or N is true, but we don't know which. Thus, naturalism is as valid a stance as theism. Neither can claim the other is false. We can only talk in terms of how likely it is that M or N is true. As a naturalist, my claim is that N is likely because we can explain the world using rules. We don't need a Divine explanation. Not definitely, but possibly. And that it helps to adopt something like Bayesian reasoning when thinking about matters such as these.

Tomorrow: God does a (second) revelation. M is then shown to be true and N is false.

Tomorrow: Not likely but possible, science figures out how the universe is self-sustaining. N is then shown to be true, and M false.

Thanks. I'll wait for your full reply, but very briefly:

My position is that the existence/non-existence of regular laws, and the personality/impersonality of the FC, have nothing to do with one another. As I stated earlier, event E would be compatible with the FC's personality/impersonality, and so is the universe we currently observe.

I don't believe this is your position (and admit my precis of your views earlier may have been inaccurate). I think your position is that observation of the universe's regularity affects the question of God's personality, hence your insistence that this is an empirical question (which I deny). You said:

> ... as a naturalist, I'm saying that given the laws of our universe (whatever they are) and the initial conditions, lions exist and unicorns don't and even God cannot change that. I'll freely agree that the former is from logic and hence necessarily true. But the later is just from empirical observations.

And further up the thread :

> ...it's all empirical. Yes, tomorrow unicorns could start popping into existence and then we'd have to revise what we think of the universe. But until then (this is crucial, my claims are contingent on observations), apriori natural laws seem to be able to explain everything we see. No personal God needed.

And more recently

> So this particular event [unicorn popping into existence], if it happened, would actually be in favor of a personal God!

and

> As a naturalist, my claim is that N is likely because we can explain the world using rules. We don't need a Divine explanation.

All these quotes indicate that you think that the empirical observation P (in my prev comment) at least suggests Q (which = N). Or alternatively, that you think that the truth of P undermines the need for M.

Again, my position is that P and M vs N have nothing to do with one another.

(P and W are different, and we have been using terminology more like P for the past dozen or so comments, hence I discuss P here rather than W.)

I posted a quite long comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39795173

> the empirical observation P (in my prev comment) at least suggests Q (which = N).

> Again, my position is that P and M vs N have nothing to do with one another.

So the question we start with is, why do you think M is correct? You agree that you and the book are asserting Claim1, i.e, W can only be explained by a personal God (= M) with 100% certainty?

One answer you've mentioned is: only M can explain why concepts such as lions exist and unicorns don't.

My counterpoint then is to bring in P and say: P also explains why concepts exists or doesn't exist. Thus, we don't need M to be true and Claim1 is incorrect.

Since P can entirely explain everything we see, the certainty of M is eliminated, thus leading to the possibility of N (= Q). Hence, M or N.

Nitpick: P is part of W. W is everything we see. Causes. Parts. And regularity.

Actually, can you explain more why you think P is not implying N?

EDIT: I may have been using P incorrectly when I meant FC=rules. See below.

---

P = Our universe is regular to a high degree of accuracy.

P is a provisional truth. It is true and no one can deny it today. If there is a God, no one deny that He chose to create a universe that is regular. But the fact that it is true today doesn't mean it will remain true tomorrow.

Question: what FC is able to cause a universe whose observers see P.

There are probably infinite possibilities, but let's focus on the two interesting ones to us:

A1: FC=base_rules. P is emergent out of base_rules. N is true.

A2: FC=God. He chose to actualize base_rules. P is emergent out of base_rules. M is true.

In both cases, FC is a brute-force Truth.

The book claims that only and only A2 is possible. I'm claiming that A1 is also possible.

If P were not true (unicorns popping in), then it will harder to justify A1, though not impossible as you pointed out. But since P is true as of today, positing A1 is more straightforward.

I'm further claiming that as long as P is true, A2 is in fact unnecessary as it is adding one extra thing when it is not needed to explain P, but we don't need to get into that. I'm content just showing that A2 is not the only logical possibility.

--

I'm not saying we observe regularity and thus FC=rules. In a sense, I'm saying the opposite. In any universe where FC=rules, its observers will definitely observe P. Thus our observation of P makes FC=rules a good possibility. And I think then it's clear that FC=rules is mindless N.

--

The book is making a claim of logical truth: W -> M, that is, if "the observations of our world" then "FC has free will", because only M can explain what we see => N is impossible.

But something is shown to be a logical truth only when all other possibilities are eliminated right?

Is N, i.e, a FC without will, able to explain everything we see? My answer is yes, since we would definitely observe P in a universe where FC=rules. And if my claim that this is a valid possibility is correct, then W -> M is not true.

So a concrete goal for natural theology is to be able to find at least one observation of our world that FC=rules cannot explain, even in principle.

Apart from the foundational examples such as resurrection, I think last frontier in this regard is consciousness, but of course here too I think rules is all there is, even though we have a lot way to go in being able to say how.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this point. You have already raised some good questions: "how can we explain lions but not unicorns" or "why these rules and not others". I think I have good answers to these at least to my satisfaction, if not yours. But would be glad if you can raise more pinpointing issues against FC=rules that will reveal a gap in my understanding.

> Actually, can you explain more why you think P is not implying N?

P does not imply N because there is no logical connection between the two. As stated, P vs !P and M vs N have no bearing on one-another.

Let's grant that N is true. Your assumption is that the regularity we observe is the same as base_rules/impersonal FC. As a concomitant, you're saying that the regularity we observe cannot change with time. But suppose both these assumptions are false. (After all, neither is logically necessary, and neither can be empirical, because we can't observe the future. Nor can either be probable, because probability assumes that the future will be like the past; it can't be used to show it.) Suppose base_rules, in fact, said that a unicorn will pop into existence on 1/1/2025, and pop out the following day. The FC has no free-will in this scenario, but its 'programming' simply declares that regularity will be suspended for the first two days of 2025. Clearly P is false in this scenario. But why would this be incompatible with N? I think it's entirely compatible.

The possibility that base_rules and observed-regularities are distinct seems implied by your statement here:

> ...it is not necessarily the case that there is FC and then our universe, right? It could be the case that our universe is a simulation in supercomputers of another universe...More realistically, we could be one out of many universes originating from eternal inflation. And FC would then be some base rules causing base realities, inside which the rules for the universe we actually see embedded in an emergent way.

Therefore, non-willing, non-free FC is compatible with unicorn events.

As stated above, if P (empirically-observed) and !P (empirically-falsified) are both compatible with N, then N cannot be said to be empirical.

> A2: FC=God. He chose to actualize base_rules. P is emergent out of base_rules. M is true.

This is not the claim. There is no claim that God actualises base_rules; rather, the claim is that all existence of anything and everything, including logic itself, proceeds from God. (Actually, God, in a sense, is logic; the word "logic" derives from "Logos", meaning the Word, meaning the Second Person of the Trinity; but that's really a whole separate discussion.) The base_rules don't exist independently of God (because then there would be some principle independent of God, which would mean He isn't God).

Further, it is change, not regularity, that the book uses as the starting point. Change could exist in an entirely irregular universe, or could exist in the brain-in-a-jar universe (because I would go from thinking-about-being-a-brain-in-a-jar to not doing so). None of the book's arguments use regularity or order as a starting point. Some Protestant arguments use regularity to argue for God's existence, which you may have at the back of your mind. I think these arguments for God's personality fail. (The reason I'm discussing regularity is because you brought it up as an argument against the FC's having will.)

So If I'm correct, we've established that regularity and God's having or lacking free-will are entirely orthogonal. Not probabilistic or logically implying, but simply irrelevant and disconnected.

--

Responding to your other comment here:

> I'd love it if you could show that P1 isn't a valid possibility.

Sure. Logic exists. Where does it come from? I say it proceeds from the FC; it is an expression of the FC's being. (The FC is not the FC if something, namely logic, is independent of it.) Insofar as logic shows us what might be (and what can never be), it is a form of existence, if only potential existence. If there were literally nothing, there would be no logic; but if there's no logic, then there's no argument, and therefore no valid or invalid possibility, and no discussion about anything. A bit simplistic, but that's off the top of my head :-)

> Given G1, FC always has to have existed. We can ask "why FC?", but is has no answer. I think you'd agree to this?

Only insofar as it has no answer outside itself. As you say, we believe that "God is His own cause". But "brute fact" implies "no reason", which is not the same as saying "His own reason". We say "God's essence is His existence"; they are one and the same thing. God is existence (which isn't the same as pantheism, but that's another discussion). Existence doesn't need a reason outside existence for existing; in fact, it is illogical for such a reason to exist.

Given that God is existence, it is impossible for God not to exist, so He is the reason for His own existence. He needs no reason outside Himself for existing. It is illogical for Him not to exist.

This cannot apply to base_ruleset, which logically might have been otherwise (anti-gravity, etc): that is to say, it might not have existed in the way we observe. It therefore needs a reason, outside itself, for being what it is. My reason is in a way very simple: the existing-things we see around us, like gravity and lions, were willed by God, and the logically-coherent-but-not-actually-existing things like unicorns and anti-gravity were not. Or, if you prefer, base_rules were willed by God, and some_other_hypothetical_rules were not: the principle is identical.

My position is logical. The position you propose, on the other hand, is forced to resort to the explicitly-illogical concept of a "brute fact" to explain it. Do you agree that reference to brute facts is illogical? If so, why is it ok to violate logic here, but not elsewhere? "From a contradiction [one contradiction], anything follows." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

(To be clear, I am not making a full case for God's existence here; only showing that my position (of a willing FC) is logical, while I respectfully suggest your position is not. Therefore, your tu quoque against my position -- that I am also arguing for a brute fact -- does not succeed.)

> So a concrete goal for natural theology is to be able to find at least one observation of our world that FC=rules cannot explain, even in principle.

Hopefully I have shown that, while I think observed rules are compatible with both positions, FC=rules is not logical, while FC=Personal God is.

EDIT: I do not think a brute fact actually applies a contradiction. I was getting ahead of myself. Nonetheless, I think that, if you say one thing can happen without a reason (brute facts), you are thereby forced to say anything can happen without a reason, and that therefore you have no reason to think (say) that a chocolate cake can't start doing calculus, or some other bizarre idea.

This obviously isn't the same as a contradiction.

Thank you. I'll be posting my answer soon (tm).

This is a good comment as it explains much more about your perspective than before.

---

Alright. We've to first get into the meaning of the word existence.

From my perspective:

There is a property of reality called existence. And clearly the existence of 2+2=4 is very different from the existence of lions. Thus existence is of two kinds: potential existence and actual (ontological) existence. Concepts of both a universe with gravity and a universe with anti-gravity exist potentially (what I called ghost universes). But only the universe with gravity actually exists, but universe with anti-gravity doesn't.

Is is possible for there to be no potential existence? No, there is always potential existence in the form of all logically valid possibilities, because logic (potential existence) necessarily exists. It is illogical for logic to not exist.

But is it possible there were no actual existence? Yes, because we see some concepts exist and other don't. To paraphrase your words, there is nothing inherent in the concepts of something that can turn them into actual existence. Actual existence could have been otherwise, including there being nothing actualized.

Reality also contains some mechanism by which potentials can become actualized. This mechanism consists of "stating a purely actual axiom/FC" after which the rest of Reality follows. Theists state FC=God who then chooses which of the many potential existence to actualize. Naturalists state FC=base_ruleset out of which the rest of reality emerges.

Hopefully this clarifies my position in a different way.

---

>> I'd love it if you could show that P1 isn't a valid possibility.

> Sure. Logic exists.

Haha okay that's on me, I set the bar too low [0]. But as per above, I was talking about actual existence, not potential. Of course logic exists, but logic needs an axiom to start with. The question then becomes, is there necessarily some purely actualized axiom/FC? I think the answer is no. There could have been no actual existence. No "I", no FC, no God, nothing. Only potential existence, but nothing to actualize any of it.

---

> Hopefully I have shown that, FC=rules is not logical, while FC=Personal God is.

Detailed responses below, but briefly, FC=Personal God still needs to be taken as an axiom, same as FC=rules. You've tried to use existence as the logical basis, but as I show above, on clarifying the definition of the word existence, "it is impossible for God not to exist" fails.

More importantly, the fact that God has free will is still not proven. Maybe God can only create the universe we see, but no unicorns, no anti-gravity. The choices God has might be limited to 1.

---

> rather, the claim is that all existence of anything and everything, including logic itself, proceeds from God. (Actually, God, in a sense, is logic [...])

This is a main point to discuss, because I don't understand what you mean by "God, in a sense, is logic". I get that God is traditionally defined that way, but I am not able envision what it would mean to say that an entity that has "free will" is logic or the basis of logic.

How can God, who is claimed to be purely actual existence, be logic, which is purely potential existence?

Logic works on axioms. Logic by itself doesn't have any say on the axioms. It can say: if axioms, then something. But it cannot itself state the axiom. There is no such "will" in logic to posit axioms. But for each "stated" axiom, the logical truths contingent on that axiom automatically manifest. These truths are absolute and indisputable and not even God can change them.

So to me, logic precedes everything. Even God would be bound by logic, not the other way around. Can you explain why you think otherwise?

---

> God is existence. Existence doesn't need a reason outside existence for existing; in fact, it is illogical for such a reason to exist.

I am not sure which existence you're talking about. Clearly concepts like lions or unicorns need an external reason for existing. You may mean potential existence, for which the statement is true, but then God is not potential but purely actual existence. And the statement doesn't generally apply to actual existence.

> Given that God is existence, it is impossible for God not to exist, so He is the reason for His own existence. He needs no reason outside Himself for existing. It is illogical for Him not to exist. > while FC=Personal God is [logical].

This is a making a logical leap though. First we have to define God appropriately before we can equate God to existence. Because see, the point of contention is that God has a free will or not. So if you say God is existence, then aren't you by definition circularly proving God?

To show how, let replace God with Blob. Then, given that Blob is existence, it is impossible for Blob not to exist, so He is the reason for His own existence. It is illogical for Him not to exist. Therefore Blob has free will. Yes silly, but my point is God or Blob are just words at this point. We'll have to do more work to prove the other properties of God, especially free will.

Similarly, when you say, "[logic] proceeds from the FC; it is an expression of the FC's being. (The FC is not the FC if something, namely logic, is independent of it.)", then it seems to me you're just defining FC to have this property and calling it God who is of course personal. As I mention above, to me logic is separate and supreme to God, as it has a different kind of existence than God.

---

> Do you agree that reference to brute facts is illogical?

You already clarified this statement. But I was thinking about axioms. They are the free variables. There is no logical precedence to axioms. They just are posited as priors, and logical reasoning proceeds from the axioms/brute fact. Thus, it is all part of logic and hence not illogical.

And this "stating of axioms" is what the discussion is about. Why this axiom and not that axiom? Why a personal God and not a base_ruleset or vice versa.

> if you say one thing can happen without a reason (brute facts), you are thereby forced to say anything can happen without a reason, and that therefore you have no reason to think (say) that a chocolate cake can't start doing calculus, or some other bizarre idea.

Well no, because brute facts are also bound by logic. A "chocolate cake" as usually defined, does not have the capability to do calculus, otherwise it is not a chocolate cake, but say a cartoon character in the shape of a chocolate cake. The meaning of the words obviously matter. Unstoppable force and immovable object are "defined" to be impossible at the same time. Thus, bizarre ideas are ruled out by definitions/properties and rules of logic.

In particular, FC=base_ruleset is a brute fact. But base_ruleset has to be consistent with our observations W.

--

> P does not imply N because there is no logical connection between the two

> As stated above, if P (empirically-observed) and !P (empirically-falsified) are both compatible with N, then N cannot be said to be empirical.

> Not probabilistic or logically implying, but simply irrelevant and disconnected.

Perhaps the disagreement is that my approach is from Bayesian reasoning, asking the question: given W, which of A1 or A2 is more likely relative to each other. And seems like you're coming from the perspective of proving M or N with 100% certainty?

> Therefore, non-willing, non-free FC is compatible with unicorn events.

But if you want to talk about certainties, then yes, non-willing FC is definitely compatible with unicorn events, as I also showed with the Game of Life example.

And since N has a non-zero probability, that actually a proof against the 100% certainty of a FC with free will, no? As in okay, let's forget W. Just from logic, everything CAN be explained by "programming" (=N), so how can one logically posit M with 100% guarantee?

---

> There is no claim that God actualises base_rules

> it is change, not regularity, that the book uses as the starting point

Right yes, not explicitly in the book. I'm just extending it from what the books imply. FC has to explain everything we see (W). And I hope you agree that we do observe regularity (as part of W). Everything that we look at follows deep regular rules. In other words, the change we see is regular. It is thus implied in the book, even though it is not explicitly mentioned.

And that is also why we don't need to explain the change of everyday objects like lions. We have to explain the base_ruleset that gives rise to the regularity that explains the changes. Hence, A1 or A2.

[0] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-on-me-i-set-the-bar-too...

Thanks, will get back in couple more days.

This is only a partial respnse, I will try to finish my response asap.

So I wasn't intending anything like a defence of God's existence. As I said:

>> To be clear, I am not making a full case for God's existence here; only showing that my position (of a willing FC) is logical, while I respectfully suggest your position is not. Therefore, your tu quoque against my position -- that I am also arguing for a brute fact -- does not succeed.

So if it's ok, I'm going to limit the discussion to that, rather than attempting a full defence of God=existence in a combox.

My goal was to show that we need some reason for base_ruleset actually existing, and hypothetical_ruleset not actually existing. "God wills it" is one such reason: in fact, it's the only reason we have had so far in this discussion. Your alternative, of asserting that something can happen without a reason, forces you to allow that anything crazy can happen (like a calculus-doing chocolate cake). You haven't refuted this point:

> A "chocolate cake" as usually defined, does not have the capability to do calculus, otherwise it is not a chocolate cake, but say a cartoon character in the shape of a chocolate cake.

I agree. But this is irrelevant. We both know what the words 'chocolate cake' refer to. We both know I'm talking about a real chocolate cake, not a cartoon character. And we both know it can't do math (and we both know why) -- that is, we both know there's a reason it can't do math. But if we say things can happen without a reason, then anything could happen. Bayesian reasoning won't protect you from this outcome, because that itself is a form of reasoning, and probability also assumes that things will continue to behave as they have in the past.

> But I was thinking about axioms. They are the free variables. There is no logical precedence to axioms. They just are posited as priors, and logical reasoning proceeds from the axioms/brute fact. Thus, it is all part of logic and hence not illogical.

Because there needs to be some reason for base_ruleset actually existing. We've already established that it might have been otherwise, because base_ruleset is not true in and of itself in the way 2+2=4 is. base_ruleset could just as easily have been hypothetical_ruleset. It therefore needs a reason outside itself for actually existing (or alternatively, one must explain why one doesn't need a reason, but that doesn't work, as just stated). base_ruleset is not axiomatic.

Do you agree base_ruleset might have been otherwise? Do you agree that you have given no reason for base_ruleset actually existing, and hypothetical_ruleset not actually existing? Finally :), do you agree that my position -- that God willed base_ruleset but not hypothetical_ruleset -- is at least internally consistent and does not fall to the same objections that I think your position falls to?

> Perhaps the disagreement is that my approach is from Bayesian reasoning, asking the question: given W, which of A1 or A2 is more likely relative to each other. And seems like you're coming from the perspective of proving M or N with 100% certainty?

I don't think Bayesian reasoning will help you here. I think I've shown that A1 must fail unless one is prepared to assert that things happen without reason (in which case the 'chocolate cake' argument applies). So questions of probability don't come into it. I don't know if I've proved A2, but so far, it's one of only two options that we have mentioned in this discussion, and the other has been disproved.

Hi thanks, I'll need a couple of more days to get back on this.

> rather than attempting a full defence of God=existence in a combox.

Your argument depends a lot on this claim, but it's fine.

> "God wills it" is one such reason: in fact, it's the only reason we have had so far in this discussion.

> Your alternative, of asserting that something can happen without a reason,

> do you agree that my position -- that God willed base_ruleset but not hypothetical_ruleset -- is at least internally consistent and does not fall to the same objections that I think your position falls to?

This is the key claim of theism that I don't understand. On one hand, you're claiming base_ruleset needs a reason to exist, and on the other hand, you're willing to accept God just existing "as His own cause". No matter words you want to use, you cannot evade the fact that you're positing a very complex being (despite the book describing Him as simple) as an axiom: one who can process and understand multiple possibilities across eons of timesteps and then somehow can actively choose to actualize some possibilities based on some internal criteria.

So you claim, God is existence and thus logically necessary. My question is: what happens if God did not exist? Yes, there would be no existence. "I" wouldn't exist. The universe wouldn't exist. Nothing would exist. There would just be logical possibilities "floating around". Is this not logically valid? My claim is that existence itself not necessary. The fact that something does exists does not invalidate the claim that it could have been otherwise and nothing could have existed. And if that is established, then God also has the same status as base_ruleset, didn't have to exist, but does exist, but we cannot ask why because it's an axiom, a brute fact.

Moreover, note that even God is not free from the "it could have otherwise" argument. For instance, God can either be omnipotent or just have enough power to create our universe. When we walk around New York looking around at the high rise building, we don't think, wow, someone with infinite power must have created these building. No, we only need conscious creatures with intelligence and raw materials much smaller than infinity. Similarly, maybe God only has the power to actualize this particular universe. So then the question is why omnipotent and not limited, or vice versa? Is there any answer better than, that's a brute fact?

--

> Do you agree base_ruleset might have been otherwise? Do you agree that you have given no reason for base_ruleset actually existing, and hypothetical_ruleset not actually existing?

Okay let's address this other keystone of your argument. I've been accepting this for simplicity but I don't actually agree this is established. Here's why:

Let's take the example of a universe with unicorns and without. Yes these are 2 possibilities, but I hope you agree that they cannot be true at the same time. A universe can either have unicorns or not. The same object can either be here or there. And so on. We as conscious creatures will necessarily experience only one of these infinite possibilities from our individual vantage points. So let's say the 2 universes exist, the humans in one universe will see unicorns and think, it could have been the case that unicorns didn't exist, and the humans in the other universe think the opposite. But they won't know if the other universe also actually exists or not.

By which I mean to point out that we can only experience our own universe. But can we really claim the other universes don't exist? We don't have access to all of reality. There could exist another universe with unicorns. There could exist another universe where I'm typing this from a cafe instead of at my desk. And the same for every possibility.

Yes, base_ruleset might have been otherwise. But we don't know the ontological status of these other possibilities. If it is a key argument for a personal God, then I'm happy to posit that all possibilities exist. Just not at the same time and not at the same place, as that is illogical. We live in one universe and that is what we experience. That doesn't rule out these other possibilities.

So if it could have been otherwise, maybe it did, just not in our local vicinity. We don't need to reason why just this one possibility. Instead, all possibilities exist. To me this is more reasonable that positing a willing thinking being who just exists as His own cause.

Note that is not a multiverse from physics' perspective. I'm saying whatever "otherwise" you can think of, it just exists. In the same way what we experience exists. The "God" I'm positing doesn't have to choose. He actualized all potentials.

--

> probability also assumes that things will continue to behave as they have in the past.

Aside: this is not exactly correct in Bayesian reasoning. It has priors that get stronger and stronger as more data comes in, but that never turns into certainty. If the next new data falsifies everything before, then Bayesian reasoning demands from us that we throw away everything and start again.

And that's pretty much the only way for us humans to reason about our sensory reality. Just as an example, you must have a high degree of belief in Christianity, but if tomorrow the Hindu god Shiva reveals Himself, then you'd have no option other than to discard your earlier beliefs (and vice versa).

> base_ruleset is not true in and of itself in the way 2+2=4 is.

Also, my claim is these are exactly the same. 2+2=4 is only true because of the axioms of number theory. Maybe geometry is more illustrative where different axioms give rise to euclidean or hyberbolic geometry, etc. base_ruleset is similarly an axiom of reality.

My usual example of the rules of Conway's Game of Life applies. The rules don't have any reason to exist, but once posited, the board generations naturally follow.

> A1 must fail unless one is prepared to assert that things happen without reason (in which case the 'chocolate cake' argument applies)

To be explicit here, things happening without a reason (positing an axiom) is in no way the same as things being illogical. Axioms are part of logic.

I'm sorry, I don't have time to do this at this point. I enjoyed our conversation and you made me think through my positions, which is always good. I genuinely wish you well :)

Thank you sticking to it for so long! It was a refreshing perspective on natural theology. And I will have to think about "can there be a reason for base_ruleset" quite some more.

Wishing you all the best as well :)