|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Introducing me. There are no gods or supernatural!
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
doesn't invalidate it, no. But the argument only works if one accepts the central premise. Plenty of people do not accept the central premise that the root of all things must be some kind of being that is an uncaused Cause.
Why not? Makes sense. It's a rational explanation.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
This is a fact that I can assert as a reasonable deduction from the premise that the unicorn is a device which Hugh concocted for the specific purpose of illustrating something in which everyone would agree it is absurd to believe.
No not everyone agrees it is absurd. Who should care what you think is absurd and why do you get to define the terms of what examples are appropriate for comparison?
FFS, Mr C, the only reason Hugh introduced the damned unicorn with all its arbitrary and idiotic characteristics was that he wanted to refer to something so obviously silly no one would believe in it. His argument is a clear attempt at a reductio ad absurdam: that the existence of the silly unicorn can be asserted without evidence, but that Christians cannot refute the idea of the unicorn's existence (as it is assumed that they would want to do, could they be bothered) without employing arguments that work equally well against the existence of their God. And therefore, that accepting God implies a willingness to accept the absurd.
If the existence of the unicorn were an open question, or was in fact seriously entertained, Hugh would be making a completely different point - one about the difficulty of distinguishing between contradictory, but not inherently implausible, faith claims. But that isn't the point he was making - he's saying that arguments which I (as a Christian) must admit to be valid in order to dismiss the obviously foolish also demolish God. That point depends on me accepting the comparator as obviously foolish. If I could say with a straight face "well, maybe there is a unicorn" then the point he's making would have fallen at the first hurdle.
It's not quite as weak an argument as you are making it. It actually falls at the second hurdle, when it is discovered just how easy it is to assert reasons for believing in God that do not support belief in the unicorn. Those reasons do not have to amount to proofs. They do not even need to be acknowledged to be sufficient or sensible reasons. The only thing necesary for the argument to fail is for me to produce something capable of being addressed on its merits, some discussion point, which can be urged in favour of God but not the unicorn. As soon as I do that, I've distinguished my faith from something which (Hugh rightly expects me to acknowledge) is a ludicrous conjecture. And at that point the unicorn has become utterly irrelevant to the reasons I have advanced as to why I actually believe in God.
If you want to argue that there are actually people who believe in Hugh's unicorn, so how do I answer them? My answer is, no, there are no such people. If there were such people, then I would say that they have yet to produce any reason for me to share their belief. If they do manage to produce such reasons (such as writing down some apparently authentic unpublished Shakespeare sonnets that the unicorn is alleged to recite) then those reasons should be addressed on their merits. But the argument "this is silly, therefore God is silly" is silly.
[ 01. April 2015, 11:48: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But the argument "this is silly, therefore God is silly" is silly.
Considerably less silly than 'no, unless you compare my religion with another one of my choice, you're not making a valid point.'
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But the argument "this is silly, therefore God is silly" is silly.
Considerably less silly than 'no, unless you compare my religion with another one of my choice, you're not making a valid point.'
No, considerably more silly.
An argument in the form "Why believe X and not Y when the reasons for believing X and Y are similar?" is quite plainly only valid when the reasons for believing X really are similar to the reasons for believing Y.
Where X is Christianity, and Y is Islam, the argument has force - the reasons are similar. Where X is Christianity and Y is Hugh's unicorn it has no force at all - the reasons are not similar.
I have no idea why you find this so difficult a concept to grasp. It seems obvious to me that even if you don't believe in Christianity you really ought to accept that at least some Christians have thought about it a little bit, and have reasons for believing that appear to them better than the arbitrary acceptance of unsupported claims.
[ 01. April 2015, 12:24: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
]No, considerably more silly.
An argument in the form "Why believe X and not Y when the reasons for believing X and Y are similar?" is quite plainly only valid when the reasons for believing X really are similar to the reasons for believing Y.
Where X is Christianity, and Y is Islam, the argument has force - the reasons are similar. Where X is Christianity and Y is Hugh's unicorn it has no force at all - the reasons are not similar.
So you say and keep saying. Others disagree. Some, in fact, think that there is no objective difference between believing in the claims of Christianity and an imaginary beast. Both are exactly that: imaginary.
The only difference is that, maybe, you've had a long time to create all kinds of complicated structures and theological systems about your belief. But in and of itself, there is nothing more sensible about believing in God than believing in the unicorn. You just don't like the idea of believing in the unicorn.
quote:
I have no idea why you find this so difficult a concept to grasp. It seems obvious to me that even if you don't believe in Christianity you really ought to accept that at least some Christians have thought about it a little bit, and have reasons for believing that appear to them better than the arbitrary acceptance of unsupported claims.
Lots of people throughout history have thought long and hard about all kinds of stupid things. Some of them had great brains and were capable of great insights but still believed some utter drivel.
I don't have to accept anything. Nothing forces me to accept that your belief is more valid because you and a bunch of other people have thought long and hard about it - if I actually believe that belief in a imaginary being is stupid, in and of itself.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There does not need to be any entity if matter iself is eternal. Or if you really want to use this language, 'this' thing you've identified might be the universe itself rather than any kind of being.
Matter comes into being (as a whole or in the sense of changing its characteristics) all the time, and is very contingent (could be in other shapes, forms, makeup, ...). How does one build a whole that does not come into being, and is not contingent, out of building blocks that pretty much epitomise such changes?
You also seem to think that "eternal" is a magic word that you can just attribute to something to free it of the need of causal explanation. But not so, and furthermore "eternal" does not mean "endless time". Time implies change, and endless time implies endless changes, but eternity implies the absence of change. And the root cause needs to be unchanging, because any change requires a cause. If you look at your supposed solution, a universe that cycles in and out of "big bang" singularities, then you can clearly see the difference. You may propose this universe cycle to be endless, in the sense that it has been going on forever, and that it will be going on forever. But clearly this is not an unchanging entity, even considered as a whole. And no, it is not enough to point to the temporal chain of causation, which brings me to the next point.
The causal "depth" explanations we are finding with modern science divide up, they do not integrate. You look at a chunk of matter, and then analyse it in terms of molecules, atoms, protons, quarks, ... Nothing in modern science points to an upward integration towards larger and larger entities. You are trying to pull a stunt here where on the smallest microscopic level you somehow say that the behaviour of this quark-gluon ensemble (or whatever may be the smallest entity) is determined by the "entire universe". But sorry, that's just new age bullshit, you might as well go and hug some trees then. There's just nothing in your worldview that allows that kind of leap. Now, I'm not saying that it is wrong to look at "integrating up" and for example say that a human being cannot be described in terms of its constituent matter and that rather its constituent matter must at least in part be described as human. But that sort of argumentation is not friendly to materialism at all and leads to quite different proofs of God. So I'm pretty sure that you don't want to go there. And that means that you are stuck with proposing some magical hippy mystery that saves your reductionist scientistic ass.
The reason why my worldview does not allow pretending that somehow the universe is a necessary being that never changes is that nothing in this world suggests that it is appropriate to attribute that sort of thing to it. In fact, my career as scientist pretty much relies on finding changes in the world and then looking for their causes. Or to look for contingent arrangements in the world, and then look for their causes. You know what this here is?
Everything that comes into existence and/or is contingent has a cause.
It is pretty much the motto of modern science! It is exactly what natural scientists do, search for change and contingency in nature and explain it causally. And now you come and tell us that no, nature is unchanging and necessary, at the whole universe level, by hippy magic. I say bollocks to that, and so with the entire weight of modern natural science behind it. There is no indication that nature is anything like that, and it is not reasonable to propose some pan-natural level that has entirely different properties to its constituent parts.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But the argument only works if one accepts the central premise. Plenty of people do not accept the central premise that the root of all things must be some kind of being that is an uncaused Cause.
It's not at all the central premise. It's the logical conclusion of the argument.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Matter comes into being (as a whole or in the sense of changing its characteristics) all the time, and is very contingent (could be in other shapes, forms, makeup, ...). How does one build a whole that does not come into being, and is not contingent, out of building blocks that pretty much epitomise such changes?
Who knows. Ignorance is not evidence that it did not happen.
quote:
You also seem to think that "eternal" is a magic word that you can just attribute to something to free it of the need of causal explanation. But not so, and furthermore "eternal" does not mean "endless time". Time implies change, and endless time implies endless changes, but eternity implies the absence of change. And the root cause needs to be unchanging, because any change requires a cause. If you look at your supposed solution, a universe that cycles in and out of "big bang" singularities, then you can clearly see the difference. You may propose this universe cycle to be endless, in the sense that it has been going on forever, and that it will be going on forever. But clearly this is not an unchanging entity, even considered as a whole.
I didn't say it was unchanging. And I don't accept your definition of the word eternal.
quote:
And no, it is not enough to point to the temporal chain of causation, which brings me to the next point.
The causal "depth" explanations we are finding with modern science divide up, they do not integrate. You look at a chunk of matter, and then analyse it in terms of molecules, atoms, protons, quarks, ... Nothing in modern science points to an upward integration towards larger and larger entities. You are trying to pull a stunt here where on the smallest microscopic level you somehow say that the behaviour of this quark-gluon ensemble (or whatever may be the smallest entity) is determined by the "entire universe". But sorry, that's just new age bullshit, you might as well go and hug some trees then. There's just nothing in your worldview that allows that kind of leap. Now, I'm not saying that it is wrong to look at "integrating up" and for example say that a human being cannot be described in terms of its constituent matter and that rather its constituent matter must at least in part be described as human. But that sort of argumentation is not friendly to materialism at all and leads to quite different proofs of God. So I'm pretty sure that you don't want to go there. And that means that you are stuck with proposing some magical hippy mystery that saves your reductionist scientistic ass.
Ah I see, we just get around to name calling. Funny that.
quote:
The reason why my worldview does not allow pretending that somehow the universe is a necessary being that never changes is that nothing in this world suggests that it is appropriate to attribute that sort of thing to it. In fact, my career as scientist pretty much relies on finding changes in the world and then looking for their causes. Or to look for contingent arrangements in the world, and then look for their causes. You know what this here is?
Yes, and within the space we exist, experimental science works. But we are not here talking about experimental science but philosophy because we can only experience the universe we are currently in. You are making all kinds of extrapolations and conjectures based on things of which there is no way to tell how representative they are of everything.
quote:
Everything that comes into existence and/or is contingent has a cause.
It is pretty much the motto of modern science! It is exactly what natural scientists do, search for change and contingency in nature and explain it causally. And now you come and tell us that no, nature is unchanging and necessary, at the whole universe level, by hippy magic. I say bollocks to that, and so with the entire weight of modern natural science behind it. There is no indication that nature is anything like that, and it is not reasonable to propose some pan-natural level that has entirely different properties to its constituent parts.
Lovely. And bollocks to you and your crazy God delusion.
quote:
It's not at all the central premise. It's the logical conclusion of the argument.
Bullshit. You just can't see that the argument you've made only works within the crazy structure you've yourself invested in.
What-ever.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Who knows. Ignorance is not evidence that it did not happen.
The moon was made out of cheese. How can that be? Who knows. Ignorance is not evidence that it did not happen.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I didn't say it was unchanging. And I don't accept your definition of the word eternal.
It is not relevant in the slightest what you like to call stuff. What is relevant is that the cosmological argument points to an unchanging entity as a root cause, because a changing entity would (partially) come into being and anyhow would be contingent (since it would change from one state to another, and hence can have multiple states). Your universe cycle - or whatever - is not unchanging, hence it is not the root cause argued for by the cosmological argument.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ah I see, we just get around to name calling. Funny that.
I did not call you any names. I trashed your claims. Both may hurt, but the latter is allowed around here.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bullshit. You just can't see that the argument you've made only works within the crazy structure you've yourself invested in. What-ever.
I'm sure you will get around sometime soon to showing that the ingredients of my argument are "crazy". How? Who knows. Ignorance is not evidence that it will not happen.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Everyone please keep off the personal attacks or take it to Hell. You have all been round here long enough to know this.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But in and of itself, there is nothing more sensible about believing in God than believing in the unicorn. You just don't like the idea of believing in the unicorn.
So you say and keep saying. Others disagree. See what I did there? Two can play at this game. You are making bare assertions, including the bare assertion that (say) IngoB's argument is a bare assertion (which is absurd on the face and below the skin too).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So you say and keep saying. Others disagree. See what I did there? Two can play at this game. You are making bare assertions, including the bare assertion that (say) IngoB's argument is a bare assertion (which is absurd on the face and below the skin too).
Really. So explain how it is absurd, then.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
]I did not call you any names. I trashed your claims. Both may hurt, but the latter is allowed around here.
Sorry pal, but you did:
quote:
And that means that you are stuck with proposing some magical hippy mystery that saves your reductionist scientistic ass.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The moon was made out of cheese. How can that be? Who knows. Ignorance is not evidence that it did not happen.
In case you had forgotten, we are talking about things that happened before the Big Bang and before time. The composition of the moon has nothing to do with it.
quote:
It is not relevant in the slightest what you like to call stuff. What is relevant is that the cosmological argument points to an unchanging entity as a root cause, because a changing entity would (partially) come into being and anyhow would be contingent (since it would change from one state to another, and hence can have multiple states). Your universe cycle - or whatever - is not unchanging, hence it is not the root cause argued for by the cosmological argument.
That's utter nonsense. You've decided that the "cosmological argument points to an unchanging entity as a root cause" but that is no reason why it should. Many things in nature are in constant flux. Funny that.
quote:
I did not call you any names. I trashed your claims. Both may hurt, but the latter is allowed around here.
Nope, you've just repeated the same stupid argument over and over again as if repetition makes it truer that a cosmic being which created the universe is more logical than one which always existed. It isn't.
quote:
I'm sure you will get around sometime soon to showing that the ingredients of my argument are "crazy". How? Who knows. Ignorance is not evidence that it will not happen.
Nobody can show you anything, IngoB, that hasn't already originated in your head.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So you say and keep saying. Others disagree. See what I did there? Two can play at this game. You are making bare assertions, including the bare assertion that (say) IngoB's argument is a bare assertion (which is absurd on the face and below the skin too).
Really. So explain how it is absurd, then.
It consists of lots of interlocking parts, some of which are inferences from earlier parts. Therefore it is not bare assertion. It is absurd to call such an edifice of reason "bare assertion" even if you disagree with the premises, or think some of the steps in the reasoning are mistaken. You're welcome.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It consists of lots of interlocking parts, some of which are inferences from earlier parts. Therefore it is not bare assertion. It is absurd to call such an edifice of reason "bare assertion" even if you disagree with the premises, or think some of the steps in the reasoning are mistaken. You're welcome.
As far as I can tell, only time the term 'bare assertion' is used in this thread is in your post.
I have used the word assertion to describe IngoB's belief in a deity rather than an eternal pre-existing universe, because nothing he has supplied is actual proof. And nor could it be, give that we are living in this universe rather than any other and cannot tell by observation what happened in any other universe.
The assertion is that God is a better explanation of the universe than a pre-existing universe (in some way) that had no beginning.
Clearly IngoB a) believes this to be the case b) has an argument which is internally consistent and c) believes his logic is applicable outside of the bounds of his argument.
I disagree and argue that his argument only works if the universe and time is linear and that everything always has to have an originator.
I say that this is unknown, and therefore a pre-existing universe is as good an explanation - in the absence of any other information - than the idea of a creator God. There is nothing implicitly and inarguably more logical about a creator God than an eternal universe.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sorry pal, but you did:
quote:
And that means that you are stuck with proposing some magical hippy mystery that saves your reductionist scientistic ass.
To clarify, that doesn't say that you are an ass (whether with two cheeks or four legs). To save someone's ass is a popular idiom for getting someone out of a difficult situation. If you feel that calling you a reductionist or a scientismist amounts to name calling, then maybe you are right. Though I think these are more a compressed critique of an overall point of view. For example, if you would call me a (young earth) creationist, then maybe I would find that as offensive as calling me an asshole. But the difference is that it is relatively easy for me to show that I am not a yeccie. Whereas the question whether I am an asshole is more one of subjective opinion, and I would not expect to change it much simply by arguing against it.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In case you had forgotten, we are talking about things that happened before the Big Bang and before time. The composition of the moon has nothing to do with it.
I think you are rather missing my point there, which was about your use of rhetoric, not about the moon...
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's utter nonsense. You've decided that the "cosmological argument points to an unchanging entity as a root cause" but that is no reason why it should. Many things in nature are in constant flux. Funny that.
That nature is in constant flux is not denied by anybody, indeed, that is a crucial reason to reject it as root cause. And I have not arbitrarily decided that the root cause has to be unchanging. The root cause has to be uncaused. That's what makes it be the root. Every change requires a cause. Hence the root cause cannot change, for that would impose a cause on it - but the root cause must remain uncaused.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nope, you've just repeated the same stupid argument over and over again as if repetition makes it truer that a cosmic being which created the universe is more logical than one which always existed. It isn't.
An endless universe offers no better stopping point for causal inquiry than a finite one. An uncaused Cause does halt causal inquiry successfully. Whether you find that stopping point satisfactory, or whether you think it fair to call it "God", are worthwhile points of discussion.
But the problem with an endless universe is basically that we know what universes are like, and that it is sensible to ask for example why the universe is this way and not in another way (contingency). The uncaused Cause has the advantage that we do not know what it is like. Hence we can derive various necessary characteristics, like being unchanging, and attribute them freely to this unknown entity.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But the problem with an endless universe is basically that we know what universes are like, and that it is sensible to ask for example why the universe is this way and not in another way (contingency). The uncaused Cause has the advantage that we do not know what it is like. Hence we can derive various necessary characteristics, like being unchanging, and attribute them freely to this unknown entity.
Again, I believe this is just a semantic repetition of your position.
You believe that a creator God was the originator of all things. OK, lovely.
I might believe that the universe is somehow cyclical and therefore had no beginning or cause. In my view, your not liking the explanation has no bearing on the truth.
I don't much care whether you think it is "new-agey" or whether you think it saves my scientifical ass or whatever.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have used the word assertion to describe IngoB's belief in a deity rather than an eternal pre-existing universe, because nothing he has supplied is actual proof.
Then you don't know what "assertion" means. Just because a proof is a bad proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "Assertion" means you're just asserting something, not trying to prove it. Even if your proof sucks, your conclusion isn't "assertion."
ETA:
And while you're at it could you please explain to me the difference between "assertion" and "bare assertion"? Because if assertion isn't bare, it's no longer assertion.
[ 01. April 2015, 15:52: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
I might believe that the universe is somehow cyclical and therefore had no beginning or cause. In my view, your not liking the explanation has no bearing on the truth.
I wonder if you could clarify that for me, please? I'm not sure why something which is "somehow cyclical" would therefore have no beginning or cause. Many things are considered cyclical, but I have never understood that to mean that they perforce must be without beginning or cause. Could you offer some examples of events or phenomena, the cyclic nature of which demonstrates that they are without beginning or cause?
Thanking you in anticipation,
TRM
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You believe that a creator God was the originator of all things. OK, lovely.
Indeed, I do. And believing this may have motivated me to study and propose the cosmological argument. But that argument is as such in no way or form dependent on this belief. Consequently, you cannot wave it aside as merely some kind of restatement of my belief. It simply isn't that. Whatever my beliefs or motivations may be, the cosmological argument is a significant and coherent metaphysical argument, a philosophical analysis based on observations of nature. It is understandable apart from religious faith, and requires no religious faith for its workings.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I might believe that the universe is somehow cyclical and therefore had no beginning or cause. In my view, your not liking the explanation has no bearing on the truth.
I may not like your view, but once more that does not matter. Such dislike may have motivated me to argue against your view, but I did argue against it (or more precisely, I didn't argue against a cyclical universe, but against the conclusions you draw from that). Nowhere did I say anything like "I don't like it, therefore it is wrong." That is simply not true.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Riiight, so Hugh is only able to compare one thing he thinks is absurd with something you've defined as an actual religion rather than something else he thinks is absurd.
He's able to put forward any dubious comparison he likes. And we're able to say why we think it's a dubious comparison that doesn't support any point he's trying to make.
quote:
And the best part is you think you are making a serious objective point. Classic.
Who gave you special dibs to decide whether Eliab's argument is a serious objective point?
Also, I haven't seen you reply to my question from earlier today, about your assertion that a simple internet search would find people who seriously believe in three inch high purple unicorns in orange jumpsuits sitting on Eliab's shoulder. Sorry if I missed it in among the rest of the thread.
[ 01. April 2015, 18:12: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Interesting view on all this in Johnathan Black's Spiritual History of the World - he says that unicorns (amongst other so-called mythical beast, Gods, etc) exist, but as a whole humankind has become less able to perceive them - because although they are real, they are not made of matter. But some people can still perceive these as part o ftheir normal waking experience. This is not a metaphysical problem if one starts from Mind/Spirit as being primary and matter a secondary sub-manifestation. There is no incontrovertible material evidence or proof of this, because, as Godel pointed out, a self-consistent set of theorems cvannot describe all truths within that framework - i.e. if you're inside the box, you can't see it all or describe it and there are inevitably regions behavinbg aparently inconsistently relative to others. If the position is taken that Spirit/Mind is primarym, then the proof is self-evident in the behaviour of the world, because as interpretation changes, perception also changes. The bottom line is - you are either prepared to believe in a non-material (in which case you are more likely to observe phenomena that confirm that) or you don't (in which case a hundred dancing angels could prick you with pins but you would only think this was a problem to be taken to the doctor. A willingness to allow things to be as they are and inexplicable - is a good start, and also happens to be a good mindset for conducting science. A mindset that the world HAS to be a certain (restricted) way as an a priori "because the other stuff is ompossible" is NOT a good mindset for scientific investigation and not a particularly useful one for seeing the spiritual world either - it's vastly complex.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@IngoB
quote:
Take something like Hawking radiation. It is not really a tested theory, perhaps it is not even a testable theory. Still, it is a celebrated result because it "makes sense".
Hawking radiation is a prediction. In 2010 it was claimed that an analogue was observed in a laboratory, but the results are debatable. The Fermi Space Telescope will look for it and CERN may be able to find it from micro black holes if large extra dimension theories are correct. I am not aware of anyone (who is actually involved or well informed, that is) claiming it's a done deal just because it makes sense.
quote:
Second, modern science has a full-on speculative branch, which grants itself freedom to the most fantastic flights of fancy in the absence of any constraining data. There are superstrings and multiverses, we are all just in a branch of myriad quantum worlds and if you heap feedback loop of feedback loop then somehow mind will rise from brain...
Well, duh, hypotheses don't create themselves and theory creation is the vanguard of science. And?
quote:
I could go on, but I really just wanted to point out that a lot of talk about the "success of science" is rather naive. Science is not an iron clad empirical fortress of absolute truth. It's a bunch of smart people figuring out nature best they can, and rather enjoying the guesswork along the way.
I don't know who you are talking to here, but I've never thought of science as a fortress of empirical truth. All scientific knowledge is provisional and merely the best explanation we have at any given point in time. Which is another reason to be wary of over extrapolation.
quote:
It is making conclusions that must necessarily hold true because they are based on principles underlying all data.
So at what point did they say, "You know what guys, all the data we are ever going to need is in, whatever we will find in the future is just going to confirm what we already know, the principles underlying all data are now totally understood and this part of metaphysics need never be discussed again other than to repeat it to all those dumbasses who just won't accept it." More importantly, who got to decide? And why did all the philosophy departments in all the universities in all the world somehow miss the memo? Oh, hold on, I know the answer to that one - they didn’t, they are all just stupid and wrong except for Ed Feser, and philosophy took a massive wrong turn in the 17th century or thereabouts and hasn’t recovered except for Saint Ed who single handedly flies the flag for Scholastic truth in these endarkened times.
quote:
What a strange argument, perhaps we could call it "atheism of the gaps".
It is not an argument for atheism at all, since all the Cosmological Arguments, even if one of them is true, say jack shit about theism. The first cause could be a deist god, Allah, or any one of an infinite number of deities we care to think up, including an evil god who wants to torment people not only for all eternity after they die but while they’re alive as well, and the Christian one that does the same thing but inexplicably gets worshipped for it.
quote:
First, this is fairly ignorant as far as the physics and cosmology goes. We are assuming that there could be "dark content" out there... ...alternative would be to assume that our physical laws are simply wrong, but we don't do that...
I'm sorry, there's nothing there that contradicts what I said. Dark matter and energy are predictions we might expect if the standard model is correct. The first thing to do is to see if the predictions are correct. If not, well, to repeat, we actually know less about the 4% than we think we do, i.e. the standard model is wrong.
quote:
Do you expect that this dark matter could somehow demonstrate that contingent entities do not need a cause? How would that even work? Metaphysics is very unlikely to be affected by whatever may explain the observed discrepancies.
I don't know how it would work. Maybe there is some property in the 96% that might provoke a Kuhnian revolution, or more likely a gradual shift that requires a major update of the map that philosophers will get to chew over. If someone’s metaphysics were to be unaffected by that, then that metaphysics would be just dumb.
quote:
If however you think about the fundamentals of all observations, then the particular content of one observation means very little.
One observation? Who said anything about one observation? If dark energy and matter are real but difficult to observe, that doesn’t mean that there only is going to one observation to make if we finally figure it out, there could be many. If we are talking about 96% of the universe there may be more observations in the offing than we have made so far of the other 4%.
quote:
Whatever contingency may be found to apply to dark matter, eventually, it will require some cause. We can say this because in a way it is not really a statement about dark matter as such, but rather about what contingency and cause mean. Metaphysics is one removed from the hustle and bustle of physics, it is about the general principles behind that busyness.
And here’s the rub, if metaphysics is about the general principles behind the busyness, and when the actual data becomes irrelevant, then it is all about the map in our heads. You can apparently be able to – in your words above – “…extract useful information from observing natural reality, abstractly analyse "universals" from such concrete data, and then successfully extrapolate these "universals" by logic to deduce the existence of previously unknown and otherwise not readily accessible entities” without actually observing the data, or only observing part of it and then blithely deduce away without knowing anything about the rest. And you can do that because all you are really doing is probing the limits of your mental map. The arguments depend on the words we use and how we define them, and are constrained by our cognitive preference for causal order and completeness. In the absence of independent means of verification, the sole criteria of the “success” of your extrapolation are in terms of your particular map. Of course, another word for this is worldview.
My argument, such as it is, is just an argument about being honest about what we know, what we don’t know and, to echo the chump Rumsfeld who has only ever said one interesting thing in his life, what we don’t yet know that we don’t know. This is not about only dark stuff, it’s about all the gaps in our knowledge.
FFS, even what we know from the standard model can’t be reconciled with relativity yet; one of the best supported areas of science, quantum mechanics, has, I dunno , 10 or 11 possible interpretations, any one of which could be true, as could none of them. And you are saying we have a good enough handle on the general principles behind physics to extrapolate to a first cause and call it proof? That renders the word proof even more meaningless than it already is outside of maths.
quote:
And as far as they got that right (and I think they were doing pretty well), then whatever they said back then about maps is still true about maps today.
Well, I don’t know if there is a first law of cartography, but I would be surprised if it didn’t say something like “Systematic observation and measurement offer the only route to cartographic truth. “ Actually, I cheated, that’s from Wikipedia – “The rules of Western Cartography since the seventeenth century.” I didn’t realise the analogy would be quite so apt, right down to the Enlightenment barging in. But anyway, no matter how good someone’s meta-mapmaking skills are, it’s pretty clear that you can’t make an actual map of the Himalayas by studying a map of the Sahara.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Maybe there is some property in the 96% that might provoke a Kuhnian revolution, or more likely a gradual shift that requires a major update of the map that philosophers will get to chew over. If someone’s metaphysics were to be unaffected by that, then that metaphysics would be just dumb.
I notice you say confidently that it's 96% that we don't know about. You don't think it's 196%. But the dark matter could show that 196% +4% add to 100%, that there is a largest prime number, and that sorting a list of integers cannot be done in a polynomial time algorithm, couldn't it? If someone's mathematics were to be unaffected by a major update of the map, then that mathematics would be just dumb.
Well, no. Those last two sentences are silly. But if they're untrue of mathematics, there's no reason why your last sentence should be true of metaphysics.
quote:
And here’s the rub, if metaphysics is about the general principles behind the busyness, and when the actual data becomes irrelevant, then it is all about the map in our heads. You can apparently be able to – in your words above – “…extract useful information from observing natural reality, abstractly analyse "universals" from such concrete data, and then successfully extrapolate these "universals" by logic to deduce the existence of previously unknown and otherwise not readily accessible entities” without actually observing the data, or only observing part of it and then blithely deduce away without knowing anything about the rest. And you can do that because all you are really doing is probing the limits of your mental map.
That bit where you quote IngoB is actually a pretty good description of mathematics. Mathematics is exactly a process of abstracting universals from concrete data and then blithely deducing away without knowing anything about the rest. And the physical sciences are dependent upon mathematics. So if IngoB's method for metaphysics is invalid, so are all the physical sciences.
quote:
Well, I don’t know if there is a first law of cartography, but I would be surprised if it didn’t say something like “Systematic observation and measurement offer the only route to cartographic truth. “ Actually, I cheated, that’s from Wikipedia – “The rules of Western Cartography since the seventeenth century.” I didn’t realise the analogy would be quite so apt, right down to the Enlightenment barging in. But anyway, no matter how good someone’s meta-mapmaking skills are, it’s pretty clear that you can’t make an actual map of the Himalayas by studying a map of the Sahara.
I'm going to guess you've never made an actual map of the Himalayas. And yet, even though you've never made the observation, and although you've only studied a miniscule amount of the relevant data you've blithely abstracted from it to the general principle that you can't make an actual map of area A by studying a map of area B.
Somehow I doubt you think that anything we discover about dark matter would change that.
As an aside, it seems to me that the writer of the wikipedia article hasn't considered topology. I don't believe any of the features of the London Underground map are based on systematic measurement, yet that doesn't mean it's not an example of cartographic truth.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Which atheists, which materialists, empiricists, rationalists accept the cosmological argument?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
...there's no reason why your last sentence should be true of metaphysics.
If the metaphysics is of the kind IngoB is talking about - the underlying principles of all data gathering, extracting useful information from observing natural reality, and abstractly analysing "universals" from such concrete data (I'm ignoring for the time being that it is a perfectly respectable metaphysical position to deny universals), while at the same time maintaining that new data is irrelevant, whatever it might be, then that metaphysics is dumb. That is why I said, "someone's metaphysics" rather than metaphysics as a whole.
And maths and metaphysics are different in that in maths you lay all your cards on the table at the outset. You define your terms and there is no rhetoric or hand waving to get in the way.
quote:
I'm going to guess you've never made an actual map of the Himalayas. And yet, even though you've never made the observation, and although you've only studied a miniscule amount of the relevant data you've blithely abstracted from it to the general principle that you can't make an actual map of area A by studying a map of area B.
Yeah, it's a working hypothesis that I suppose wouldn't be beyond my ken to test, if ever I needed to. And yes, dark matter would probably be irrelevant. But who knows, I dare say map makers at the beginning of the twentieth century thought that all the stuff about relativity would have no impact at all on map making, and who could blame them? Now the interactive maps on our sat navs and our phones and computers would be useless if modern map makers didn't take time dilation into account.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
...there's no reason why your last sentence should be true of metaphysics.
...
And maths and metaphysics are different in that in maths you lay all your cards on the table at the outset. You define your terms and there is no rhetoric or hand waving to get in the way.
...
Well, not quite as true as it appears to be. For instance, in mathematics there is an implicit assumption of uniformity from zero, through the infinitesimal to the ginormous to infinity, and from there to beyond - to an infinity of infinities. That space and the objects in it exist uniformly in all domains of size has been clearly demonstrated to be false - there are groupings, clusters, at some point the infintesimal is a fundamental unit (something like an integer) and regardless of how big it is, space appears not to be infinite because of the event horizon of light after the big bang. If I were analytically modelling process in a finite space-time, I would have to apply Greens functions - to account for some local boundary. Skating over the details, the application of mathematics to the real world requires a degree of arm waving. This arm waving is set out in the initial boundary conditions, but very few people look at the boundary conditions and ask - what does that mean? Because they are simple statements - they can appear to be reasonable. They are not reasonable in any sense other than "I need to obtain a number, and I don't think the subtle variation is of any interest or relevant to my current objective". Already we have a statement in the core of the mathematical formulation that appears reasonable but is absolutely unprovable. In a sense the maths blinds us to the subtle interactions that could be taking place because we see the gross result and automatically, implicitly assume that the gross result means we have the essence of what is happening.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
...there's no reason why your last sentence should be true of metaphysics.
If the metaphysics is of the kind IngoB is talking about - the underlying principles of all data gathering, extracting useful information from observing natural reality, and abstractly analysing "universals" from such concrete data (I'm ignoring for the time being that it is a perfectly respectable metaphysical position to deny universals), while at the same time maintaining that new data is irrelevant, whatever it might be, then that metaphysics is dumb.
Does that really follow? The cosmological argument, being as Evensong observes a rational one, can be examined and criticised, even falsified, by rational analysis.
Here is a brief summary, including some of the counter-arguments.
I don't think the argument has been falsified, or reduced to absurdity by subsequent discoveries about natural world phenomena. As IngoB puts it, the world of scientific discovery is by its nature heavily into direct and contingent causes of findings in the natural world. It is not dumb to say that there may be rational arguments based on considerations outside that framework.
I suppose you might argue that such arguments "butter no parsnips" but that's a matter of opinion, not relative dumbness.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Hawking radiation is a prediction. In 2010 it was claimed that an analogue was observed in a laboratory, but the results are debatable. The Fermi Space Telescope will look for it and CERN may be able to find it from micro black holes if large extra dimension theories are correct. I am not aware of anyone (who is actually involved or well informed, that is) claiming it's a done deal just because it makes sense.
Nobody has said that it was a "done deal", and you have simply missed my point. Even if we never get any direct experimental or observational confirmation of Hawking radiation, many physicists will consider it to exist, based on how it makes "sense" in its relation to other pieces of physics (and experimental data pertaining to those). It is simply not true that science only operates with "empirically confirmed" entities.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Well, duh, hypotheses don't create themselves and theory creation is the vanguard of science. And?
And some of the speculations that physicists allow themselves have no chance to be confirmed by experiment or observation, at least none that anybody can see at the moment. Their value to physicists here and now is mostly to prove conceptual "thinkability" in terms of known physical fact. And that's frankly not particularly different from metaphysics, indeed, one could argue that some of it simply is metaphysics posing as physics, even if the speculating physicists do not realise that...
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
All scientific knowledge is provisional and merely the best explanation we have at any given point in time.
Yeah, "merely the best" is what turns science into a juggernaut in your mind, which can trample over any other kind of explanation that people might come up with. But science is not limited simply by its own progress (being "provisional"). It is limited by its very methodology. It is also limited by general human ability. As a human enterprise it is practically speaking limited by human behaviour, culture, history and society. But in particular it is limited by its very methodology. The scientific method is a very powerful tool, like a hammer. But not everything in the universe is a nail...
I think a key problem here is a false dichotomy: either only science is true, or absolutely everything can claim to be. Thus once modern science is rejected as the be all and end all of explaining the world, the crystal pyramid peddler can speak with the same authority as the nuclear physicists, and the floodgates to irrationality have been opened. But that's just plain nonsense. My arguments here have been thoroughly rational and evidence based. Of course, you can say that my logic was faulty and my data flawed. You would be wrong, but that's not the point. The point is that I simply have not been operating in a mode here that is alien to modern natural science. Not that I have been doing science. But what I have been doing is not trying to occupy scientific territory, and in its conceptual structure it is very similar rather than alien to typical thought processes in science.
There is actually intellectual room for more than modern natural science without giving in to superstition and esoteric blather. It is not an either / or situation, metaphysics really is not spiritualism. And as far as religion goes, I will say this: in spite of some conflict, Christianity and natural science are more allies than enemies. In fact, Christianity has for the longest time acted as a kind of spiritual bouncer, allowing natural science to get on with its job. Now that Christianity has been let go by the West, suddenly natural science is called upon as the authority against all sorts of esoteric nonsense. But that's not the sort of thing it is good at, and "sola scientia" (science only) is IMHO never going to satisfy the masses. This will lead to problems.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
So at what point did they say, "You know what guys, all the data we are ever going to need is in, whatever we will find in the future is just going to confirm what we already know, the principles underlying all data are now totally understood and this part of metaphysics need never be discussed again other than to repeat it to all those dumbasses who just won't accept it." More importantly, who got to decide? And why did all the philosophy departments in all the universities in all the world somehow miss the memo? Oh, hold on, I know the answer to that one - they didn’t, they are all just stupid and wrong except for Ed Feser, and philosophy took a massive wrong turn in the 17th century or thereabouts and hasn’t recovered except for Saint Ed who single handedly flies the flag for Scholastic truth in these endarkened times.
Metaphysics does not rely on data in the same manner as physics, or it would be physics. You are trying to impose the framework of "empirical confirmation or falsification" that you know, but that's not quite right. Metaphysics is not "what you think about the world," that's physics. Hence physics can quickly change as you discover new things in the world. Metaphysics is "in what terms you think about the world." Hence what can change your metaphysics is not so much one fact about the world or another, but rather the intellectual invention of a new system of accounting for all the known facts. One metaphysical system challenges the other by thinking differently about the world altogether. It is not really a single fact that is pivotal there. In a sense the only thing facts do is to establish the sort of things that need to be covered. It is not what facts say, it is how they speak. To give an example: "The cyanide turned the mixture yellow" is physics (chemistry considered as a branch of physics). Metaphysics would rather be: "A change (like turning yellow) requires a cause with relevant power to bring about the change (like cyanide)." It should be obvious that it is much, much easier to discover new physics statements. For example, "the radiation sterilised the food" is a new physics fact, it says something new. But it is not new for the metaphysics: "A change (like being sterilised) requires a cause with relevant power to bring about the change (like radiation)." The fact does not speak in a different way.
As for your polemics against Feser: he's far from the only player, indeed, neo-Aristotelianism and analytical Thomism (or Thomistic analytical philosophy) is a bit of a trend in academic philosophy. But for the case at hand - the classical cosmological argument - it does not matter at all. Because I simply have not used anything there that would be specific to Aristotelian or Scholastic metaphysics. It is indeed mildly astonishing that even many modern philosophers play stupid concerning this particular argument. But that is an actual intellectual failure quite separate from whatever they may think about Aristotle.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
It is not an argument for atheism at all, since all the Cosmological Arguments, even if one of them is true, say jack shit about theism. The first cause could be a deist god, Allah, or any one of an infinite number of deities we care to think up, including an evil god who wants to torment people not only for all eternity after they die but while they’re alive as well, and the Christian one that does the same thing but inexplicably gets worshipped for it.
First, you contradict yourself. A deist god, Allah (presumably referring to Islam), or an infinite number of other thinkable deities, including an evil one, all would fall under the label "theism". So apparently the cosmological argument does say something about "theism". Second, if your point is that it is not only Christianity that is compatible with the "uncaused Cause" we derive from the cosmological argument, then I totally agree. One cannot prove Christianity or the Christian God with this argument. One can merely prove the existence of something that Christianity can claim (in my opinion successfully) to be compatible with their beliefs about God. Third, pagans (Plato, Aristotle), Jews (Maimonides) and Muslims (al-Ghazali) have made use of the cosmological argument. I bet Hindus have, too, but I don't know that. Fourth, while many different faiths are compatible with the metaphysical "uncaused Cause", not all are! Indeed, there are a good many Christian heretics today whose god is strictly incompatible with the results of this argument, and hence whose faith has been philosophically proven wrong: process theology and all that jazz. Metaphysics hence succeeds at what atheists long for: showing what faith can be dismissed as intellectually untenable. Fifth, the number of people who worship the Christian God over the cosmological argument probably can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Throughout history. Religion is a lot more than metaphysics, but that does not mean that a metaphysical result like this has no value to religion.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you expect that this dark matter could somehow demonstrate that contingent entities do not need a cause? How would that even work? Metaphysics is very unlikely to be affected by whatever may explain the observed discrepancies.
I don't know how it would work. Maybe there is some property in the 96% that might provoke a Kuhnian revolution, or more likely a gradual shift that requires a major update of the map that philosophers will get to chew over. If someone’s metaphysics were to be unaffected by that, then that metaphysics would be just dumb.
But it is not an "update to the map" that would concern metaphysics. That's the business of physics. It would be an "update to what goes into mapmaking" that would be relevant to metaphysics. Hence it is so unlikely that dark matter would change anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
One observation? Who said anything about one observation? If dark energy and matter are real but difficult to observe, that doesn’t mean that there only is going to one observation to make if we finally figure it out, there could be many. If we are talking about 96% of the universe there may be more observations in the offing than we have made so far of the other 4%.
But it does not matter to metaphysics whether you make one new observation or a billion, as long as they always speak in the same manner about nature. See my example above with cyanide and radiation. I could write thousands of those physics statements without ever changing the metaphysical one.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
And here’s the rub, if metaphysics is about the general principles behind the busyness, and when the actual data becomes irrelevant, then it is all about the map in our heads.
The actual data does not become "irrelevant". But what is relevant about the data simply is different for metaphysics and physics. That's why they do not have the same name. And as it happens, what is relevant about data for metaphysics is a lot more "stable" than what is relevant for physics. Because physics is about what we put on the map, and thus needs to follow up on everything we see in the world. Whereas metaphysics is about the process of putting things on the map, it is about the process of mapmaking, meta-mapmaking. If I want to make a map of England, then I need to know where London and Birmingham are. That's "physics". But in a deeper sense, what I have to realise is that I'm extracting spatial position here as a fundamental but limited characteristic of London and Birmingham, and that in forming my map I should try to represent that accurately (the map should be to scale). That's the sort of thing that concerns "metaphysics". Now, if you then ask "what about Bristol?" it is simply not relevant in the same way for both. It is very important for "physics" to realise that Bristol should be put onto the map at appropriate distances to London and Birmingham. But for "metaphysics" Bristol brings nothing new, it merely reiterates the point that the appropriate distances are key to this spatial map of England.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
FFS, even what we know from the standard model can’t be reconciled with relativity yet; one of the best supported areas of science, quantum mechanics, has, I dunno , 10 or 11 possible interpretations, any one of which could be true, as could none of them. And you are saying we have a good enough handle on the general principles behind physics to extrapolate to a first cause and call it proof? That renders the word proof even more meaningless than it already is outside of maths.
Oh, I would go much further than that. I would say that even the inchoate "physics" available to Aristotle was already good enough to allow the metaphysical cosmological argument. Indeed, I doubt that there has been a time in human history where this argument was not theoretically possible, for even the most unreflected and entirely intuitive "physics" of a caveman already operates in causal terms, if implicitly. We are talking a core operational principle of the human mind here. Of course, considerable cultural sophistication had to accrue before a philosophical argument based on this operation did become possible. But I simply do not have to wait for the superstring unification of quantum theory and gravity, or whatever, to realise that change requires a cause and that causal explanations need to come to an end.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
But anyway, no matter how good someone’s meta-mapmaking skills are, it’s pretty clear that you can’t make an actual map of the Himalayas by studying a map of the Sahara.
You have just made a meta-mapmaking statement. And while you needed the Himalayas and the Sahara to make this meta-mapmaking point, they are accidental. You also cannot make a map of Olympus Mons by studying a map of the Valles Marineris. In that sense none of these concrete places really matter for your meta-mapmaking statement, other than to serve as its general basis. While of course they all really matter as such for the actual maps you are drawing. Do you get it now?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
And maths and metaphysics are different in that in maths you lay all your cards on the table at the outset. You define your terms and there is no rhetoric or hand waving to get in the way.
This is a completely different objection to the one about immunity to new data. It doesn't help save mathematics from your claim that anything following IngoB's procedures is dumb.
While a certain amount of imprecision is inherent in the techniques of metaphysics, good metaphysics tries to minimise the amount of handwaving or rhetoric, or at least to set itself out so that it's easy to spot. For what it's worth, Aquinas' writing style has been praised as one that makes it maximally easy to spot handwaving.
quote:
quote:
I'm going to guess you've never made an actual map of the Himalayas. And yet, even though you've never made the observation, and although you've only studied a miniscule amount of the relevant data you've blithely abstracted from it to the general principle that you can't make an actual map of area A by studying a map of area B.
Yeah, it's a working hypothesis that I suppose wouldn't be beyond my ken to test, if ever I needed to. And yes, dark matter would probably be irrelevant.
This is really abusing the term 'working hypothesis'.
quote:
But who knows, I dare say map makers at the beginning of the twentieth century thought that all the stuff about relativity would have no impact at all on map making, and who could blame them? Now the interactive maps on our sat navs and our phones and computers would be useless if modern map makers didn't take time dilation into account.
That's not altered the actual map making though, but the way that the maps are used.
To answer a point that you didn't make, non-Euclidean geometries were part of mathematics before Einstein theorised that space was non-Euclidean. And he didn't invalidate Euclidean geometry as such by doing so.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool
Apprentice
# 18359
|
Posted
As I've mentioned I'm a simple 'soul' and many of the more arcane arguments on this thread are going over my head. I understood the analogy of the purple unicorn and don't really understand the objection raised. I would have thought a bible believer would be confident in dealing with analogies and allegories.
Anyway if your not confident in dealing with purple unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters how aboutb telling us why the book of mormon is wrong or why David Koresh isn't what he claimed to be or why islam is wrong.
I've never asked for proof, I'm happy that if there was any believers would not be keeping it secret. I don't think its unreasonable to ask for something that points to the credibility of your beliefs beyond your feelings. Perhaps something that suggests the manifestation of the supernatural.
God is supposed to be omnipotent and omnipresent and yet nobody can show anything that 'he' has ever done or anywhere 'he' has ever been.
If an intelligent god is the logical explanation for the creation of the universe (and I would dispute that) then surely that god has gone to great pains to hide its self from us since then. Amongst other things it does not appear to have requested our interference or involvement in its affairs, has not asked for our worship nor revealed anything about its self. There does not seem to be any reason to pay it any attention.
Posts: 16 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The "why haven't all the other monkeys evolved into humans" objection to evolution makes perfect sense to Yecies too. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
Anyway if your not confident in dealing with purple unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters how aboutb telling us why the book of mormon is wrong or why David Koresh isn't what he claimed to be or why islam is wrong.
Why do you assume that (presuming you're talking to us) Christians are interested in telling people why the BOM or David Koresh or Islam is wrong?
Of course, yes, from the little I've looked into, I understand there are some pretty hefty archaelogical and historical issues with the historicity of the BOM, plus that Joseph Smith seems a little crazy to me. And I think there are historical questions about the origins and formation of Islam. I know little about David Koresh.
But honestly, the last thing I think about when it comes Muslims or Mormons is "how can I prove them wrong?"
The questions that are important to me is "how can I show love to my Muslim / Mormon brother or sister; to love them as my neighbour, as myself?" and: "How can we learn to live in peace with one another despite our differences?" and: "What can I learn from my Muslims / Mormons / Atheists etc?" and, to be honest, a whole lot more other questions that have very little to do with 'winning' against them.
This is because Christianity is (or should be) a Way, not a set of beliefs whose purpose is to be pitted against another set of beliefs in some kind of fight club belief challenge. I despair that Christianity is so often presented as something other than this, and I don't blame you for having that perception of it. But, honestly, Christianity is about following the Way of Jesus, and proving Muslims, or Mormons, or Atheists - or anyone wrong has very little to do with that.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
]Nobody can show you anything, IngoB, that hasn't already originated in your head.
The irony, it burns.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
As I've mentioned I'm a simple 'soul' and many of the more arcane arguments on this thread are going over my head. I understood the analogy of the purple unicorn and don't really understand the objection raised. I would have thought a bible believer would be confident in dealing with analogies and allegories.
Anyway if your not confident in dealing with purple unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters how aboutb telling us why the book of mormon is wrong or why David Koresh isn't what he claimed to be or why islam is wrong.
I've never asked for proof, I'm happy that if there was any believers would not be keeping it secret. I don't think its unreasonable to ask for something that points to the credibility of your beliefs beyond your feelings. Perhaps something that suggests the manifestation of the supernatural.
God is supposed to be omnipotent and omnipresent and yet nobody can show anything that 'he' has ever done or anywhere 'he' has ever been.
If an intelligent god is the logical explanation for the creation of the universe (and I would dispute that) then surely that god has gone to great pains to hide its self from us since then. Amongst other things it does not appear to have requested our interference or involvement in its affairs, has not asked for our worship nor revealed anything about its self. There does not seem to be any reason to pay it any attention.
Fool, claiming to be a "simple soul" is not a get-out-of-jail free card. If the proofs, evidences,logic, what-have-you about God that you're getting on this thread are going right over your head, then go away and study. Don't complain that reality is too hard for you. Unless you don't really want an answer in the first place.
There is no reason why theology should be simple. There is no reason why nuclear physics should be simple. To demand easy answers from those who believe in either of them is at best childish.
Go hit the library, dude.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
If an intelligent god is the logical explanation for the creation of the universe (and I would dispute that) then surely that god has gone to great pains to hide its self from us since then. Amongst other things it does not appear to have requested our interference or involvement in its affairs, has not asked for our worship nor revealed anything about its self. There does not seem to be any reason to pay it any attention.
As I said earlier - you must have missed it - we believe God came in Jesus. And there is at least some evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Not proof, but then you're not asking for proof.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The irony, it burns.
Some of the greatest philosophers who have ever lived have attacked this position, including Hume, Russell, Kant and so on.
So the argument that IngoB can dismiss all others in a puff of logic is a total delusion.
Clearly it is an argument which has internal rigidity and if IngoB wants to believe it, fine. But also clearly, Aquinas is not the last word on the matter and other explanations and challenges to the Cosmological Argument exist.
Continually asserting that something (in this case something totally untestable) does not make it true.
It also does not make it false, but the tools we use to analyse claims about God and cosmology are not science and logic, because the things under discussion are outside of observable science. Obviously.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A supernatural cause strikes me as an oxymoron. Isn't causation adopted as an axiom within methodological naturalism?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some of the greatest philosophers who have ever lived have attacked this position, including Hume, Russell, Kant and so on.
Their criticisms are as fallible as Aquinas' argument. It's no more invalid because Russell thinks it invalid than valid because Aquinas thinks it valid.
In particular, Hume and Kant's criticisms depend upon features of their philosophy that are themselves open to criticism.
quote:
It also does not make it false, but the tools we use to analyse claims about God and cosmology are not science and logic, because the things under discussion are outside of observable science.
Logic extends well beyond the realm of observable science. If it is possible to talk about something, or represent it in symbols, then logic applies.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Their criticisms are as fallible as Aquinas' argument. It's no more invalid because Russell thinks it invalid than valid because Aquinas thinks it valid.
In particular, Hume and Kant's criticisms depend upon features of their philosophy that are themselves open to criticism.
Of course. I never said that these philosophers have invalidated Aquinas' argument, just that clearly there is no reason to accept that Aquinas put forward the only decent argument and that therefore IngoB can "shred" any other argument with the power of logic. Clearly some big brains have raised objections so clearly it is not as easy as asserting something and everyone else agreeing it must therefore be true.
quote:
Logic extends well beyond the realm of observable science. If it is possible to talk about something, or represent it in symbols, then logic applies.
Yes, ok. The point is here that we are talking about something which can only be analysed with the tools of philosophy. It is not like mathematics, which can be proved deductively nor science which can be observed.
The idea that one could take others through a step-but-step deductive process that destroys any other possible argument and come out with an inarguable point that proves an eternal God rather than an eternal universe is totally not true.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A supernatural cause strikes me as an oxymoron. Isn't causation adopted as an axiom within methodological naturalism?
Just because causation is an axiom within methodological naturalism doesn't mean it's only an axiom within methodological naturalism.
In particular, I believe the argument is that any contingent feature of the world requires explanation. The explanation does not have to be a temporally prior cause. (In this case, it is a mistake to think the explanation looked for has to be temporally prior.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE
...the tools we use to analyse claims about God and cosmology are not science and logic, because the things under discussion are outside of observable science. Obviously.
Oh yes they are (this is turning into pantomime). You're stuffed by your own logic here mate - we can't "observe by science" the moment the universe that came into existence or whether anything was around temporally prior to that moment. We can use logic to reckon what could have been logically prior to that moment. We can use science and cosmology to inform judgements on these issues - and I can say that with absolute certainty because scientists do use science and logic to investigate this question. And there are some pretty smart scientists who reckon the universe has all the hallmarks of design. That's a scientific conclusion. To then answer questions about who or what that designer is, ain't something you can answer within the current limits of scientific knowledge, so you have to apply other methodologies to the question.
Given that we have a universe, and given that alternatives have been posited as to how it got here, you have to ask which alternative is the most likely. If you rule out metaphysics as an appropriate methodology, you're just begging the question in favour of atheism.
And I'm not "just making assertions" here mate - I'm asking you to consider the options in the light of evidence available, applying the methodologies that our finite and fallible human brains have access to and see which makes the most sense. Saying you can reject a view just because there is an alternative won't cut it. A simple multiplicity of views doesn't make them all equally valid.
If you're addressing the most fundamental questions of existence, makes sense to use not only every analytical tool available, but also all of them.
So here you go - do a bit of summarising for me. From following this thread, what do you reckon is the strongest argument for reckoning the universe was created by a cosmic designer. Then tell us what you think is the strongest argument for a cyclical multiverse. Don't have to come to any conclusion, just set these out as honestly as you can and see how they look. If you like, I'll follow on and do the same. Might be able to move this on a bit.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Oh yes they are (this is turning into pantomime). You're stuffed by your own logic here mate - we can't "observe by science" the moment the universe that came into existence or whether anything was around temporally prior to that moment.
Time began at the Big Bang, therefore there was no before.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A supernatural cause strikes me as an oxymoron. Isn't causation adopted as an axiom within methodological naturalism?
Just because causation is an axiom within methodological naturalism doesn't mean it's only an axiom within methodological naturalism.
In particular, I believe the argument is that any contingent feature of the world requires explanation. The explanation does not have to be a temporally prior cause. (In this case, it is a mistake to think the explanation looked for has to be temporally prior.)
Well, quite often we don't have an explanation - for example, I think that the connection between work and heat was noticed but not really explained until the idea of conservation of energy.
I find Aquinas's idea that God sustains each moment interesting, and then the beginning seems less important.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Their criticisms are as fallible as Aquinas' argument. It's no more invalid because Russell thinks it invalid than valid because Aquinas thinks it valid.
In particular, Hume and Kant's criticisms depend upon features of their philosophy that are themselves open to criticism.
Of course. I never said that these philosophers have invalidated Aquinas' argument, just that clearly there is no reason to accept that Aquinas put forward the only decent argument and that therefore IngoB can "shred" any other argument with the power of logic. Clearly some big brains have raised objections so clearly it is not as easy as asserting something and everyone else agreeing it must therefore be true.
This is something of a category error, and tends towards an argument from authority.
You can refute the claim that something must be true because Aquinas put forward an argument in its favour by saying that other philosophers rejected the argument.
On the other hand, if somebody puts forward Aquinas' argument you can't reject that by saying that other philosophers rejected it; you have to put forward those other philosophers' arguments. (Well, you can concede that you can't see any way to refute it yourself but you believe there must be a way given that respectable philosophers rejected it. But that's bowing out of the argument.)
If someone offers any argument, whether the cosmological argument for God, the Euphthyro argument against God, or Wittgenstein's private language argument against private language, they neither need to offer additional reasons to accept that the argument is valid nor ought they. An argument is either sufficient proof of its own validity on its own merits or it isn't.
quote:
quote:
Logic extends well beyond the realm of observable science. If it is possible to talk about something, or represent it in symbols, then logic applies.
Yes, ok. The point is here that we are talking about something which can only be analysed with the tools of philosophy. It is not like mathematics, which can be proved deductively nor science which can be observed.
The idea that one could take others through a step-but-step deductive process that destroys any other possible argument and come out with an inarguable point that proves an eternal God rather than an eternal universe is totally not true.
Philosophy does rely on deductive processes. They're to some extent fuzzier than mathematics, since the terms cannot be so precisely defined. (And to some extent philosophy does rely on general experience of life.) Even if the best that can be achieved is that you outline what bullets someone has to bite to avoid your conclusions, that is certainly better than nothing.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Time began at the Big Bang, therefore there was no before.
If I've understood it right, modern physics suggests a third metaphysical option - neither a steady-state universe that has always existed back to t= minus infinity, nor a universe kicked into being by a First Cause at t= zero, but curved time that is undefined for negative values of t.
Like a builder of walls, who knows that each brick rests on the one below, and therefore believes in a firm foundation. Because he doesn't believe that the wall stretches down an infinite distances. And whose mind is really blown by a Buckminster Fuller dome where every component is supported by every other.
But as others have said, the connection between this and the Way of Jesus is tenuous.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
This is something of a category error, and tends towards an argument from authority.
You can refute the claim that something must be true because Aquinas put forward an argument in its favour by saying that other philosophers rejected the argument.
On the other hand, if somebody puts forward Aquinas' argument you can't reject that by saying that other philosophers rejected it; you have to put forward those other philosophers' arguments. (Well, you can concede that you can't see any way to refute it yourself but you believe there must be a way given that respectable philosophers rejected it. But that's bowing out of the argument.)
As I indicated, the point is not whether I am rejecting Aquninas argument, I am simply pointing out that heavy-weight philosphers have taken issue with it (and continue to), and hence the point made by IngoB that one position shreds all others is demonstrably wrong. It is clearly impossible to say that any of the arguments have overwhelmingly "won" and the debates are still going on.
No argument from authority needed. I am certainly not claiming that any of these positions are correct, but pointing out that there is not a single position which is so well argued that nobody else can take issue with it.
quote:
If someone offers any argument, whether the cosmological argument for God, the Euphthyro argument against God, or Wittgenstein's private language argument against private language, they neither need to offer additional reasons to accept that the argument is valid nor ought they. An argument is either sufficient proof of its own validity on its own merits or it isn't.
I agree.
quote:
Philosophy does rely on deductive processes. They're to some extent fuzzier than mathematics, since the terms cannot be so precisely defined. (And to some extent philosophy does rely on general experience of life.) Even if the best that can be achieved is that you outline what bullets someone has to bite to avoid your conclusions, that is certainly better than nothing.
Mathematics can be tested and proved, science can be observed. Cosmology cannot. Therefore by the very nature of it, the argument is different.
If one side wants to continually make the point that the other has an argument that is weaker for reasons that are only accepted by them (in this case that an uncaused cause is needed) then it is them who are actually arguing from authority.
[ 03. April 2015, 13:11: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Oh yes they are (this is turning into pantomime). You're stuffed by your own logic here mate - we can't "observe by science" the moment the universe that came into existence or whether anything was around temporally prior to that moment.
Time began at the Big Bang, therefore there was no before.
But there could be a logically previous state. Logical chains are not necessarily dependent on time.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It strikes me as more than a little disingenuous to come blazing onto a website full of Christians saying "there is absolutely no evidence for gods or supernatural things," and then when evidence and arguments are presented, to say "well this is all above my head; but what about THIS?"
Either admit, Fool, that there is evidence but it's just beyond you, but at any rate you were wrong to claim there was none, OR do as Lamb Chopped said and learn enough to be able to refute the evidence on its own ground. Anything else is at best intellectual laziness and at worst intellectual dishonesty.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Mousethief, nibbling at C3 and C4 infringement is not wise, either from the point of view of convincing your interlocutor or from the point of view of the hosts.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
