|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Introducing me. There are no gods or supernatural!
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@IngoB
There's no particular order, but I'll just say upfront that in the plethora of verbiage we've had, I'm no wiser aboutthe statement:
quote:
What I do need however is the belief that human reason can extract useful information from observing natural reality, can abstractly analyse "universals" from such concrete data, and can then successfully extrapolate these "universals" by logic to deduce the existence of previously unknown and otherwise not readily accessible entities. Since however the same mental skills are needed to successfully create and employ theories in modern science, I assume you have no principle objection to that.
What is the measure of success in extrapolation? You have done lots of lecturing about what your idea of metaphysics is, but not how you justify the belief that "universals" hold across the whole of spacetime and can be extrapolated to the foundation of everything. Universals are part of the map, not the territory, unless Platonism is true, which you have not demonstrated or argued for.
quote:
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.
Oh FFS, do we really need to go into theories and the well supported-ness or otherwise of them? That there's a continuum between extremely well supported stuff like evolution and quantum mechanics at one and and speculative areas like string theory at the other?
If particular areas of unsupported or weakly supported stuff is believed by individual scientists is of no consequence. If it remains weakly supported or not supported at all there will usually be another scientist around to challenge it. And if it sticks around long enough and remains unsupported, I suppose philosophers will chew the fat over it. That's pretty much where we are with the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
quote:
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.
And if they don't speak in the same manner about nature, we take notice. Your arguments depend on them always speaking in the same manner.
I'm not saying anything particularly revolutionary here. Like I've said lots of times, this is all just saying it's not wise to extrapolate too far beyond experience and, really, the universe isn't obliged to conform to our wishes for explanations.
quote:
First, you contradict yourself. A deist god...
I should have been clearer. An atheist argument against deism is not worth the effort (even less so than this one). The cosmological argument says nothing about the gods anyone actually believes in. As to whether it metaphysically proves the falsity of allegedly heretical beliefs is one particular open question I care nothing about.
quote:
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.
Exactly. And the core operational principle of the human mind does not necessarily correspond to the core operational principles of the universe.
quote:
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.
But if I want to make a map of an actual place, I can't do it by simply knowing how to make maps in general. When I say you can't make a map of the Himalayas by studying a map of the Sahara, the map of the Sahara corresponds to our collective cognitive map of what we know about the universe. It contains all our physics AND our metaphysics. The Himalayas correspond to the creation of the universe/multiverse/whatever. It's out there somewhere in the far distance, and no amount of meta-mapmaking knowledge is going to help us make an actual map of it.
quote:
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?
Now, do you get it? I have not denied that meta-mapmaking is a useful activity. On its own, though, it is not sufficient to draw accurate maps of places we have never been to.
@Dayfd
quote:
This is really abusing the term 'working hypothesis'.
Yes, sloppy. It's actually a testable prediction of my general theory of map making.
quote:
That's not altered the actual map making though, but the way that the maps are used.
Are you sure about that? The GPS co-ordinates are actually in the map. The pixies need them to tell the little car where to go.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
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.
So, why exactly do you keep asking us questions, if you cannot comprehend the answers?
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.
The question why one should believe one prophet over another is a good one, but it doesn't allow a simple answer. Importantly though, one can reject a good number of religions (and their prophets) on philosophical grounds. Not every religion, and not every theism, is compatible with metaphysics. You have picked three instances of Abrahamic religions, which are compatible. But for example neither Buddhism nor Greco-Roman Paganism can be true, since they lack an entity properly corresponding to an uncaused Cause.
Among religions that are philosophically possible, you have to choose by less direct criteria. Both the Mormons and the Branch Davidians of Koresh are clearly Christian, or at least clearly derived from Christianity. Hence they can be judged by "internal" criteria: assuming Christianity is true, how likely is it that a real prophet arises after Christ, and how Christian are the teachings of the purported prophet? One finds that overwhelmingly Christians believe that there cannot be a real prophet after Christ, and furthermore, one can critique the purported prophets as not Christian in their teachings and actions. Basically, this internal incoherence makes it likely that these were false prophets.
It is more difficult with Islam, even though Islam is so closely related as another Abrahamic faith that one can try to make incoherence arguments. However, in general when deciding between "intellectually possible" but disparate religions, like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, ... it boils down to two things: First, do you believe the evidence given for this faith, if there is any? Second, does the faith speak to you, are you attracted to its teaching and practice, do its "vibes" agree with you? In the case of Christianity, rather obviously the central piece of evidence is the resurrection of Christ. So you have to judge whether you believe that, or not, based on the historical reports and the historical response of people to this purported event. Other faiths may bring other evidence to make their case. As far as the feeling of attraction or congeniality is concerned, there is no simple recipe. Something as complex as Christianity can be beloved by different people for rather different reasons. I just want to make clear that this need not be soppy or self-indulgent at all. Indeed, people often feel attracted to the serious challenges that religion poses to them, it can be a bit like spiritual free climbing...
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
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.
Your claim is obviously wrong. The world was created by God in all its aspects, hence in a fundamental sense He has done everything. (To be sure, I believe that God has created beings who can exercise free will. Thus there are other actors than God in the world who are responsible for what they do. However, both their existence and their ability to exercise free will are kept in being by God. So without Him there would be nothing.) And of course, Christians claim that God came incarnate to this world, and that God interacted with mankind before and after as well. You may not believe in any of these reports, but that leads only to a specific sense of "nobody can show anything". What believers cannot do is to reproduce at will evidence of God's presence and action that is undeniable to those who have no faith. But then believers do not claim that God is some kind of "physical effect", which one could tease out repeatedly and reproducibly with a cleverly designed experiment. Believers claim that God is a Person, who calls the shots as far as His interactions with humans go. That is not to say that there is no systematic way of getting into contact with God. Knock, and it will be opened to you. You can meet God as much as anybody else, if you wish to. But God is not going to be captured by a measuring apparatus at your convenience.
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.
These seem like intentionally absurd statements? While God is indeed hidden in the sense that you can live your life pretending that He doesn't exist, he has not remained hidden in an absolute sense. He has revealed himself, as protocolled in the bible and in oral traditions. He has revealed plenty about Himself, and indeed expects our worship. He is asking us to be involved in His affairs, in the sense that He expects us to behave in certain ways that agree with His will for the world. He very much demands our attention.
I take it your point is that God has not come in Person to you to tell you all about Himself and about what you should do. Well, it is correct that God is communicating the EULA of the world to people through other people and even their writings. That however frees Him up to have a more personal contact with you, if you are interested.
--------------------
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
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
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.
Bang goes your pre-existing cyclic universe then matey.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
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.
Where have these gentleman said what about the cosmological argument, and how would you use their arguments against what I've said here?
See, I don't believe for a moment that you have any idea what you are talking about there. There hasn't been any hint so far that philosophy is informing your posts. What you are doing there is basically name dropping, in the hope that we will mistake that for some kind of argument. But I have not at all used the authority of Aquinas to claim truth. I actually know what Aquinas has said, I know where he has said it, and I have made it sufficiently my own to propose and defend it here by my own lights. Indeed, a lot of the things I have said, or at least the way I have presented them, cannot be found in Aquinas. While obviously standing in intellectual debt to Aquinas, you are dealing here de facto with my cosmological argument. If you want to borrow the intellectual power of Hume, Russell, Kant, ... against it, then I say only one thing to that: bring it on. But frankly, I don't think you can.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Continually asserting that something (in this case something totally untestable) does not make it true.
Verily, verily.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
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.
I'm sorry, but what statement that I'm supposed to have made are you referring to? I think the cosmological argument holds true, hence any contrary argument will be false in some way or the other. But that can be quite subtle, and hence the necessary philosophical argument may have to be sophisticated and delicate. What does get shredded however is your materialism ameliorated by a cyclical universe. That doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against the classical cosmological argument. It was pretty much dead on arrival, given that Aquinas was also famous for having defended the philosophical possibility of an endless universe. Aquinas is nothing but consistent, and so of course his cosmological proof works perfectly fine with an endless universe. Indeed, even at the very beginning of his academic career, he was perfectly clear on this (producing commentary on Lombard's "Sentences" was a kind of entry level to professional theology):
quote:
Writings on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Book II, Distinction 1, Question 1, Article 2, Response 62:
The second thing is that non-being is prior to being in the thing which is said to be created. This is not a priority of time or of duration, such that what did not exist before does exist later, but a priority of nature, so that, if the created thing is left to itself, it would not exist, because it only has its being from the causality of the higher cause. What a thing has in itself and not from something else is naturally prior in it to that which it has from something else. ...
If, however, we should add a third point to the meaning of creation, that the creature should have non-being prior to being [even] in duration, so that it is said to be "out of nothing" because it is temporally after nothing, in this way creation cannot be demonstrated and it is not granted by philosophers, but is taken on faith.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
IngoB, unless intellectualism is the only way, prove to me that God exists.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
IngoB, unless intellectualism is the only way, prove to me that God exists.
Look into a mirror. Hold your own gaze.
You stare into the mirror, matter is staring back. What makes you be on the right side of the looking glass?
Breathe.
Way. Truth. Life. You like Way. I like Truth. We share Life. Don't knock what the other has, it's a Trinity.
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
IngoB, unless intellectualism is the only way, prove to me that God exists.
Look into a mirror. Hold your own gaze.
You stare into the mirror, matter is staring back. What makes you be on the right side of the looking glass?
Breathe.
Way. Truth. Life. You like Way. I like Truth. We share Life. Don't knock what the other has, it's a Trinity.
Ingo, that is beautiful.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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
Noted. Will cease nibbling. Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
And the core operational principle of the human mind [causality] does not necessarily correspond to the core operational principles of the universe.
Humean, all too Humean. The only fix for Hume is Kant. Sure the causality is all "in here" but that's how we see the world. Blue spectacles, as Lewis says, are why everything looks blue. We cannot see the world any other way than through a lens of cause-effect relationships.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
IngoB, unless intellectualism is the only way, prove to me that God exists.
Look into a mirror. Hold your own gaze.
You stare into the mirror, matter is staring back. What makes you be on the right side of the looking glass?
Breathe.
Way. Truth. Life. You like Way. I like Truth. We share Life. Don't knock what the other has, it's a Trinity.
Ingo, that is beautiful.
Amen. (X3) ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ingo, the beat poet! We need some bongo drums.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ingo, the beat poet! We need some bongo drums.
YES … !!!
See, both Physics (and accompanying math) and Poetry are equally valid understandings of life, the universe and everything … But they're not the same … Why should we choose between them … ???
Just so, religious faith (especially with worship and stories and hymns and prayers) is more like "Poetry" than "Physics" … Why would we feel a need to choose between them, or to collapse one into the other … ???
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Where have these gentleman said what about the cosmological argument, and how would you use their arguments against what I've said here?
Oh let's see.
Bertrand Russell quote:
The universe is just there, and that's all
Hume attacks the idea of causation, Kant says it relies on a ontological argument which is unreliable.
Etc and so on.
Funnily enough, I don't consider you to be a particularly reliable source for arguments or positions on Cosmology. I will not answer any more your continued self-obsessed guff.
[ 04. April 2015, 08:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
The fact is that for all of us - if we don't trust our perceptions, we are lost. And perception is not a fixed thing - different individuals perceive differently, for many reasons. Using all this philosophical weaponry is a bit of a distraction, because the basic perceptual data that each of us have is different.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
IngoB. See, you CAN come and play nicely with the little boys in the wee-wee end. That was nearly Barthian (a name I drop from a Christmas cracker ... did you see that? DID YOU SEE THAT?!).
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh let's see. Bertrand Russell quote:
The universe is just there, and that's all
Where does Russell say that? Reference, quotation, context, ... As stated, this isn't even an argument. It's simply an assertion. And every assertion can be fairly denied with a counter-assertion: "The universe is not just there, and that's not all." It's only when reason is being supplied that an actual debate can start. Russell had his reasons (ones made out of straw, hint, hint) - but you don't really know them, do you?
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Hume attacks the idea of causation
Where does he say what about causation? Reference, quotation, context, ... How would you apply his argument to what I have said? And since I happen to know how Hume is used in proper discussions of such matters (do you?), bonus question: how are you going to finesse an attack on the cosmological argument from this without removing the basis for modern natural science as well?
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Kant says it relies on a ontological argument which is unreliable.
Where does he say what about this connection? Reference, quotation, context, ... I say the cosmological argument does not rely on the ontological argument at all. See, there's that assertion meets counter-assertion spiel again... This objection of Kant pretty much dies on the vine because necessary existence is a conclusion, not an assumption, in the cosmological argument. And fun fact, Aquinas rejected Anselm's ontological argument.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Etc and so on.
Indeed. Here's the deal: saying "I have a big gun" is a lot more impressive if you have it with you, and know how to aim and fire it. Otherwise somebody might just call your bluff and pull a Beretta on you. Pew. Pew.
--------------------
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
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@mousethief
quote:
Humean, all too Humean. The only fix for Hume is Kant. Sure the causality is all "in here" but that's how we see the world. Blue spectacles, as Lewis says, are why everything looks blue. We cannot see the world any other way than through a lens of cause-effect relationships.
So, we admit the existence of the lens.
@Ingob
quote:
how are you going to finesse an attack on the cosmological argument from this without removing the basis for modern natural science as well?
Maybe the causal principle holds in this universe but not in the multiverse.
Or, the causal principle is a methodological and practical principle that has no ontological justification. So, it works when it works, but if ever evidence calls it into question we would have some serious thinking to do. This is precisely what has happened due to the discoveries in quantum mechanics. Although, I think I'm right in saying, most philosophers think the causal principle still stands in the light of quantum mechanics, your argument rests on it holding for everything.
The universe/multiverse does not have to be intelligible to us. I don't think you have a problem agreeing with that statement if we substituted "God" for "the universe/multiverse," it's just that God is a special case to you.
And your bonus question is an argument from adverse consequences, anyway. The basis for modern science is good enough for modern science, if we removed it we would have to replace it with something that incorporates any new information that gets thrown at us. The basis for classical physics was good enough for classical physics, but did not tell the whole story. Modern science is in the same position, as is metaphysics.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why does there have to be an uncaused cause?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@mousethief
quote:
Humean, all too Humean. The only fix for Hume is Kant. Sure the causality is all "in here" but that's how we see the world. Blue spectacles, as Lewis says, are why everything looks blue. We cannot see the world any other way than through a lens of cause-effect relationships.
So, we admit the existence of the lens.
Well, I can't speak for you, but I do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Well, I can't speak for you, but I do.
I'm sure you do. Ingo's another story.
--------------------
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
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Grokesk. You say
Or, the causal principle is a methodological and practical principle that has no ontological justification. So, it works when it works, but if ever evidence calls it into question we would have some serious thinking to do. This is precisely what has happened due to the discoveries in quantum mechanics. Although, I think I'm right in saying, most philosophers think the causal principle still stands in the light of quantum mechanics, your argument rests on it holding for everything
Come on sunshine, you have to do better than that. Just saying that it may be possible that in some context the causal principle might not apply isn't grounds for rejecting its universality. On top of that you'd have to show how the assertion applies to the issue in question. So where has it been shown that the causal principle doesn't apply, and how does that relate to the cosmological argument? Parroting "quantum mechanics" doesn't even half cut it.
@Mr Cheesy - I wouldn't be so quick to quote our Bertie as one of the supporters of your argument. Here's the guy who reckoned that we are just lumps of carbon with a fleeting existence in the universe from which he concluded we should base or our lives on the "firm foundation of unyielding despair."
i reckon if the Smiths had been around when he was writing, he'd have been one of their groupies.
See, if you reckon the universe "just is" (no reason, just is) then youz just is - which gives you no ultimate objective reason for being. Which is why Bertie's philosophy is a recipie for being a miserable old sod.
[ 04. April 2015, 16:42: Message edited by: Truman White ]
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@mousethief
quote:
Blue spectacles, as Lewis says, are why everything looks blue. We cannot see the world any other way than through a lens of cause-effect relationships.
So, we admit the existence of the lens.
I wouldn't be so quick to take that as a concession. If cause-effect is a lens that we have to look through we can't so to speak pop round the other side and find out what distortions the lens imposes. Whatever reality is really like, we have to live with the lens because we can't live without it.
In particular, no amount of dark matter is going to affect the existence of the lens if the lens is within us.
So, on the assumption that IngoB's argument about explanation proves the existence of God (*), even if the explanation relies on a lens, we can't get rid of the lens, so we have to live as if God exists because even if God is an optical illusion caused by the lens we can't get rid of the lens to check.
Kant himself thought he could get round that consequence by making a distinction roughly between empirical reasoning and metaphysical reasoning. In empirical reasoning we can't look round the lens, but in metaphysical reasoning we can pop round just far enough to see that there is a lens even if we can't see what things are really like.
Of course, you've denied that there's any firm distinction between empirical and metaphysical reasoning so you can't follow Kant there.
(*) More accurately, the existence of an uncaused cause that we can then deduce must have characteristics that warrant calling it God.
--------------------
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
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Truman
quote:
Parroting "quantum mechanics" doesn't even half cut it.
OK then. Note the treatment of quantum physics comes in the discussion of the Kalam cosmological argument, but the causal principle underpins all cosmological arguments. And I am not falling on one side or the other, just noting that the causal principle has come under philosophical pressure.
quote:
Come on sunshine, you have to do better than that. Just saying that it may be possible that in some context the causal principle might not apply isn't grounds for rejecting its universality.
The causal principle - in IngoB's formulation, everything that comes into existence and/or is contingent has a cause - is a premise, ie a declaration that something is true and upon which the truth of argument depends. The objection is that this may be assumed to be true for the purposes of living our everyday lives and doing science that can be tested, but cannot to be assumed to be true for more speculative purposes like trying to figure out the origin of universes/multiverses/reality as a whole. Ingo's counter objection is that this undercuts science. On the footballing principle that you can only play the opposition on the field, that's the objection I answered.
As an aside, I was listening to the radio this morning and in an entertaining programme about the difficulties of having English as a second language in the UK, they played a clip of Dave Allen talking about one of our quirks. When we dislike someone or are angry with them, we use positive adjectives to describe them. "Who are you looking at, PAL?" "Well, fuck you MATEY." "Listen, SUNSHINE." On the other hand, friends are likely to be greeted with, "How's it going, you old reprobate?" So, following this tradition in the same spirit as your posts on this thread, I would just like to say, "My dear, well respected friend, Trueman, I bid you good night."
quote:
I wouldn't be so quick to take that as a concession. If cause-effect is a lens that we have to look through we can't so to speak pop round the other side and find out what distortions the lens imposes. Whatever reality is really like, we have to live with the lens because we can't live without it
But if we acknowledge that the lens exists, we are forced to realise that reality might not actually be what we reckon it is. We have to admit the possibility of error. That possibility is enough to make the cosmological arguments suspect.
quote:
Of course, you've denied that there's any firm distinction between empirical and metaphysical reasoning so you can't follow Kant there.
A position I share with IngoB, apparently. No matter, whatever reasoning we use has no effect on reality. Reality sucks, it doesn't give a shit about our reasoning.
--------------------
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
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
IngoB, unless intellectualism is the only way, prove to me that God exists.
Look into a mirror. Hold your own gaze.
You stare into the mirror, matter is staring back. What makes you be on the right side of the looking glass?
Breathe.
Way. Truth. Life. You like Way. I like Truth. We share Life. Don't knock what the other has, it's a Trinity.
It's very poetical but I don't see why it has anything to do with proof.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
...But if we acknowledge that the lens exists, we are forced to realise that reality might not actually be what we reckon it is. We have to admit the possibility of error.
Cuts both ways - science may be complete bollocks, material descriptions of the universe might be inchoate garbage. Which lens do you choose? Which lens have you already chosen to wear? Which lens have you been using without even realising that you have made a choice?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
No matter, whatever reasoning we use has no effect on reality. Reality sucks, it doesn't give a shit about our reasoning.
Are we not a part of that reality? Are not the societies we have built, at least in part by using reason, a part of that reality.
I'm not a determinist so I think reasoning has probably had some impact on reality in our local corner of the universe. It is different to how it would otherwise have been.
Of course it is easy to overstate the case for the effects of reasoning, but I think you're understating it.
Perhaps you meant those aspects of reality which we regard as macroscopic?
--------------------
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:
What is the measure of success in extrapolation?
There is no direct measure of success of an extrapolation, otherwise why extrapolate? However, if you reject the extrapolation, then you reject the means by which it was made. And since the means in this case was rational deduction from observations of nature, and more specifically, the nature of causality, you are then saying that that fails, at least there. First, this is why I say that theism is "more rational" or "more optimistic about reason" than materialist atheism. Second, it seems rather convenient to assume our causal deductions hold except for that one point where it leads to consequences you do not like. More likely would be that the failure in this end can be seen in prior steps somehow - and then you are in the business of doubting the whole enterprise of analysing nature with reason, including modern science. Finally, we can of course view religion as the measure of success that you seek. Yes, this is a completely different means, but that's just what you are looking for if you want to test an extrapolation, a different means by which you have direct access. And it turns out that what we predict to exist as a kind of last gasp of reason working on nature is compatible with what many people believe has been revealed to exist, and indeed, with what many people say they have experienced spiritually.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
If particular areas of unsupported or weakly supported stuff is believed by individual scientists is of no consequence. If it remains weakly supported or not supported at all there will usually be another scientist around to challenge it.
Or so the theory goes. My point - as a working scientist - was that this theory is rather lacking in describing key concerns and behaviour of actual scientists. There is more than just "the data" that drives scientists. There is also "the story". The number of possible explanations for the world is technically infinite, and yet science is rarely done "at random". Scientists operate on overarching explanations, narratives, in order to plan their data gathering and mathematical theory building. For better (most of the time) or worse (sometimes), this very much influences the flow of scientific activity.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
And if they don't speak in the same manner about nature, we take notice. Your arguments depend on them always speaking in the same manner.
Well, yes. How about you try constructing something that does not speak in the same manner? If you find that rather difficult, then that was basically my point.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Like I've said lots of times, this is all just saying it's not wise to extrapolate too far beyond experience and, really, the universe isn't obliged to conform to our wishes for explanations.
"Extrapolation" in physics is called "prediction", and it is pretty much the hallmark of success in science that one can predict vastly beyond experience... And yes, it is very mysterious how incredibly obliging the universe is to our theory building. At least so if you are a materialist atheist, then it borders on magic. If you are a theist, then there is no mystery there at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
The cosmological argument says nothing about the gods anyone actually believes in.
That's plain and simply false. The cosmological argument, and other metaphysical arguments building upon it, derive a kind of "shopping list" of characteristics of the uncaused Cause. Some theistic belief systems propose a God that ticks all the criteria on that shopping list. Some don't. It is correct to say that no religion believes in just what's on the shopping list. But it is false to say that the shopping list says nothing about the gods people believe in. It says that some of these gods will make do as uncaused Cause. And that's exactly how these metaphysical arguments are used in classical Christian theology.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
And the core operational principle of the human mind does not necessarily correspond to the core operational principles of the universe.
Indeed. But it is our experience that it does (in the sense that mind and universe can become aligned, not in the sense that they always are - obviously we can err).
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
But if I want to make a map of an actual place, I can't do it by simply knowing how to make maps in general.
True, and nobody has doubted that. But you can make statements about mapmaking that do not depend directly on any particular map (though the discipline of mapmaking would obviously not exist unless there are concrete maps to be made).
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
When I say you can't make a map of the Himalayas by studying a map of the Sahara, the map of the Sahara corresponds to our collective cognitive map of what we know about the universe. It contains all our physics AND our metaphysics. The Himalayas correspond to the creation of the universe/multiverse/whatever. It's out there somewhere in the far distance, and no amount of meta-mapmaking knowledge is going to help us make an actual map of it.
First, this was my analogy, and your use of it here has little to do with how I used the analogy. You can hardly expect me to understand that this is what you are talking about without extensive explanations (as you provide now). That just confuses things. Second, the "far distance" that you are thinking of is one of physics, not one of metaphysics. You are still caught up in this picture of temporal causation. But the classical cosmological argument actually does not depend on some "Big Bang" (or whatever) a long time ago. It operates on the world here and now. We have all the needed evidence right before our eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Now, do you get it? I have not denied that meta-mapmaking is a useful activity. On its own, though, it is not sufficient to draw accurate maps of places we have never been to.
First, to make that absolutely clear, metaphysics is not just some other spot on the map. You can try to make a sophisticated point along the lines that everything the mind does corresponds to some kind of mapmaking, so that even meta-mapmaking is a form of mapmaking itself. Fine, but then this is a rather different map. As an analogy it might be a prospector's map outlining the geological strata in depth, rather than a regular surface map cataloguing spatial features. Second, what the cosmological argument is doing is not so much making a map, but concluding what must be missing from the map. To stick to our analogy: the cosmological argument is not an expedition seeking the source of the Nile, much less Speke finding it. It is rather looking at the Nile that we have discovered on the map we made, and says: all that water must come from somewhere, and judging from the mapped flow, it should come from roughly over there. Atheists are basically saying: No, you cannot say that, for no cartographer has ever been that far upstream. Maybe the water just is in the unknown, without a source. It is admittedly impossible to argue against such a claim, but that doesn't mean that it is particularly convincing...
--------------------
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
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
that last analogy I particularly like
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Chipping in to observe that this has been one of the very best discussion threads we've had in my time here and I've appreciated very much the way so many contributors have remained in the flow of the argument. Most illuminating.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
'Judging from the mapped flow', IngoB?
Religion is building a map from third-had descriptions of other's accounts. Religion relates more to ancient cartography then modern.
Religion is building a house on ground that has been vouchsafed as sound by someone's x-times great-grandfather hearing someone say they were told a geologist said it was solid.
You've stomped the ground with your feet and are confident it was a valid determination, but you are taking by faith that it sits over sold rock and not over sand and water on a fault line.
No matter how strong the internal structure, the foundation is a guess.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@Truman
quote:
Parroting "quantum mechanics" doesn't even half cut it.
OK then. Note the treatment of quantum physics comes in the discussion of the Kalam cosmological argument, but the causal principle underpins all cosmological arguments. And I am not falling on one side or the other, just noting that the causal principle has come under philosophical pressure.
quote:
Come on sunshine, you have to do better than that. Just saying that it may be possible that in some context the causal principle might not apply isn't grounds for rejecting its universality.
The causal principle - in IngoB's formulation, everything that comes into existence and/or is contingent has a cause - is a premise, ie a declaration that something is true and upon which the truth of argument depends. The objection is that this may be assumed to be true for the purposes of living our everyday lives and doing science that can be tested, but cannot to be assumed to be true for more speculative purposes like trying to figure out the origin of universes/multiverses/reality as a whole. Ingo's counter objection is that this undercuts science. On the footballing principle that you can only play the opposition on the field, that's the objection I answered.
Alright Grokesk? How's it going me ol' reprobate? Nice to see us striking up a common lingo... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
First time I've been spoken of in the same breath as Dave Allen. I'm humbled.....
I read your link to quantum physics. Here's your problems. First question is whether quantum observations lead to ontic conclusions (like do electrons really appear and disappear) or epistemic conclusions (they're there all the time, we just don't have the kit to track them). That's a little conundrum you'd have to solve before seriously suggesting we can say tarra to the causal principle. You also talk about quantum mechanics like it only has one variant. The Copenhagen interpretation has been challenged on an off, and there are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics as alternatives. Have a google of David Bohm if you're interested (tho' it doesn't make much of a difference to the flow of the augment). Before quantum mechanics asks too many questions about the causal principle, quantum mechanics has to answer some significant questions raised by quantum mechanics.
But there's two bigger problems to suggesting that quantum mechanics could scupper a causal explanation for the beginning of the universe. Quantum indeterminancy is a property of spatio temporal physical systems. You have to have the system in place to begin with to make your quantum observations. So that doesn't help with the question of how the system - the energy field, the fluctations in the field - got there in the first place.
You went on to suggest that quote:
The causal principle...may be assumed to be true for the purposes of living our everyday lives and doing science that can be tested, but cannot to be assumed to be true for more speculative purposes like trying to figure out the origin of universes/multiverses/reality as a whole
Nice sound bite, but you need to do a tad more to show how you get to that conclusion. You seem to be reckoning that if the causal principe can be questioned for events
within the universe, then it can be questioned for the universe as a whole. But that just don't follow me ol' son. As I've said, you still need a material system for quantum mechanics to work through in the first place.
Your argument would carry more weight if you could cite a theory that suggested universal origins could be explained through quantum mechanics and does away with the need for a first cause.
Good luck with that one.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
'Judging from the mapped flow', IngoB? Religion is building a map from third-had descriptions of other's accounts. Religion relates more to ancient cartography then modern.
We were still talking about the classical cosmological argument there - a very tightly argued, logical piece of metaphysics that is not historically conditioned - not about religion. Your critique is arguably amiss even for religion, but simply irrelevant for the topic actually under discussion.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I disagree, but mainly posted because I think y'all are getting a little precious about constructing castles in a box.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I disagree, but mainly posted because I think y'all are getting a little precious about constructing castles in a box.
Could be fun ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Is this likely to shed a lot more light on the question?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I disagree, but mainly posted because I think y'all are getting a little precious about constructing castles in a box.
Could be fun
Is this likely to shed a lot more light on the question?
Looking forward to it. Interesting that they say with Run One and discovering the Higgs that "...we've discovered everything that our existing theory predicts." Could be we've discovered everything that's humanly discoverable given our place in the universe from which to make observations, and the tools available to us with the resources on Earth to make them from.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
The fact is that for all of us - if we don't trust our perceptions, we are lost. And perception is not a fixed thing - different individuals perceive differently, for many reasons. Using all this philosophical weaponry is a bit of a distraction, because the basic perceptual data that each of us have is different.
Empiricism, i.e., the common sense idea that the best way to knowledge is by experience, "holds water" best …
A seeker of knowledge and understanding of, say, The Grand Canyon of Arizona could read books and papers and articles, examine rock samples, view photographs and videos, interview people who have visited and explored The Canyon … but such a searcher will finally eventually need to GO *there* and see The Canyon up close and personal, hike it, watch its seasonal changes, take a river raft trip, etc., in order TRULY to *KNOW* The Grand Canyon of Arizona ...
[ 05. April 2015, 19:19: Message edited by: Teilhard ]
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
More accurately, the existence of an uncaused cause that we can then deduce must have characteristics that warrant calling it God.
Maybe that's the bit I don't get. If the Big Bang is an Uncaused Cause, that means we should worship it ?!?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
More accurately, the existence of an uncaused cause that we can then deduce must have characteristics that warrant calling it God.
Maybe that's the bit I don't get. If the Big Bang is an Uncaused Cause, that means we should worship it ?!?
The Big Bang is an event, not an entity, so not the sort of thing we're talking about anyway.
That we're talking about something worthy of worship is Step Two of the argument. Step One if valid establishes the existence of an Uncaused Cause, or less misleadingly perhaps, a Self-Explaining Explanans. Step Two of the argument purports to show that the Self-Explaining Explanans has certain traits that warrant worshipping it, namely being the free ground of our being. The existence argument, even though it attracts most of the attention, is only really a first step.
[ 05. April 2015, 21:19: 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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Aquinas quoted by IngoB:
a priority of nature, so that, if the created thing is left to itself, it would not exist, because it only has its being from the causality of the higher cause. What a thing has in itself and not from something else is naturally prior in it to that which it has from something else. ...
Curious. You say that Aquinas rejected Anselm's proof of God. Yet the section you quote seems to state the same point which most people take to be the flaw in Anselm's argument - that existence or being is some kind of secondary characteristic. Implying that non-existent things have the characteristics of their nature...
Have I misunderstood ?
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Way. Truth. Life. You like Way. I like Truth. We share Life. Don't knock what the other has, it's a Trinity.
It's very poetical but I don't see why it has anything to do with proof.
Finally. Thank you.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Aquinas quoted by IngoB:
a priority of nature, so that, if the created thing is left to itself, it would not exist, because it only has its being from the causality of the higher cause. What a thing has in itself and not from something else is naturally prior in it to that which it has from something else. ...
Curious. You say that Aquinas rejected Anselm's proof of God. Yet the section you quote seems to state the same point which most people take to be the flaw in Anselm's argument - that existence or being is some kind of secondary characteristic. Implying that non-existent things have the characteristics of their nature...
Have I misunderstood ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Spirit/Mind/Word is primary, matter is secondary.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Are we getting into Plato's cave territory? Archetypes/ideas are real, and things are just their shadows?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Spirit/Mind/Word is primary, matter is secondary.
All our experience suggests that software needs hardware to run on...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Are we getting into Plato's cave territory? Archetypes/ideas are real, and things are just their shadows?
Possibly, but some of the ideas expressed are closer to a form of philosophical idealism.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
Sorry, meant by that a form of idealism different from Plato's theory of forms.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Maybe the causal principle holds in this universe but not in the multiverse.
The problem here is that you can say the words, but you cannot actually imagine what they mean. We are not just talking "random" here, or "stochastic", which still is causal in the sense we are talking about here. (You may not know when some atom decays, but you do know that it is be-cause of the weak force, etc.) We are talking real chaos, and not chaos of the deterministic kind. Take all LSD hallucinations anybody ever had, shuffle and mix them at random, and that would still have way more structure than the chaos we are talking about here. Indeed, this proposition is simply unstable. For example, why should not one of your "causally free" multiverses get up, take our universe, smear it on toast, and eat it for breakfast? What do you mean "How can that be?" I don't have to give you any account of that. Indeed, even the complaint that I'm just talking non-sense now doesn't work any longer. For what makes sense to my mind is of course precisely what is causally conditioned. But this supposedly is not. So really all bets are off, any insanity is potentially valid. This of course is not what physicists imagine when they talk about the multiverse. They imagine some variation of natural constants, or even of natural laws, but not real chaos. Indeed, the whole multiverse idea taken as a whole has of course regular causal structure. That's just what our descriptions ("universes bubbling up with endless variations") impose. Consequently, the multiverse may be a neat fudge to get you around the fine-tuning problems, but it does nothing to the cosmological argument. It merely redefines the entity the cosmological argument is about.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Or, the causal principle is a methodological and practical principle that has no ontological justification. So, it works when it works, but if ever evidence calls it into question we would have some serious thinking to do.
This is not just some natural law that you are calling in question there. This is not like Newton's mechanics that gets placed into a limited context by Special Relativity, or anything like that. If causality breaks, it's game over. Not only is science dead, very rapidly you will be, too. This is not some sort of minor effect that can be contained. This is something in the world about which you cannot meaningfully ask questions like "how and why does it do that?" It can for example just turn the entire earth into a turnip. Why not? What would stop it? Energy conservation? What energy conservation? Etc.
By the way, if you have paid close attention, then you will have seen the rather striking resemblance true chaos has to God. There is a difference though. And in this you find an answer why we don't just say that the "uncaused Cause" is some non-thinking thing, like a force. Because the uncaused Cause cannot have any structure or regularity imposed on it, or it would not be the endpoint of causation. So there is no extrinsic reason why it would not create true chaos. But it does not do so, it creates order. So we must assume that it has some intrinsic reason for that, and this is is what we call by analogy to ourselves God's intellect and will. (And it is a very, very stretched analogy. Many Christians think that God's "mental life" is some super-sized version of ours. That's terribly false...)
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
The universe/multiverse does not have to be intelligible to us.
Non-causal is "worse" than non-intelligible. I can fail to grasp something simply because it is beyond my finite capacity to understand. This does not mean however that this thing is free of all constraints. To put it the other way around, it is not necessary to understand the limits of all things in order to realise that all things must be limited.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
And your bonus question is an argument from adverse consequences, anyway. The basis for modern science is good enough for modern science, if we removed it we would have to replace it with something that incorporates any new information that gets thrown at us.
Sure, but that's not really defanging my bonus question. The point there was that it is really difficult to aim Hume's conception of "loose" causation at the cosmological argument without targeting science as well. To blow up one without blowing up the other is certainly difficult, and IMHO impossible. (Not that Hume's ideas about causation can blow up anything in my opinion, since I think they are simply wrong. But even if we take them as true, they are just not the precision weapon that is needed to get rid of the cosmological argument without damaging science...)
--------------------
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
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Spirit/Mind/Word is primary, matter is secondary.
All our experience suggests that software needs hardware to run on...
our physical experience ...
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
It's very poetical but I don't see why it has anything to do with proof.
It certainly wasn't an intellectual proof, I was working to Martin60's specs there... But proof is defined as "evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement" (OED Mac). And if you actually tried doing this, then it might just furnish you with relevant experiential evidence.
Or not. Making minds receptive is not an exact science, and in many ways it is a reactive one. At the right moment, a single word or action is enough, at the wrong moment, a thousand will not do.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
