Ship of Fools: Introducing me. There are no gods or supernatural!

Thread: Introducing me. There are no gods or supernatural! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029117

Posted by Fool (# 18359) on :

There's a thread called 'Are You Religious?' on the Army Rumour Service (ARRSE) - http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/are-you-religious-ii.182958/page-212#post-6327799 - which I used to dip into occasionally. I stopped because it became same old same old. Anyway recently some one posted this:

"This thread amuses me. After being an active participant on The Ship Of Fools forums for many a year I have to say that I do wish some of the more militant atheists would register over there and post their smug, self-satisfied, "we know better from the 21st Century North-Western Europe" comments.

Because HB et al would get their arrses handed to them on a nice silver collection plate. Possibly in HB's case along with some nice bread and wine if you take my meaning. They love zealots.

I'm not good enough to convert the likes of the, but they are.

They love an atheist dimwit for breakfast, a halfwit for lunch, and a simple plain witless for supper. I suspect some on here would sustain them for a fair few meals!"

So here I am. I wouldn't describe myself as a militant atheist but then I wouldn't describe Dawkins as one either.

I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Welcome, Fool! [Smile]

A Host/Admin will probably come along and give you a verbal map of the Ship, and your own mop. Apprentices get the scut work jobs around the Ship.

[Biased]

We have a motley crew, here. Atheists, agnostics, Christians of many flavors (like a Baskins-Robbins ice cream shop!), Jews, Buddhists; not sure if we currently have any Pagans, but we've had them; I think some people have a Muslim background; people who draw from multiple wells of ideas (e.g., Christian and Buddhist); humanists, seekers, people leaving a belief or coming to one...and, of course, some of us venerate Sir Terry Pratchett.

It's very late/early here, so I'm not going to tackle this now. But have fun--and don't forget to mop that corner over there.
[Biased]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Welcome to you Fool.

I have no answers to your questions, but I am amazed that out of 18312 crew members to date you are the first to call themselves 'Fool'.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

...Someone told you you'd find sensible grown adults here? YAY!

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Ahem.. That would be me.

I went to play over there for a bit!

They made me laugh when discussing faith issues. Much as I might disagree politically with you, I am not going to deny there are people on these SoF boards who are debaters on religious matters par excellence.

Enjoy...

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents.

I think the first question you need to ask yourself is what you consider to be evidence and what you consider to be proof (they are certainly not the same thing). I'm very interested that you claim proof of a negative (that God/gods/the supernatural have never manifested anywhere except in the imagination of those who believe in them), and would very much like to see that proof.

I don't expect that what is said here will convert you, one generally can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into (and yes, that does cut both ways). What it might do is give you better tools to defend your views and give you a better understanding of how people come to faith.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Sorry to disappoint, but we don't eat atheists. We eat assholes. You don't seem like one, so you'll probably survive just fine.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents.

Are you truly interested in learning what motivates others' beliefs, or here to pick fights? I hope it's the former. We have many fine atheists, some of them in the higher echelons of admin, even, here at SOF. You're more than welcome!

We've also had our share of the latter kind. They don't tend to last long. Here's hoping your stay will be long and profitable for you and for the rest of us as well.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

Given the post-Modern ethos, in which God is defined as "not Real," if a scoffer-skeptic did have a direct personal encounter with the Reality of God (s)he almost certainly would regard it as an hallucination -- either an interesting "brain fart" or as a reason to be examined for a brain tumor, or maybe indicating a need for a prescription for Haldol ...

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

In full and frank disclosure, I have raised my own thread in The Styx about my referencing this site elsewhere and the OP coming here because of it.

Just in case the Hosts want to have another polite word with me about taking some more time off!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Given the post-Modern ethos, in which God is defined as "not Real," if a scoffer-skeptic did have a direct personal encounter with the Reality of God (s)he almost certainly would regard it as an hallucination -- either an interesting "brain fart" or as a reason to be examined for a brain tumor, or maybe indicating a need for a prescription for Haldol ...

It's not just post-modern, is it? I recollect discussion by medieval philosophy that God does not 'exist'.

I'm not sure about your other point; people who have had some kind of transcendent experience, are often satisfied by it. Well, I have known quite a lot who were. 'Evidence' to me presupposes empiricism, but can that capture God?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents.
I think the first question you need to ask yourself is what you consider to be evidence and what you consider to be proof (they are certainly not the same thing). I'm very interested that you claim proof of a negative (that God/gods/the supernatural have never manifested anywhere except in the imagination of those who believe in them), and would very much like to see that proof.

I don't expect that what is said here will convert you, one generally can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into (and yes, that does cut both ways). What it might do is give you better tools to defend your views and give you a better understanding of how people come to faith.

I feel I ought to weigh in on this as I did mention something similar "in another place" as it were.

I thought there were four standards of proof, two of which I believe cannot be met, one which can and one which can but not by me due to lack of brains!

1) Mathematical Proof
2) Scientific Proof
3) Judicial Proof
4) Philosophical Proof

Mathematical proof is the proof beyond all. If something can be proven mathematically, it is true completely, as I understand it. But given that Bertrand Russell took a fair sized book to prove 1+1=2 I somehow doubt that the existence of God can be proven that way.

Similar is scientific proof. As God, IMHO, is outside of nature - supernatural - and we are limited to using the tools of science that only allow us to investigate inside nature, it seems to me we can never develop scientific proof of the existence of God. Fair enough. There is a reason we call it "belief" or "faith".

Judicial proof - beyond all reasonable doubt. Well, the courts have accepted the existence of God for centuries and it is confirmed hundreds of times per day around the world. "Please take this Bible in your right hand and repeat after me, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God". If that isn't proof of a judicial nature I'm not sure what is!

Philosophical Proofs? No. Sorry, I'm out of my depth there.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Welcome, Fool! And in ten years here I've never been able to post that.

I'm one of the Purgatory Hosts and thought it might be as well to give a tip or two.

Firstly on the topic you want to discuss. I think it might help to narrow it down a bit. Here's the Wiki article on evidence for the existence of God. That's a big subject! Is there any particular aspect you'd like us to focus on? The danger of very broad topics is that they can easily lose focus, fly off in a lot of different directions. That can get pretty frustrating.

Secondly, in testing the value and quality of discussions here, you might like to look at one of the non-religious threads e.g "worse and worse mousetraps" , or the long running "Ferguson" thread. Maybe flex your debating muscles there?

Thirdly, there might be an existing thread or three on a religious topic which might serve as an intro to specific examples of supernatural belief e.g. the thread on demons.

That's also quite a good way of getting acquainted with the various regular Shipmates here.

I hope you enjoy your time here. There are some very sharp minds to be found amongst the regular participants.

[ 14. March 2015, 12:54: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Oh, yawn.

Nonmilitant atheist here. Personally, I can't think why anybody wastes time scraping up "proofs" for what is, after all, a "belief." Apples and invisible oranges.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Oh, yawn.

Nonmilitant atheist here. Personally, I can't think why anybody wastes time scraping up "proofs" for what is, after all, a "belief." Apples and invisible oranges.

I would not say, "belief," so much as "understanding" … "Belief" gets into specifics, "i.e., "theology," which is not at all necessarily the same thing as "faith" ...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Mathematical proof is the proof beyond all. If something can be proven mathematically, it is true completely, as I understand it.

Ahem. No, not really. It is completely true within the bounds of the axioms that you started with. And the axioms of mathematics are pretty much human constructs, not something objectively real.

But apart from that, yes...

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Judicial proof - beyond all reasonable doubt. Well, the courts have accepted the existence of God for centuries and it is confirmed hundreds of times per day around the world. "Please take this Bible in your right hand and repeat after me, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God". If that isn't proof of a judicial nature I'm not sure what is!

As the first premise in a modus ponens argument, I agree with your last sentence. (Though I don't think we'd agree on the second premise, or the conclusion that I would draw.)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I thought there were four standards of proof, ...

1) Mathematical Proof
2) Scientific Proof
3) Judicial Proof
4) Philosophical Proof

I'm not so sure those are standards of proof, they are rather fields in which "proof" has a specific meaning. More than anything else they are tools for examining reality. And, that isn't an exclusive list of the content of the tool box either (where is art? or history? for example).

I think the first three of those are, more than anything else, simply the wrong tools to address the question of the existence, or otherwise, of a deity. Though the weighing of evidence in a court of law may have some useful analogies that might be suitable tools (eg: Josh McDowells Evidence that demands a verdict, which I wouldn't call a very convincing book, mainly because the structure is unreadable, but did attempt that sort of analysis).

Of course, science is the field I am most familiar with. Science is an exercise in understanding the physical universe. Therefore it's axiomatic that the non-physical (eg: the divine or supernatural) is not something science can make any sort of statement about. To attempt to say "science disproves God" is rather like trying to tighten a screw using a hammer, it's simply the wrong tool for the job.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Oh, yawn.

Nonmilitant atheist here. Personally, I can't think why anybody wastes time scraping up "proofs" for what is, after all, a "belief." Apples and invisible oranges.
I would not say, "belief," so much as "understanding" … "Belief" gets into specifics, "i.e., "theology," which is not at all necessarily the same thing as "faith" ...

I'm talking about generic "belief" -- that is, something which the believer holds to be true in the absence of evidence, i.e., vaccines cause autism; a unicorn has moved in with the fairies at the bottom of my garden; a large rabbit will distribute jelly beans & colored eggs on the morning of April 5th.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Oh, yawn.

Nonmilitant atheist here. Personally, I can't think why anybody wastes time scraping up "proofs" for what is, after all, a "belief." Apples and invisible oranges.
I would not say, "belief," so much as "understanding" … "Belief" gets into specifics, "i.e., "theology," which is not at all necessarily the same thing as "faith" ...
I'm talking about generic "belief" --

Sorry there is no such thing as a generic "belief". The evidence of philosophers and anthropologists is that "belief" in the West (not just English but French as well) is a slippery term that moves between at least three different sets of meanings. Non-Western cultures tend not to have a term that simply translates as belief rather according to which of the meanings is dominant you have to change your translation.

If you want to know more then H.H. Price "Belief", Rodney Needham "Belief, Language and Experience" and Jean Pouillon "Remarks on the Verb to Believe" in Between Belief and Transgression. What is striking is the degree of agreement between H.H. Price (Philosopher English) and Jean Pouillon (Anthropologist, French) about the structural nature of the meaning of "to believe".

Jengie

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
is rather like trying to tighten a screw using a hammer, it's simply the wrong tool for the job.

Bad analogy. The easiest way to screw two pieces of wood is to hammer in the screw over half way, then finish with a screwdriver

I agree with the overall flow of your argument, analogy aside.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Mathematical proof is the proof beyond all. If something can be proven mathematically, it is true completely, as I understand it.
Ahem. No, not really. It is completely true within the bounds of the axioms that you started with. And the axioms of mathematics are pretty much human constructs, not something objectively real.

As witnessed by non-Euclidean geometry. The decision of which of various mutually-incompatible geometries to use rests primarily on utility.

And that's before you get to Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I thought there were four standards of proof, ...

1) Mathematical Proof
2) Scientific Proof
3) Judicial Proof
4) Philosophical Proof

"Judicial Proof" isn't a standard of proof, but a set of standards of proof, depending on the nature of the offense. "Preponderance of the evidence" is a standard of proof, as is "Beyond a reasonable doubt." IANAL but I believe in the US, the former is used for civil cases, and the latter for criminal. (Open to correction from the more knowledgeable here.)

Philosophical proof is a chimera. I'd be willing to wager there is nothing in the realm of philosophy that has been proven to the satisfaction of all or even most (say) tenured philosophy professors in European or European-descended (Australian, Canadian, American, Venezuelan, etc.) universities. There is logical proof, which has greater acceptibility, but less applicability. At most it can tell you what follows or does not follow from certain premises using certain generally-accepted-as-truth-preserving types of inference. It is, in fact, a glorified way of producing tautologies.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm talking about generic "belief" -- that is, something which the believer holds to be true in the absence of evidence, i.e., vaccines cause autism; a unicorn has moved in with the fairies at the bottom of my garden; a large rabbit will distribute jelly beans & colored eggs on the morning of April 5th.

Aha, you invoked Thurber's "The Unicorn In The Garden"!
[Cool]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Sorry there is no such thing as a generic "belief".

Jengie

Of course there isn't, nor did I claim there was " a generic belief." I wrote "generic" without the article.

We think, and believe, and posit, and deny, refute, speculate, hypothesize, explain, etc. etc. specific items. Note that the examples I gave are all specific. It isn't possible to "believe" without being specific about the belief's content; we have to isolate and define the parameters of what we're cogitating; the act of believing starts with, or at least includes, distinguishing the content of the belief from other possibilities. There's various kinds, degrees, and qualities of evidence for various kinds of possibilities.

Positing a specific state of affairs and deciding to hold it as true is a fairly generic ability. Most literate humans do this routinely; we do it in the act of reading fiction, for example. We "believe" an author's inventions and accept them as true, however temporarily. But we do not lose the ability to do this when we move on to different reading material.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Okay Fool, what makes you say that there isn't any evidence for the supernatural? Discussion is a two way exchange of views.

Tubbs

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Sorry there is no such thing as a generic "belief".

Jengie
Of course there isn't, nor did I claim there was " a generic belief." I wrote "generic" without the article.

We think, and believe, and posit, and deny, refute, speculate, hypothesize, explain, etc. etc. specific items. Note that the examples I gave are all specific. It isn't possible to "believe" without being specific about the belief's content; we have to isolate and define the parameters of what we're cogitating; the act of believing starts with, or at least includes, distinguishing the content of the belief from other possibilities. There's various kinds, degrees, and qualities of evidence for various kinds of possibilities.

Positing a specific state of affairs and deciding to hold it as true is a fairly generic ability. Most literate humans do this routinely; we do it in the act of reading fiction, for example. We "believe" an author's inventions and accept them as true, however temporarily. But we do not lose the ability to do this when we move on to different reading material.

Nope that is only part of the meaning of belief and is characterised sometimes as "Belief that" (Price), it has long been contested that it is absolutely irrelevant when it come to Religious belief. Certainly Needham found it non-apllicable when dealing with non-western cultures.

Jengie

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
is rather like trying to tighten a screw using a hammer, it's simply the wrong tool for the job.
Bad analogy. The easiest way to screw two pieces of wood is to hammer in the screw over half way, then finish with a screwdriver

I agree with the overall flow of your argument, analogy aside.

Depends on the wood. The best way is to drill a pilot hole approximately the diameter of the shank, the use a screwdriver to tighten the screw. This allows the threads to bite solidly without undue damage to the wood.
Your blunt force trauma method is quicker, but it risks damaging the wood to an extent where the screw may not connect as solidly as possible.
This analogy works for building argument as well as building furniture.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Oh, yawn.

Nonmilitant atheist here. Personally, I can't think why anybody wastes time scraping up "proofs" for what is, after all, a "belief." Apples and invisible oranges.
I would not say, "belief," so much as "understanding" … "Belief" gets into specifics, "i.e., "theology," which is not at all necessarily the same thing as "faith" ...
I'm talking about generic "belief" -- that is, something which the believer holds to be true in the absence of evidence, i.e., vaccines cause autism; a unicorn has moved in with the fairies at the bottom of my garden; a large rabbit will distribute jelly beans & colored eggs on the morning of April 5th.

Cheers for the tip off Porridge. I'll remember to leave out some extra carrot on the night of the 4th......

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Mathematical proof is the proof beyond all. If something can be proven mathematically, it is true completely, as I understand it.
Ahem. No, not really. It is completely true within the bounds of the axioms that you started with. And the axioms of mathematics are pretty much human constructs, not something objectively real.

But apart from that, yes...

IOW, any "proof" is already decided by the presuppositions ...

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Oh, yawn.

Nonmilitant atheist here. Personally, I can't think why anybody wastes time scraping up "proofs" for what is, after all, a "belief." Apples and invisible oranges.
I would not say, "belief," so much as "understanding" … "Belief" gets into specifics, "i.e., "theology," which is not at all necessarily the same thing as "faith" ...
I'm talking about generic "belief" -- that is, something which the believer holds to be true in the absence of evidence, i.e., vaccines cause autism; a unicorn has moved in with the fairies at the bottom of my garden; a large rabbit will distribute jelly beans & colored eggs on the morning of April 5th.

Who says that "belief" is about "absence of evidence" … ???

I do not know and I cannot "prove," but I certainly do "believe," that the Sun will "rise" tomorrow morning, as based upon my own previous experience(s) of morning sunrises ...

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Who says that "belief" is about "absence of evidence" … ???

I do not know and I cannot "prove," but I certainly do "believe," that the Sun will "rise" tomorrow morning, as based upon my own previous experience(s) of morning sunrises ...

In fact, the sun will assuredly not rise tomorrow, nor (as far as we know) has it "risen" in any of your previous experiences of morning.

What has (as far as we know) happened is that the earth has been revolving on its axis while orbiting the sun, and from your perspective on a given spot on our planet's surface, the sun appeared to "rise," with a very high probability that you and the rest of the planet's residents will have a similar experience in roughly 24 hours, and the humans among us will probably describe it in similar, albeit mistaken, ways.

[Biased]

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Teilhard said

Who says that "belief" is about "absence of evidence" … ??? I do not know and I cannot "prove," but I certainly do "believe," that the Sun will "rise" tomorrow morning, as based upon my own previous experience(s) of morning sunrises ...

Too right mate. I always chuckle when atheists (for example) say theists hold their beliefs in the absence of "evidence." What evidence do we have that the world we are experiencing is just an illusion, and that in reality we're nothing more than disembodied neural processors maintained in a lab somewhere? Sure, someone can equate "belief" with blind faith if they want to use that as a definition, but I've yet to meet a theist who couldn't point to something they regarded as "evidence" for their beliefs.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

For me, belief is perhaps going beyond the evidence. It's that extra step. For example, I'm pretty convinced due to philosophical arguments from people like Feser and Bentley-Hart that without an underlying, creative, intelligent, self-existing reality, the universe and consciousness is a non-starter. I also can't simply dismiss the New Testament as simply myth and legend. Do the arguments answer every point? Of course not. Do I question due to the sheer amount of suffering in the world? Definitely. So I go to the point where the arguments take me, and take that stumbling step or two of faith.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Who says that "belief" is about "absence of evidence" … ???

I do not know and I cannot "prove," but I certainly do "believe," that the Sun will "rise" tomorrow morning, as based upon my own previous experience(s) of morning sunrises ...
In fact, the sun will assuredly not rise tomorrow, nor (as far as we know) has it "risen" in any of your previous experiences of morning.

What has (as far as we know) happened is that the earth has been revolving on its axis while orbiting the sun, and from your perspective on a given spot on our planet's surface, the sun appeared to "rise,"

That's right me ol' hearty, as the earth rotates and changes it's position in relation to the sun, I perceive that from my perspective as the sun rising. Two equally reasonable ways of speaking about the same phenomenon.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
For me, belief is perhaps going beyond the evidence. It's that extra step. For example, I'm pretty convinced due to philosophical arguments from people like Feser and Bentley-Hart that without an underlying, creative, intelligent, self-existing reality, the universe and consciousness is a non-starter. I also can't simply dismiss the New Testament as simply myth and legend. Do the arguments answer every point? Of course not. Do I question due to the sheer amount of suffering in the world? Definitely. So I go to the point where the arguments take me, and take that stumbling step or two of faith.

I see where you're coming from Jack. I reckon you're OK to express this more positively. Fine to say that the physical evidence of the way the universe is set up and the fact of consciousness is evidence pointing to a creative intelligence. That's more following and interpreting the evidence - not so much going beyond it. Scientific discoveries work the same way. Le Maitre's maths and Hubbles stellar observations give us good evidence as to the finitude of the universe and its cosmic origin. We can't reproduce that initial event, but we can draw conclusions about it from the evidence available.

You've got good reasons for your beliefs - don't be shy about it [Smile]

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

Does accidentally double posting it count as more positive?!

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

With respect, I'm having trouble parsing your response. In part, this is no doubt due to my ignorance of the material you reference. But it's also due in part to how you've phrased your response:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Nope that is only part of the meaning of belief

Given that I began by agreeing with part of your response to me, what exactly are you saying "Nope" to? What is only part of the meaning of belief?

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
. . . and is characterised sometimes as "Belief that" (Price),

What aspect of my response could be characterized this way?

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
. . . it has long been contested

What is being contested, and how, and by whom?

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
. . . that it is absolutely irrelevant when it come to Religious belief.

What is irrelevant to religious belief? Please, I am not a philosopher or theologian; I'm a simple mental health worker operating on the, er, belief that you are saying something worth attending to, and to be frank, more nouns and fewer pronouns would help greatly. I do not have the time, background, energy, or desire to embark on a lengthy, detailed study of these writers, though I would like to try to understand your point.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

wrt proof, we have also to decide whether we will use simple aristotelean logic with an excluded middle, or whether we will allow ternary or other complex logical systems.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm talking about generic "belief" -- that is, something which the believer holds to be true in the absence of evidence, i.e., vaccines cause autism; a unicorn has moved in with the fairies at the bottom of my garden; a large rabbit will distribute jelly beans & colored eggs on the morning of April 5th.

I doubt many people hold beliefs for which they believe there's no evidence whatever.

From an internal standpoint, there's no real difference between knowing and believing. The traditional philosophical definition of knowledge is justified true belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief. What counts as justification is open to question, and whether something is true is nothing to do with the person's psychological state. People claim belief when they don't have enough confidence in their justification to claim knowledge. But that doesn't mean belief is as such unreliable.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm talking about generic "belief" -- that is, something which the believer holds to be true in the absence of evidence, i.e., vaccines cause autism; a unicorn has moved in with the fairies at the bottom of my garden; a large rabbit will distribute jelly beans & colored eggs on the morning of April 5th.
I doubt many people hold beliefs for which they believe there's no evidence whatever.

From an internal standpoint, there's no real difference between knowing and believing. The traditional philosophical definition of knowledge is justified true belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief. What counts as justification is open to question, and whether something is true is nothing to do with the person's psychological state. People claim belief when they don't have enough confidence in their justification to claim knowledge. But that doesn't mean belief is as such unreliable.

Yes …
Often times, when one first hears of some new amazing discovery, the initial expressed response is, "That is unbelievable … !!!" … or, "I don't believe it … !!!" …

But upon having one's own personal experience(s) of the new amazing discovery, visiting the place or seeing the fossils on display or the rocks up close at hand ... then … well, of course, "belief" happens ...

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Dafyd. Just so's I'm on the same page here, by justified belief you mean something like this?

A justified belief is one that, all things considered, has been arrived (and subsequently retained) at rationally on the basis of methods of acquisition that are acceptable given the limitations on one's time, capacities and abilities, in relation to one's goals. So if I have an epistemically rational belief that I've spent an acceptable amount of time and energy researching and evaluating evidence for a certain proposition, using acceptable procedures in that endeavour, then it's justifiable for me to to have that belief.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Double blind belief trials. [Killing me]

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Double blind belief trials.

That would be, "the blind leading the blind" … ??? [Smile]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
is rather like trying to tighten a screw using a hammer, it's simply the wrong tool for the job.
Bad analogy. The easiest way to screw two pieces of wood is to hammer in the screw over half way, then finish with a screwdriver

I agree with the overall flow of your argument, analogy aside.
Depends on the wood. The best way is to drill a pilot hole approximately the diameter of the shank, the use a screwdriver to tighten the screw. This allows the threads to bite solidly without undue damage to the wood.
Your blunt force trauma method is quicker, but it risks damaging the wood to an extent where the screw may not connect as solidly as possible.
This analogy works for building argument as well as building furniture.

And just to build on the analogy. I didn't mention wood. balaam appears to have assumed I was talking about screwing together two pieces of wood. I could be wanting to put up bathroom cabinets using pre-drilled holes through tile (with plastic plugs), which happens to be the last largish job I did using screws. Maybe the little screws that hold plastic battery covers in place on childrens toys, or I maybe wanting to repair my computer and I've taken the base off my laptop. All of which involve tightening screws without any wood involved.

We all potentially fall into the error of reading an argument, and automatically linking it to similar arguments and assuming that the person proposing the argument written will also agree with other related statements. The words may say "tighten a screw" but we often read "tighten a screw through two bits of wood". B may usually follow A, but it doesn't always and we can get into a right mess in discussions if we assume it does until explicitly told.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:

I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents.

May I please ask what you mean by the Supernatural?
Do you mean a deity, devils and angels, ghosts and goblins?
I think many of us believe a god of some description.

For me, I believe in a trinitarian God, Creator, Christ and Holy Spirit. Christ as a historical figure has as much evidence and more so than any of his contemporaries. I understand that his historicity has been proved.

His history, the account of Christ's deeds is less proven and more open to interpretation. And here is the sticking point. What you mean by supernatural will be different to me and everyone else. Hence my question- What do you mean by supernatural?

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

Hi Fool, welcome.

Atheist (that is, one who does not believe in god[s]) here.

I suspect that the answer to your very sensible final paragraph lies in neuroscience.

There is a growing body of very powerful experimental evidence which shows that we do things because the interplay of our nature (our genetic inheritance) and our nurture (meaning the totality of our life experience) causes us to act as we do. Most neuroscientists are determinists though, surprise, surprise, most philosophers are not - interesting comment here. The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age. And why is that; because the instinct to believe our parents etc. is lessened by experience. We can use the opportunities that church schools provide more effectively for the mission of the Church, and in particular the contribution that our church schools can make to spiritual and numerical growth". (Bishop of St Albans, at Church of England Synod)

The other intriguing question, ISTM, is how would a supernatural being, should one exist, interact with the natural world to which it is, by definition "super". It reminds me of those who claim that God is "a mystery" but then can tell me, in great detail, what God demands of me, (though, in fairness, you'll find few such on the Ship).

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Hi Fool, welcome.

Atheist (that is, one who does not believe in god[s]) here.

I suspect that the answer to your very sensible final paragraph lies in neuroscience.

There is a growing body of very powerful experimental evidence which shows that we do things because the interplay of our nature (our genetic inheritance) and our nurture (meaning the totality of our life experience) causes us to act as we do. Most neuroscientists are determinists though, surprise, surprise, most philosophers are not - interesting comment here. The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age. And why is that; because the instinct to believe our parents etc. is lessened by experience. We can use the opportunities that church schools provide more effectively for the mission of the Church, and in particular the contribution that our church schools can make to spiritual and numerical growth". (Bishop of St Albans, at Church of England Synod)

The other intriguing question, ISTM, is how would a supernatural being, should one exist, interact with the natural world to which it is, by definition "super". It reminds me of those who claim that God is "a mystery" but then can tell me, in great detail, what God demands of me, (though, in fairness, you'll find few such on the Ship).

For sure, when someone attempts to *define* "God" in terms of "Nature," i.e., as "a Super-Natural Being," then immediately some cognitive dissonance is bound to appear in place of (the Real) "God" ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:

I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents. [/QB]

Adults generally poorly understand risk and evidence - hence so many think they can win the lottery and will not get cancer.

Secondly, human beings are not logical anyway. In a complicated inexplicable space, belief in a deity in order to fund meaning for one's life is the most sensible thing to do. It is the belief that one is meaningless that is harder to find and harder to understand.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age.

And the increasing push-back from secularists against religious education is an unspoken acknowledgement that atheism is vulnerable if children are not kept away from religion.

[ 15. March 2015, 07:04: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
A justified belief is one that, all things considered, has been arrived (and subsequently retained) at rationally on the basis of methods of acquisition that are acceptable given the limitations on one's time, capacities and abilities, in relation to one's goals. So if I have an epistemically rational belief that I've spent an acceptable amount of time and energy researching and evaluating evidence for a certain proposition, using acceptable procedures in that endeavour, then it's justifiable for me to to have that belief.

That sounds reasonable. I think any definition is going to include a large amount of imprecise terms - 'acceptable' for example - where what is acceptable depends largely on context and subject matter.

I think you're placing a bit too much emphasis on time and energy - in most cases, if we learn something from a reliable source we don't need to check it.

(There's a lot of debate on the subject, as I said. Options range from it's only justified if you've proved it, to no justification is needed, and everything in between.)

J.L. Austin noted in one of his papers that we ask 'why do you believe that?' but 'how do you know that?' If you ask someone why they believe something, you're asking for evidence. If you're asking how they know it, you're asking them to exhibit expertise.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age.
And the increasing push-back from secularists against religious education is an unspoken acknowledgement that atheism is vulnerable if children are not kept away from religion.

Yup. Hugh's line of argument also runs into the buffers of sociology and history. So think of two states that have systematically tried to keep children - and adults for that matter - from "religion." Russia in the Soviet era tried it for 70 years and gave it up as a bad job. If Hugh's right we should be looking at a trend of Russians abandoning religion. Instead, there's been a massive rise in religious interest and practice with the end of the communist era. China went down down the same root and now has the fastest growing Christian (and by some accounts Muslim) communities in the world.

You need a range of disciplines through which to make sense of the world - scientific determinism just doesn't cut it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age. And why is that; because the instinct to believe our parents etc. is lessened by experience. We can use the opportunities that church schools provide more effectively for the mission of the Church, and in particular the contribution that our church schools can make to spiritual and numerical growth". (Bishop of St Albans, at Church of England Synod)

Personally, I see rather more encouragement towards social involvement. After a doleful period when some parts of the Christian rainbow denigrated the "social gospel", there are now many more messages in favour of engagement with the wider community. That's the more inclusive process.

Here's the New Year message from that same Bishop of St Albans.

So far as declaration of beliefs is concerned, I think most mainstream denominations are rather more in favour a "level paying field". In the face of the genuine challenges of hate crimes, a more general suppression of expression of beliefs, just because some proponents espouse hatred and violence, is not in keeping with the principles of a free and open society.

[ 15. March 2015, 07:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age.
And the increasing push-back from secularists against religious education is an unspoken acknowledgement that atheism is vulnerable if children are not kept away from religion.

It's a bit more than that, isn't it? I thought that it's also to do with preventing private beliefs being disseminated in public schools, i.e. state schools. I'm not an atheist, but I can see the sense in it.

Evidence for the supernatural sounds odd to me; how on earth do you develop a method to acquire that?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Incidentally, citing China and the Soviets as examples of secularism seems one-sided to me. One must also cite the US and France as places where religion is kept out of the classroom, in the public sector. Well, there are different historical and political underpinnings in those countries, but I think that they both saw dangers in religious education.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, citing China and the Soviets as examples of secularism seems one-sided to me. One must also cite the US and France as places where religion is kept out of the classroom, in the public sector. Well, there are different historical and political underpinnings in those countries, but I think that they both saw dangers in religious education.

Whilst being spiritually secular, they are still based on belief systems. Indeed, it is strange that modern states, wars, etc are increasingly based on belief systems, and as such attempt (consciously or not) to displace religion/spirituality. Freemasonry, or hermetic spirituality, was prominent in the founding principles of the USA (also France?), as was a belief in free market economy, and the hermetic/economic marriage is one that has led to the corruption of many spiritual aspirations that the original founding fathers had. The "Dangers" of religious education have been replaced by other dangers that are somewhat less visible, and the belief systems being taught are so familiar that most people don't even realise that they are belief systems. I would argue that religious education has the advantage of visibility. "Promises Promises" by David Graeber is interesting in this respect - for anyone in the UK it's available as 10x15 minute podcasts on BBCR4

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, citing China and the Soviets as examples of secularism seems one-sided to me. One must also cite the US and France as places where religion is kept out of the classroom, in the public sector. Well, there are different historical and political underpinnings in those countries, but I think that they both saw dangers in religious education.

I was thinking more about the impact of religious influence on ung people and its effect on wider society. Not exposing kids to religious ideas hasn't made Russia and China more secular (the opposite is happening). The US and France is an interesting comparison. Both were influenced by the enlightenment. Looking at the beleifs and practices of gheir citizens (as opposed to public policy) France became more atheistic, the States became more religious.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Itsarumdo. Yeah, good point. In the UK, we're starting to wake up to the idea that teaching about Islam in schools could provide a powerful counterbalance to private radicalism. Basically, we're asking whether it's more dangerous not to have a robust RE syllabus than to leave religious teaching to families and faith groups alone.

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

Mr Cheesy - I guess that I don't believe I'll get cancer, or cirhossis of the liver, or pancreatitis, since I continue to drink alcohol and live perfectly happy.

We live according to our inmost beliefs. I was brought up in Christianity and choose to follow that particular belief system, because it's what I believe. I just can't not believe in God and the saving grace of Jesus.

But in everything other than that, my philosophy is that we know nothing, including whether or not we are capable of knowing anything.

Phyrrhonist me.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age.
And the increasing push-back from secularists against religious education is an unspoken acknowledgement that atheism is vulnerable if children are not kept away from religion.
Yup. Hugh's line of argument also runs into the buffers of sociology and history. So think of two states that have systematically tried to keep children - and adults for that matter - from "religion." Russia in the Soviet era tried it for 70 years and gave it up as a bad job. If Hugh's right we should be looking at a trend of Russians abandoning religion. Instead, there's been a massive rise in religious interest and practice with the end of the communist era. China went down down the same root and now has the fastest growing Christian (and by some accounts Muslim) communities in the world.

You need a range of disciplines through which to make sense of the world - scientific determinism just doesn't cut it.

Almost universally, Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus …

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I thought that determinism has been rejected in some areas of science?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think you can take your pick on that one.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age.
And the increasing push-back from secularists against religious education is an unspoken acknowledgement that atheism is vulnerable if children are not kept away from religion.

Humans have evolved to believe that which they are told by authority figures - those that didn't believe got burnt to death, drowned, fell off the cliff, ate the wrong berry etc. before being able to pass their genes to the next generation. Teachers are authority figures who control students' lives in loco parentis and sometimes wear odd gowns and hats. Authority is enhanced by control, by ritual, by secret knowledge and by uniforms - placebos work best when provided by someone who is dressed in a white coat with a badge marked Doctor and I suspect that all the fancy-dress encountered in some religions is more than just a sop to the wearer's need for display. Heck, as a salesman I fully appreciated the power of a well cut and pressed suit.

I fully support the teaching of RE in schools (both in theory and by practice) but it has to be teaching about religions not indoctrination in a religion. Does anyone think that Northern Ireland's troubles were not facilitated by sectarian schooling - albeit as one amongst many inflammatory practices?

In response to Truman White. We can all cherry pick to our hearts content. As I understand it, in the USA, there is a clear correlation between the degree of religious practice (contrary to the 1st and 14th Amendments) within states' schools and the highest incidences of teenage pregnancy, the highest divorce rates, the greatest prison populations per capita and most murders per x of population.

It seems pretty clear that religious power/observance is greatest where humans are fearful, fearful (for themselves and their families) of being poor, fearful of being old, fearful of being ill, fearful of being out of work and hungry. Sometimes it seems that certain religious influences encourage such fears so as to enhance the attraction of Heaven (with the attendant knowledge that the fearful will pay for the assurances that promise "jam tomorrow").

In communist Russia (almost) everyone was guaranteed a minimum quality of life, with the collapse of that protection fear and religion have both (hand-in-hand?) reappeared with many commentators drawing attention to the close ties between the ruling politicians and the Russian Orthodox Church (to the glory, it should be said, of neither).

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

Yes … For some post-Modern humans, the preferred "authority figures" are guys like Rick Dawkins, Christ Hitchens, and so on ...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Hugh

I don't think the evolutionary argument stands up. The evidence from social animals and human history is that people both accept and resist the pecking order. Both survival and breeding ambition are at work. I don't think they have anything wider to say about what we believe, other than a challenge to authority can get us hurt.

While there may be second order effects (Boxer's "Comrade Napoleon is always right" comes to mind as a fictional illustration of the fact that some folks are submissive out of a kind of loyalty), the first order effects seem more likely to produce crafty and self-interested acceptance of authority for the time being, rather than conviction that the authority is right.

Nonconformists (like me for example) are often attracted to the picture of Jesus as a challenger of authority, the one who proposes turning established pecking orders upside down ("not so among you"), the one who came to scatter the proud and lift up the lowly.

[ 16. March 2015, 08:54: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Nonconformists (like me for example) are often attracted to the picture of Jesus as a challenger of authority, the one who proposes turning established pecking orders upside down ("not so among you"), the one who came to scatter the proud and lift up the lowly.

Yes - and he got hurt for it, for sure.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
In communist Russia (almost) everyone was guaranteed a minimum quality of life, with the collapse of that protection fear and religion have both (hand-in-hand?) reappeared with many commentators drawing attention to the close ties between the ruling politicians and the Russian Orthodox Church (to the glory, it should be said, of neither).

I guess it is a measure of the vileness of Putin that somebody now dares to uphold the atrocious Communist despotism in Russia, including its horrible attempts to eradicate religion, as anything but utterly reprehensible. Still, even given Putin, this is disgusting.

Anyway, aside from silly hippie naïveté, authority is essential to human life for two simple reasons: First, we are learning animals, that's key to our success. But if you need to learn most of your behaviour, knowledge, etc., then you need a trustworthy teacher. And that is an authority. Second, we are group animals. A single human being is weak, a group of humans acting together can beat every other living entity on this planet (well, if multi-cellular, at least). To coordinate a group into action, in particular into rapid and reactive action, you need a leader. And that is an authority.

There never will be a humanity that does not rely on authority. Authority is essential to our makeup, it is a direct consequence of what makes human beings so successful. You can think about how authority is best organised, but if you think that you can abolish it, then you are a fool.

Speaking of fools, it appears that the Fool has left the building?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

One shake of the pigs bladder and that was it

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Humans have evolved to believe that which they are told by authority figures - those that didn't believe got burnt to death, drowned, fell off the cliff, ate the wrong berry etc. before being able to pass their genes to the next generation.

So?
This is a truism. Saying that some feature ('religious belief') is irrational because it has evolved is just as arbitrary as saying that some feature ('morality') is justified because it has evolved.
All features of human being and behaviour have either evolved or are grounded in capacities that have evolved. That means that humans have evolved to be atheists and religious; humans have evolved to be right-wing and left-wing; humans have evolved to use vaccines and be anti-vaccers.

Any argument that uses evolution to explain an aspect of ideology that the arguer disagrees with, or to justify an aspect of ideology that the arguer agrees with, is vacuous, and a Just-So Story.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The Communist revolution in Russia, and the horrible consequences, always remind me of the couplet from the bowdlerised version of the Red Flag.

"The Working Class can kiss my ass
I've got the foreman's job at last"

And if the "foreman" is a psychopath with absolute power, look out. The most idealistic-sounding principles of justice will not save you.

Here is a bit of a tangent, but since Fool has, apparently, left the building, I thought I might give it some air.

IngoB, where does the prophetic principle fit into your understanding of the essential nature of authority? The OT is, amongst other things, a record of the pronouncements of those who challenged the authority of the kings and priests. "But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream" - to quote one very well known example.

Established human authority may lose its way, become opposed to divine justice. Order can degenerate into oppression. As the book of Amos illustrates, that can happen even in a society which is, formally, theocratic.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Humans have evolved to believe that which they are told by authority figures - those that didn't believe got burnt to death, drowned, fell off the cliff, ate the wrong berry etc. before being able to pass their genes to the next generation.
So?
This is a truism. Saying that some feature ('religious belief') is irrational because it has evolved is just as arbitrary as saying that some feature ('morality') is justified because it has evolved.
All features of human being and behaviour have either evolved or are grounded in capacities that have evolved. That means that humans have evolved to be atheists and religious; humans have evolved to be right-wing and left-wing; humans have evolved to use vaccines and be anti-vaccers.

Any argument that uses evolution to explain an aspect of ideology that the arguer disagrees with, or to justify an aspect of ideology that the arguer agrees with, is vacuous, and a Just-So Story.

I think the position also caricatures the way we learn about danger. Children will listen to their parents about a hot flame but will also test it for themselves at some point. Cliffs - heck - if we needed some authority figure to tell us when we are near a place we might fall off, then the human race would not have evolved past year zero. Drowning - assuming first that we didn't evolve from swimming apes (qv webbed digits and hair growth patterns) if everyone had listened to their elders about the dangers of water, we would never have learned to swim or ventured to sea in tiny boats. Eating the wrong berry - I could say a lot about that - the situation is massively nuanced. Try googling "animal self-medication" or have look at the book "Wild Health". In fact, I would say that our current lack of ability to distinguish poisonous plants from useful ones is the result of generations of authority figures passing on factual garbage to their children, and the children subsequently being confused. In my family, my parents feared every wild growing mushroom as being a "deadly toadstool", and my uncle once grew blackberries and raspberries in his garden, but wouldn't eat them because they were "dirty", and so continued to buy them in shops. If we happened to have grown up in northern Italy, the situation might have been different, and authority knowledge would have been accurate and useful.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
IngoB, where does the prophetic principle fit into your understanding of the essential nature of authority? The OT is, amongst other things, a record of the pronouncements of those who challenged the authority of the kings and priests. "But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream" - to quote one very well known example.

The prophets challenged authority with authority: their own in an instrumental sense, God's in a fundamental sense, and that conveyed by their following in a practical sense. My point is not that authority is always right - in a fallen world this can hardly be expected. My point is that any anti-authoritan stance is just idealistic delusion from the get go. What drives out authority is always other authority, and if authority hides or is diffuse, then that's almost always going to end up worse than it being openly present and concrete. Humans cannot function without authority, it is designed right into their basic modus operandi. If you take it away, they will construct it right back, one way or the other.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I believe in a God who isn't an authority. Who came to us as a Lamb.

We used to have authoritarian teachers. People like Paulo Freire have shown us that it is possible to teach and learn in different ways. Having despotic leaders in our countries was just the way things were, now we have democracy.

These things aren't perfect; they're just a step along the way. But they point to a direction where we need less and less authority.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, we are learning animals, that's key to our success. But if you need to learn most of your behaviour, knowledge, etc., then you need a trustworthy teacher.

A great deal of our learning is through play. Much invention and creativity happens when we ignore what our teachers have told us and the 'received wisdom' of the day.

Sometimes we need trustworthy teachers (I would say that as I am one) but a lot of the time we need to be free to learn through trial and error, intuition, invention and creativity.

My boys were given free reign to play, explore and invent all manner of games on my brother's farm (a very unsafe place, with many sheds, barns, animals and machinery) His other two nephews were watched 100% of the time, by their mother, and warned as to all the dangers - lots of no-go areas, rules and oversight.

Guess which two did well in later life and which two remain unemployed?

[ 16. March 2015, 12:06: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I believe in a God who isn't an authority. Who came to us as a Lamb.

We used to have authoritarian teachers. People like Paulo Freire have shown us that it is possible to teach and learn in different ways. Having despotic leaders in our countries was just the way things were, now we have democracy.

These things aren't perfect; they're just a step along the way. But they point to a direction where we need less and less authority.

There is a marked difference between a teacher who is a genuine "authority" and one who is simply "authoritarian," yes .. ???

And in fact, in these times of ever increasing knowledge (as distinct from wisdom), we rely more and more upon trusted authorities to tell us what's what …

E.g., chemistry students and even professional chemists don't re-invent the periodic table of the elements for themselves, they just use it, and biologists who have never repeated Darwin's travels and studies independently none the less *believe*in* the biological theory of evolution as outlined in "The Origin of Species" … etc. ...

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

It's an interesting point, because we are increasingly becoming complacent about knowledge and assuming that the edifice of scientific discovery does not have foundations of sand. Scientific theories represent one way to interpret the observational data given a whole cultural and historical baggage of pre-assumptions. I am particularly enjoying reading at the moment a couple of books. One by a doctor who points out that there are huge areas of conincidence between acupuncture theory and modern detailed embryology, and if one looks at either in the light of the other, then it gives a much altered and expanded insight. And another looking at the physics of water, and re-writing both "common wisdom" and science wrt how water behaves in our environment. An unwillingness to challenge the perceived wisdom and its authority would just stifle our culture.

And the point above about authority vs authoritarianism. Authority - as in congruent mastery of a particular subject or skill or trade - is something really important, and we can all learn from that kind of authority - both in detail and in general the mental/emotional/postural state that comes with it. But all that is only of general use if we can then take up some of that into ourselves - through experiencing amd living it. imo this is one aspect of Divine Love in action. Authoritarianism suppresses this...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Teilhard: And in fact, in these times of ever increasing knowledge (as distinct from wisdom), we rely more and more upon trusted authorities to tell us what's what …

The word 'authority' can have different meanings. By making it mean 'accepting scientific discoveries made by others because it would be too time-consuming to repeat them', I think you've watered it down quite a lot. I doubt that this is the same meaning as when we talk about 'the authority of God'.

Many chemistry students do at least some experiments so that they can discover some things about the Periodic Table for themselves. In principle, they could repeat all the experiments that led to its formation if they wanted to. And every scientific theory can be challenged.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
By making it mean 'accepting scientific discoveries made by others because it would be too time-consuming to repeat them', I think you've watered it down quite a lot. I doubt that this is the same meaning as when we talk about 'the authority of God'.

Authority has a range of related meanings and has done since classical Latin. The broadest sense is someone who has the power to resolve a question. The earliest sense in English is that of a book accepted as reliable information or evidence.

I think it covers a spectrum between 'testimony to facts that could be obtained otherwise' and 'entity able to issue valid commands'.
The authority of God is a rather odd construction. (I think that its earliest uses refer to God as creator.) Usually, the reference is to the Bible or to the Church Fathers as authorities on theology.

quote:
In principle, they could repeat all the experiments that led to its formation if they wanted to. And every scientific theory can be challenged.

It's not so much the ability to repeat all the experiments, as knowing what experiments to repeat.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Hughwillreadme. Alright me ol' China? Speaking of China, one of their leading economists reckons that Christianity is a fundamental reason why the US has such a powerful economy. Christianity isn't seen as a refuge for the fearful - it's what you need if you want to be a prosperous economic super power. The Chinese associate Christianity with progress and innovation. Have a gander at this article from that hotbed of religious propaganda the Economist.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

Fool: If you are looking for a reasoned response as to why people believe, it may be better to start with books on serious philosophy or New Testament scholarship which (at their best) argue from first principles. Religious belief or faith is often a world view which is impossible to dip into piecemeal. The arguments and the beliefs they sustain often make up a whole cloth which covers a wide area including personal experience. However, although this may be very powerful and indeed life transforming for the person involved, it is sometimes the least convincing part of belief for the outsider as it is by necessity a private thing and from the outside at least easily dismissed as a malfunction of the brain or wish fulfilment. Personally speaking, I've found authors like Edward Feser ('The Last Superstition', 'Aquinas' and 'The Philosophy of Mind'), David Bentley Hart ('Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies', 'The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss') and books by Keith Ward and Alistair McGrath very helpful. In terms of Biblical scholarship, I've often enjoyed books by Tom Wright and the late Marcus Borg - especially the one which they co-wrote. I'm not saying they'll convert you, but they will hopefully provoke some thought and at least persuade you that belief in God isn't an intellectual dead end. In particular, the books by Feser and Hart should show that the God of traditional theism (across the religions) is a very different category of reality than other 'gods' and arguments against the latter, are ineffective against the former.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

Forgive the double post, but I forgot to mention Unapologetic: “Why, despite everything, Christianity can still make surprising emotional sense” by Francis Spufford.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

A brilliant book, and far closer to the messy way in which most Christians believe and live than the propositional approach so beloved of Dawkins.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents.

I recommend C.S. Lewis.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I recommend C.S. Lewis.

If we're to have a discussion, I would say we need more than that. What particular books or parts of a book would you consider best address the point? What are the most compelling parts of his argument? Give us something to discuss.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Well, I was technically being a bit broad just as the OP was a bit broad; I think that Lewis' book Miracles is a good one for the supernatural in general, possibly preceded by The Abolition of Man and followed by Mere Christianity. But I also think it depends on the reader which might be most helpful.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

In communist Russia (almost) everyone was guaranteed a minimum quality of life, with the collapse of that protection fear and religion have both (hand-in-hand?) reappeared with many commentators drawing attention to the close ties between the ruling politicians and the Russian Orthodox Church (to the glory, it should be said, of neither).

Oh wow. I was so appreciating your measured reasoned tone about the effects of religion until this paragraph.

Communist Russia perhaps not the counter-example of an atheistic society you want to use. Almost everyone guaranteed a minimum quality of life? Tell that to the 10 million gulag victims.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists

I'm not sure what to make of that, since it's so obviously untrue.

If you said there was no "proof", I could understand that. Likewise, "no compelling evidence", or "not enough evidence", or "insufficiently credible evidence". All those points of view could be argued.

But "not a shred of evidence"? That simply does not describe the real world. No religious experiences, no traditions of mysticism, no reported healings, no apparent answers to prayer, no lives changed as a result of faith, nothing that might plausibly be an encounter with anything supernatural at all?

Is every possible report of any of that excluded from the definition of "evidence"? Why are they not "evidence"? - they may not be sufficient/credible/convincing in many, or even all, cases, but they are facts which, if true, tend to make the existence of 'the supernatural' more likely - and are thus evidence in the ordinary sense of that word. And if they are not "evidence" in the sense you mean, then what would count as "evidence"?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

For example, to follow up on Eliab's point, eyewitness testimony is as admissible as evidence in a court of law as forensic, ballist, or any other forms of evidence based on controlled measurement. Hearsay in general is not regarded as evidence.

The means of weighing the different kinds of evidence may be different. In general these days, for example, if DNA evidence demonstrates the presence of a suspect at a crime scene, any testimony claiming that the person was somewhere else at the time, providing an alibi, is very likely to be discounted.

In general, there is a therefore a difference between legal evidence and say, a replicable finding from a controlled experiment, which would be a normal scientific standard.

I think what Fool means, when using the term evidence, is replicable findings arising from controlled experiments. Lots of people regard that as an acceptable standard for dismissing, or at least being very sceptical about, supernatural testimony.

[ 17. March 2015, 23:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
In communist Russia (almost) everyone was guaranteed a minimum quality of life, with the collapse of that protection fear and religion have both (hand-in-hand?) reappeared with many commentators drawing attention to the close ties between the ruling politicians and the Russian Orthodox Church (to the glory, it should be said, of neither). I guess it is a measure of the vileness of Putin that somebody now dares to uphold the atrocious Communist despotism in Russia, including its horrible attempts to eradicate religion, as anything but utterly reprehensible. Still, even given Putin, this is disgusting.

I made a point – broadly that the more human beings are fearful the more likely they are to seek security in the supernatural. I used Russia as a for instance. I did not laud the Communist regime, merely pointed out that it provided a basic level of security for most of its members and then, when it disappeared religion resurfaced. The two may not even be cause and effect, but the process appears to support my original contention. At no time did I, nor have I, upheld communist despotism and any suggestion that I’ve done so is offensive.

quote:
Anyway, aside from silly hippie naïveté,

A person less overburdened with charity than I might suggest more water?

quote:
authority is essential to human life for two simple reasons: First, we are learning animals, that's key to our success. But if you need to learn most of your behaviour, knowledge, etc., then you need a trustworthy teacher. And that is an authority. Second, we are group animals. A single human being is weak, a group of humans acting together can beat every other living entity on this planet (well, if multi-cellular, at least). To coordinate a group into action, in particular into rapid and reactive action, you need a leader. And that is an authority.

There never will be a humanity that does not rely on authority. Authority is essential to our makeup, it is a direct consequence of what makes human beings so successful.

And I’ve suggested something to the contrary? It’s just that I prefer my authority to be based on the scientific process rather than the convoluted attempts of, often very clever, human beings seeking to justify concepts which are based on the erroneous attempts of stone-age ancestors to make sense of their world. Bad authority will tend to produce bad outcomes – perhaps after six thousand years of screwing up the world and its inhabitants it’s time for superstition-based authority to move over and let evidence-based authority have a go – in a few hundred years it’s achieved results (many good and some bad) that superstition could only imagine.

quote:
You can think about how authority is best organised, but if you think that you can abolish it, then you are a fool.

Matt 5:22?

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Communist Russia perhaps not the counter-example of an atheistic society you want to use. Almost everyone guaranteed a minimum quality of life? Tell that to the 10 million gulag victims.

The point was neither the communism nor the atheism but the (very) basic food/shelter/health care provision for the majority (I do accept that “almost everyone” was too vague and that large numbers were treated abominably). If a religion-based society could provide a similar degree of security for its members (and one would be looking for much, much more) I suspect that its religious base would either wither or become little more than ceremonial – as it tends to do in most of the world’s more successful economies.

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Hughwillreadme. Alright me ol' China? Speaking of China, one of their leading economists reckons that Christianity is a fundamental reason why the US has such a powerful economy. Christianity isn't seen as a refuge for the fearful - it's what you need if you want to be a prosperous economic super power. The Chinese associate Christianity with progress and innovation. Have a gander at this article from that hotbed of religious propaganda the Economist.

Christianity is a cargo cult?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think what Fool means, when using the term evidence, is replicable findings arising from controlled experiments. Lots of people regard that as an acceptable standard for dismissing, or at least being very sceptical about, supernatural testimony.

And, of course, there would be a very large overlap between what we call "replicable/regular/predictable" with what we call "natural". The "supernatural" is, pretty much, all that stuff which may or may not happen, but if it does happen, isn't replicable and predictable in that way. Almost by definition there's rarely or never going to that sort of evidence for it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think what Fool means, when using the term evidence, is replicable findings arising from controlled experiments. Lots of people regard that as an acceptable standard for dismissing, or at least being very sceptical about, supernatural testimony.
And, of course, there would be a very large overlap between what we call "replicable/regular/predictable" with what we call "natural". The "supernatural" is, pretty much, all that stuff which may or may not happen, but if it does happen, isn't replicable and predictable in that way. Almost by definition there's rarely or never going to that sort of evidence for it.

Or, in other words (using your words as a springboard here), if we define "evidence" just right, it will perforce eliminate even the possibility of the supernatural. Which as I'm sure you'll agree is all games with words, and not an honest, serious epistemological inquiry.

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
my philosophy is that we know nothing, including whether or not we are capable of knowing anything.

You're just saying that.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

There is a major issue with the word "super-natural" - because it's ALL natural, it's just that some things cannot quite be pinned down in the same way that other things can be.

wrt shamanistic stuff, there's an interesting film "Animal Communicator" on Vimeo - which includes a modern animal communicator and also a few short interviews with bushmen. It is slightly removed as a topic from poltergeists, but the phenomenon (fields of conaciousness as tangible forces) is very related.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think it might be worthwhile to link this article on epistomology at this point. mousethief's point is I think right on the money.

[ 18. March 2015, 07:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I believe in a God who isn't an authority. Who came to us as a Lamb.

You can choose to believe what you like, but if you are going to liken God to a Lamb, the only belief culture in which that makes any sense is Christianity, and in Christianity's foundation documents, the Lamb is "slain from the creation of the world", but is also described, paradoxically and not without a hint of "authority", in terms such as "hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!" and "They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I made a point – broadly that the more human beings are fearful the more likely they are to seek security in the supernatural. I used Russia as a for instance. I did not laud the Communist regime, merely pointed out that it provided a basic level of security for most of its members and then, when it disappeared religion resurfaced. The two may not even be cause and effect, but the process appears to support my original contention.

Not cause and effect?

I'll say. Two words: North Korea.

The idea that atheistic communism somehow helps reduce levels of fear is ludicrous. That it reduces overt expressions of theism is obvious. There is no conceivable reason why that has any correlation to the degree of happiness people experience with their lifestyle in a one-party state.

[ 18. March 2015, 09:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :

Hughwillridme, I would be very interested in where you got the idea that there was less fear and insecurity during the Soviet period. I was in the USSR ( but not Russia itself) both just before the collapse of communism, and after. My impression was the complete opposite of what you have asserted. And the 'guaranteed living standard' only seems to have applied to ethnic Russians. Those who weren't were not guaranteed anything, including a wage, even though they went to work.

Add to that the paranoia of the local and State politicians, the secret police, the informers etc, and there was not a lot of security on show.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think what Fool means, when using the term evidence, is replicable findings arising from controlled experiments. Lots of people regard that as an acceptable standard for dismissing, or at least being very sceptical about, supernatural testimony.
And, of course, there would be a very large overlap between what we call "replicable/regular/predictable" with what we call "natural". The "supernatural" is, pretty much, all that stuff which may or may not happen, but if it does happen, isn't replicable and predictable in that way. Almost by definition there's rarely or never going to that sort of evidence for it.

Well, the term 'evidence' is very vague, but often has a sense of naturalism attached - scientific and legal evidence, for example. But you can stretch it to refer to subjective stuff, I suppose.

I don't see how you can get the supernatural from the natural, unless something untoward happens. Then you might infer the supernatural - for example, if every cancer patient in the world recovered overnight. But what if one patient recovers? Well, you can make a guess.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

I think there is a more principle objection to be made here than just that there is a bias in what evidence is being admitted. There is a deeper bias concerning what questions may be asked usefully about the world.

Assume your "world" consists of watching a chess board and the matches being played on it. It is a sensible approach to only consider the observable moves on the board as real evidence, and to furthermore consider only such moves as can be confirmed by repeated observations. From this, if you are clever enough, you will be able to reconstruct the rules of chess. Clearly, those are of great significance to this chess world.

Indeed, there may be rare and unpredictable events, like all pieces catastrophically being wiped off the board. This may be due to some accident (somebody bumps into the table on which the chess board is placed) or perhaps other reasons (a player got angry and overturned the board). But we do not really know since we only see what happens on the chess board. It is then not at all an easy question just how far we should go in admitting such occasional observations as evidence. For indeed, people are known to dream up false observations about the board. Admitting too many of them will hinder our quest to find the chess rules, whereas admitting too few will ignore a real part of what can happen on the board. In some sense this is however a technical discussion, more than a principle one.

But we can also look at this chess board in a different way, and ask questions like: Why is there a chess board? Why are there pieces? What is moving these pieces? For what purpose, if there is any purpose? Indeed, we have found "end points" to "games", which we have named "checkmate" - why would these occur, what is the significance of this? Is there a reason why there is always a new "game"? Will these "games" end one day? Is there a reason why sometimes one of the sides seems to progress to "checkmate" much faster than the other? Are there unobserved "players"? Is there a "tournament" going on? Or is it coherent to say that there is no reason why the chess pieces are moving about, is that just a "brute fact"?

It is important to note that none of these questions require any special events. Exactly the same observations of perfectly regular and frequent moves that lead some to propose a set of "chess rules" can be questioned in a different way. The very same evidence - not some special and rare occurrence - can be used to ask rather different questions. Questions that are related to the "chess rules" in a sense - for if there are "chess players", then clearly most of the time they are playing by these "chess rules" - but still not in the same class of questions. We are not asking how the rook may move, we are asking how come that there is a rook, and that it moves. Obviously, special occurrences like a catastrophic wiping off all the figures off the board may be particularly useful in answering this other class of questions. We may struggle to fit this into the "chess rules" we have derived, but it may easily be attributed to an angry "chess player". Nevertheless, such special events are not at all necessary to ask this different class of questions.

I hope the analogy is obvious. We can ask "physics" questions about the world. But we can also ask questions of "philosophy" (in particular "metaphysics") and "religion" about the world. "Supernatural phenomena" may be particularly useful for the latter. But they are not necessary. The very same observations that "physics" deals with afford a different class of question with potentially rather different answers. These different domains of questions and answers do not contradict each other, they are simply different aspects of the same underlying reality. It is a bias concerning the questions that may be asked about the world, rather than primarily a bias concerning the sort of evidence that may be admitted, that separates the "materialist" from the "theist".

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Further what's the worth of a guaranteed income when there are no comestibles in the store to buy?

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Further what's the worth of a guaranteed income when there are no comestibles in the store to buy?

Good point … It would be about as bad as having stores and shops crammed full of everything and anything, but having no income to buy the stuff …

Any otherwise perfectly good economy can be equally ruined by a rigorous application of either "scientific socialism" or "trickle*down capitalism" … In either system, the top few per cent (the overlord oligarchs) have it easy, while everybody else struggles continuously ...

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

... where'd Fool go? [Confused]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What's that old saying? Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
... where'd Fool go?

Fools rush in AND rush out.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's that old saying? Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.

Yes … Both classic "capitalism" and idealistic "socialism" fall flat because neither ideology has an accurately realistic appreciation of human nature ...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

The Dalai Lama said that communism failed because it wasn't based on compassion.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The Dalai Lama said that communism failed because it wasn't based on compassion.

Someone else said that both communism and capitalism are both the bastard children of Christianity.

I wonder if capitalism will also fail eventually because of its lack of compassion. You can drive up along side compassion in your nice shiny automobile.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Show me a form of government based on compassion, and I'll show you ... um ... there's nothing to show in return. I'll eat my hat.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Show me a form of government based on compassion, and I'll show you ... um ... there's nothing to show in return. I'll eat my hat.

A "form of government" is not the same thing as an "economy," which is more about "society" than "guv'mint" ...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Show me a form of government based on compassion, and I'll show you ... um ... there's nothing to show in return. I'll eat my hat.
A "form of government" is not the same thing as an "economy," which is more about "society" than "guv'mint" ...

There is no form of economy without an enabling form of government right behind it.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Show me a form of government based on compassion, and I'll show you ... um ... there's nothing to show in return. I'll eat my hat.
A "form of government" is not the same thing as an "economy," which is more about "society" than "guv'mint" ...
There is no form of economy without an enabling form of government right behind it.

Within and among modern nation states, there is for sure a very close and vigorous relationship between "the government(s)" and economies and societies … But even in situations of anarchy or minimal or changing government arrangements, an economy and the society which generates it and hosts it … are always moving
on ...

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is no form of economy without an enabling form of government right behind it.

I'd go one step further: any form of economy includes an enabling form of government.

(The idea that the government is in any way an external influence on the economy is widespread, silly, and dangerous.)

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is no form of economy without an enabling form of government right behind it.
I'd go one step further: any form of economy includes an enabling form of government.

(The idea that the government is in any way an external influence on the economy is widespread, silly, and dangerous.)

A society generates both an economy and a government … Society is the prior arrangement ..

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
A society generates both an economy and a government … Society is the prior arrangement ..

I don't think that's correct. They are part of the same thing.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
A society generates both an economy and a government … Society is the prior arrangement ..
I don't think that's correct. They are part of the same thing.

Economic relationships are part of human relationships, which take place in and among human societies ...

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We can ask "physics" questions about the world. But we can also ask questions of "philosophy" (in particular "metaphysics") and "religion" about the world. "Supernatural phenomena" may be particularly useful for the latter. But they are not necessary. The very same observations that "physics" deals with afford a different class of question with potentially rather different answers. These different domains of questions and answers do not contradict each other, they are simply different aspects of the same underlying reality.

The "different domains" approach seems right.

Certainly when scientific atheist types dismiss God on the basis that they have no need of that hypothesis, that seems like they're missing the point of religion. (In response, to be fair, to theists who have tried to use God as an explanation of unsolved questions in physics - so-called "God of the gaps").

If you're willing to consign all those churchmen who thought Scripture had something to say about astronomy to the same category of philosophical error, I might even be convinced that you believe it.

But It's hard to throw off a sneaking suspicion that reality is messier than that. That there are questions or ways of framing questions that don't resolve neatly into the domain of physics, the domain of religion & morality, the domain of politics, etc.

But I'm willing to be convinced...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But It's hard to throw off a sneaking suspicion that reality is messier than that. That there are questions or ways of framing questions that don't resolve neatly into the domain of physics, the domain of religion & morality, the domain of politics, etc.

But I'm willing to be convinced...

Most questions, I think, don't resolve neatly into separate domains.
[Smile]

Kind of like the story of the blind-folded people and the elephant. Each encounters a different part of it, and analyzes it by touch: there's something that feels like a rope (tail), tree trunk (legs), snake (trunk). etc. Each knows something, but understands little.

Then, of course, the elephant gets really annoyed by all the poking and prodding, and rips off their blindfolds. And they finally see the light.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
A society generates both an economy and a government … Society is the prior arrangement ..
I don't think that's correct. They are part of the same thing.
Economic relationships are part of human relationships, which take place in and among human societies ...

Yes, I agree. And governments are generated to regulate the relationships in society, both the economic relationships and other kinds.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Not cause and effect?

I'll say. Two words: North Korea.

The idea that atheistic communism somehow helps reduce levels of fear is ludicrous. That it reduces overt expressions of theism is obvious. There is no conceivable reason why that has any correlation to the degree of happiness people experience with their lifestyle in a one-party state.

1 – North Korea is not generally regarded as communist (the word was removed from its constitution in 2009) – it is certainly totalitarian but is more commonly regarded as an hereditary dictatorship and/or racialist-focused nationalism.

2 – Although it is irrelevant to my argument atheistic communism must reduce levels of fear in that hell and godly punishment don’t faze atheists but do concern some theists. Atheistic communism may give rise to other concerns but the whole fixation on the concept here is a red herring. If you wish to regard Russia as a bad example, so be it; my point is that where personal uncertainty increases so does recourse to the supernatural. That this is commonly accepted is illustrated by the constant, and very silly, repetition of “there are no atheists in foxholes”. It is also a possible explanation for the alliance of some businessmen and some religious leaders in the US who spend vast amounts of time and money trying to prevent the poorer citizens gaining increased peace of mind regarding their health needs. Generally, where the state provides a level of protection against the consequences of old age, poor health, unemployment etc. fewer people demonstrate a need for supernatural beliefs – and those who still do may have morphed from deism to homeopathy, fortune-telling and the like (luxury irrationality replacing survival irrationality?).

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
… Both classic "capitalism" and idealistic "socialism" fall flat because neither ideology has an accurately realistic appreciation of human nature ...

Absolutely. I recall the, no doubt hypothetical, story of the attempt to explain communism to a Russian farmer.

If you had two houses, you can only live in one, and your neighbour’s house burned down you’d let him live in one of yours while he rebuilt his wouldn’t you? yes.
If you had two tractors, you can only drive one, and your neighbour’s tractor broke down you’d let him use one of yours while his was mended wouldn’t you? yes.
If you had two horses, you can only ride one, and your neighbour’s horse was sick you’d let him ride one of yours while his horse recovered wouldn’t you? no.
Why not? I have two horses.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
....Certainly when scientific atheist types dismiss God on the basis that they have no need of that hypothesis, that seems like they're missing the point of religion.

I’ll bite – what is the point of religion?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I’ll bite – what is the point of religion?

To realise the ultimate purpose of your existence.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I’ll bite – what is the point of religion?
To realise the ultimate purpose of your existence.

What (other than {my} existence) makes you think that existence in general, or mine in particular, has any purpose, ultimate or otherwise. The continuity of life through future generations of humanity could be a reason but does it count as a purpose? Purpose implies thought and evolution has so far managed OK without it.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

The "point of religion" is to encourage and facilitate "worship," the point of which is "reality orientation" ...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I’ll bite – what is the point of religion?
To realise the ultimate purpose of your existence.

(Waves hand wildly.)

Ooo! Ooo, Ooo! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter, I know this one:

(Rocks in desk chair.)

"The chief end and duty of Man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." That's from the Westminster cattychizzzzm, that is.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I’ll bite – what is the point of religion?
To realise the ultimate purpose of your existence.
What (other than {my} existence) makes you think that existence in general, or mine in particular, has any purpose, ultimate or otherwise.

Can one not decide that the answer to the question "what is the ultimate purpose of my existence?" be "no purpose at all"? Would such an answer be equally religious in nature as something like "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever"?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
A society generates both an economy and a government … Society is the prior arrangement ..

I'm not sure how you have a society prior to an economy. People somehow have to produce and distribute food and tools and shelter. A society of purely self-reliant subsistence farmers with no exchange at all is perhaps theoretically possible, but even there there's production going on, so there's still an economy.
It is slightly more open to question whether you call pure anarchy - in the sense of a society that takes absolutely no collective decisions - a form of government.

Either way, I don't think you can describe the society without describing its economic relations and without describing (whether and) how it takes collective decisions.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Hugh. You said

Generally, where the state provides a level of protection against the consequences of old age, poor health, unemployment etc. fewer people demonstrate a need for supernatural beliefs

Sorry mate, you're well out of date on this one. The rise if faith in general has coincided with a growth in prosperity. You see it in Africa, Latin America, Africa and the Far East. In Turkey and India, modernisation has helped create an upwardly mobile bourgeoisie who are the most fervent supporters of the religious parties. I gave you the reference to China. The evidence is there if you want to do your homework.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
my point is that where personal uncertainty increases so does recourse to the supernatural. That this is commonly accepted is illustrated by the constant, and very silly, repetition of “there are no atheists in foxholes”.

If 'there are no atheists in foxholes' is silly then it does not illustrate your point. If you use silly evidence to illustrate a point, that shows that the point itself is silly.

Really, you're engaging in Just So stories here. The little sociological research that I'm aware of tends to reject such single factor causes.

quote:
It is also a possible explanation for the alliance of some businessmen and some religious leaders in the US who spend vast amounts of time and money trying to prevent the poorer citizens gaining increased peace of mind regarding their health needs.

This attributes a degree of self-awareness to the leaders of the religious right that does not appear warranted.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, science is the field I am most familiar with. Science is an exercise in understanding the physical universe. Therefore it's axiomatic that the non-physical (eg: the divine or supernatural) is not something science can make any sort of statement about. To attempt to say "science disproves God" is rather like trying to tighten a screw using a hammer, it's simply the wrong tool for the job.

Bah. Science and theism are magisteria that you conveniently say don't overlap whenever you wish to protect religious claims from scientific scrutiny, but you can't have it both ways. What would you say to me if DNA evidence was found which proved that Jesus had no human father? That science cannot speak to religious claims? I don't think so.

Science speaks to the truth of reality, and if gods were part of reality then science could speak to the truth of gods. The elephant in the corner here is, of course, that gods aren't part of reality in exactly the same way that invisible flying unicorns aren't, and that's why science cannot speak to us about them.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Yorick: What would you say to me if DNA evidence was found which proved that Jesus had no human father?

That's an interesting question, to which I don't have an immediate answer.

Do you mind if I also turn it back on you? What would you say to me if DNA evidence was found which proved that Jesus had no human father?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
What (other than {my} existence) makes you think that existence in general, or mine in particular, has any purpose, ultimate or otherwise.

Why precisely should I talk about other things than your existence in talking about its ultimate purpose? Would it help you, existentially, if one could show that a cucumber has a purpose? Would you conclude that you have none if a cucumber has none? On what grounds? Are you a cucumber?

I will say this much: I was not talking about the purposes that your mind forms constantly to direct your behaviour. I was talking about purpose in the same sense as "the purpose of the heart is to pump blood". It's a purpose that an understanding observer finds in a thing, it is not necessarily a purpose that the thing has in its own mind (indeed, most things do not have a mind). Obviously, as an understanding observer you can self-reflect and find purpose in your own existence, and that in turn may influence the many purposes with which your mind governs your behaviour. But even if that self-reflection never happens, it does not mean that you do not have an ultimate purpose. Because I'm not talking directly about the goals in your mind.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"The chief end and duty of Man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." That's from the Westminster cattychizzzzm, that is.

This may be the particular answer a particular branch of Christianity has codified. However, my statement was very general on purpose. A Buddhist can sign up to it just as much as a Christian or a Zoroastrian. Indeed, arguably it is too general, since it would claim that say Stoicism is also a religion. But that's intentional, too. Philosophy these days is for the most part a bloodless academic affair, and the practical philosophies of times past are really much more like what we would call a "religion" nowadays.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick :
Science and theism are magisteria that you conveniently say don't overlap whenever you wish to protect religious claims from scientific scrutiny, but you can't have it both ways.

I agree that "non-overlapping magisteria" falls short of reality. However, it is more true than not. If we look at a person from the front, and from the back, it is still the same person. And yes, there are overlaps. For example, we see the same body silhouette from both sides. Still, the visual information is distinct for the most part.

Likewise, it is false to claim that the "magisteria" of (modern natural) science and religion do not overlap at all. But the basic idea behind that - that for the most part they treat different aspects of the world - is correct.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, science is the field I am most familiar with. Science is an exercise in understanding the physical universe. Therefore it's axiomatic that the non-physical (eg: the divine or supernatural) is not something science can make any sort of statement about. To attempt to say "science disproves God" is rather like trying to tighten a screw using a hammer, it's simply the wrong tool for the job.
Bah. Science and theism are magisteria that you conveniently say don't overlap whenever you wish to protect religious claims from scientific scrutiny, but you can't have it both ways. What would you say to me if DNA evidence was found which proved that Jesus had no human father? That science cannot speak to religious claims? I don't think so.

Science speaks to the truth of reality, and if gods were part of reality then science could speak to the truth of gods. The elephant in the corner here is, of course, that gods aren't part of reality in exactly the same way that invisible flying unicorns aren't, and that's why science cannot speak to us about them.

But you seem to have a particular form of reality in mind here, something like scientific realism, I suppose. But surely that is a philosophical idea and not a scientific observation. Science offers a method, or methods (maybe not unique to science), but it's quite a stretch from that to a particular Weltanschauung (world-view). This is one reason that people of different beliefs about reality can all do science, since methodologically they are on a level playing field.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

It seems the Fool has been outclassed.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Alas, this thread is bound for nowhere. The faithful are very difficult to impeach: they can claim in all honesty and sincerity about accepting scientific facts. However, they always have a special card up their sleeves, which I call The Doctrine of Infinite Exceptions. The fact that there is not only no evidence for God, but no evidence for their miracle claims either (healing, walking on water, etc.) does not bother them. They can merely say "ah, the obscurity and lack of evidence is all part of God's magical plan"—and your questioning the fact that there is no evidence only fulfils what they see as prophetic words from the Bible or Christian thinkers that reason is an enemy of God. Knowing this, they can always play that card.

It makes real dialogue between Humanists (as an example) and the religiously convicted extremely difficult. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to convince them to value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, then what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?

K.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It is, of course, a very substantial claim to say that someone who is religious "doesn’t value evidence" and "doesn’t value logic". I find the implication that I don't value evidence or logic to be lacking in evidence and logic.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Alas, this thread is bound for nowhere. The faithful are very difficult to impeach: they can claim in all honesty and sincerity about accepting scientific facts. However, they always have a special card up their sleeves, which I call The Doctrine of Infinite Exceptions. The fact that there is not only no evidence for God, but no evidence for their miracle claims either (healing, walking on water, etc.) does not bother them. They can merely say "ah, the obscurity and lack of evidence is all part of God's magical plan"—and your questioning the fact that there is no evidence only fulfils what they see as prophetic words from the Bible or Christian thinkers that reason is an enemy of God. Knowing this, they can always play that card.

It makes real dialogue between Humanists (as an example) and the religiously convicted extremely difficult. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to convince them to value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, then what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?

K.

The claim that "there is no evidence for God" is a claim -- not a fact ...

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
A society generates both an economy and a government … Society is the prior arrangement ..
I'm not sure how you have a society prior to an economy. People somehow have to produce and distribute food and tools and shelter. A society of purely self-reliant subsistence farmers with no exchange at all is perhaps theoretically possible, but even there there's production going on, so there's still an economy.
It is slightly more open to question whether you call pure anarchy - in the sense of a society that takes absolutely no collective decisions - a form of government.

Either way, I don't think you can describe the society without describing its economic relations and without describing (whether and) how it takes collective decisions.

People can't get together to exchange goods and services until and unless they get together … People meet up, create a village, establish relationships, so create a society within which trade takes place ...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But what is meant by evidence? This word gets bandied about something rotten. If someone means 'evidence within an empiricist method', I'm not sure what that can indicate for or against the idea of God. If someone is referring to testimony, then there is evidence for alien abduction. The term is as flabby as an Englishman on the beach.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, science is the field I am most familiar with. Science is an exercise in understanding the physical universe. Therefore it's axiomatic that the non-physical (eg: the divine or supernatural) is not something science can make any sort of statement about. To attempt to say "science disproves God" is rather like trying to tighten a screw using a hammer, it's simply the wrong tool for the job.
Bah. Science and theism are magisteria that you conveniently say don't overlap whenever you wish to protect religious claims from scientific scrutiny, but you can't have it both ways. What would you say to me if DNA evidence was found which proved that Jesus had no human father? That science cannot speak to religious claims? I don't think so.

Science speaks to the truth of reality, and if gods were part of reality then science could speak to the truth of gods. The elephant in the corner here is, of course, that gods aren't part of reality in exactly the same way that invisible flying unicorns aren't, and that's why science cannot speak to us about them.

It seems to me that it is here that presuppositionalism precisely has its strength. What presuppositions are you employing that allow you to say "science speaks to the truth of reality"? And can they be proved "scientifically"? I suggest not.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Alas, this thread is bound for nowhere. The faithful are very difficult to impeach: they can claim in all honesty and sincerity about accepting scientific facts. However, they always have a special card up their sleeves, which I call The Doctrine of Infinite Exceptions. The fact that there is not only no evidence for God, but no evidence for their miracle claims either (healing, walking on water, etc.) does not bother them. They can merely say "ah, the obscurity and lack of evidence is all part of God's magical plan"—and your questioning the fact that there is no evidence only fulfils what they see as prophetic words from the Bible or Christian thinkers that reason is an enemy of God. Knowing this, they can always play that card.

It makes real dialogue between Humanists (as an example) and the religiously convicted extremely difficult. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to convince them to value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, then what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?

K.

You've been on the Ship since 2004 and are still labouring under the delusion that there is no evidence for God or that people of faith are neither logical or rational?

Holey moley. Where have you been?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

In fact, some approaches to science (e.g. instrumentalism), deny that the aim of it is to attain truth or describe reality. Bacon had a few things to say about this, less philosophy and more observation. Of course, you can argue that your observations indicate reality, but is that a scientific claim?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It makes real dialogue between Humanists (as an example) and the religiously convicted extremely difficult. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to convince them to value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, then what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?

What really makes the dialogue difficult is this sort of blanket argumentum ad hominem, which simply relegates all people of religion into the stupid corner in order to motivate an attitude of dismissive naysaying.

Miracles and other signs of supernatural grace are not required to intellectually derive the existence of God from observations of nature. The particular place of Jesus Christ in the supernatural order indeed cannot be determined from natural evidence, but then there is no rational reason why this should be the case. It is obvious that reasoning from observations of nature will only allow general statements about God (if any). The case for the Christian religion specifically is largely historical in nature, though personal belief in Christianity tends to arise more from a kind of spiritual conviviality. There is nothing wrong with that. I cannot derive that Caesar crossed the Rubicon from observations of nature now. This does not mean that it is somehow absurd to claim that Caesar did so. Neither can I coherently explain in terms of physics just why my best friend is my best friend. This does not make our relationship any less real or important.

The move you are attempting here is to put all of Christianity on that tiny playing field of naturalism (or perhaps materialist hedonism). Well, it's too big to fit. This does not mean that what doesn't fit is by default stupid and useless. Neither does it mean that you have somehow defeated the part of Christianity that does fit on that tiny playing field just because you can point to all the other stuff that doesn't. Naturalism is arguably incoherent in its description of nature, metaphysical theism (the relevant part of Christianity) arguably isn't. You may not agree, but you sure as heck have a real intellectual battle on your hands concerning that.

The core issue in these debates is to avoid black-knighting each other in mutual incomprehension. The only way to avoid that is to start from a position of respect. Your sort of comment fails that key threshold.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Thanks Ingo. I put my hands up (but not to sing a corny pop song about Jesus being my boyfriend) and admit to black-knighting (I had to look it up—thanks). Please accept my apologies.

I'm surprised to hear (see?) you say that 'the case for Christianity' is largely 'historical in nature'. What do you mean by that?

K.

[ 20. March 2015, 11:17: Message edited by: Komensky ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Thanks for the apology, Komensky. Handsomely done.

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'm surprised to hear (see?) you say that 'the case for Christianity' is largely 'historical in nature'. What do you mean by that?

You may be able to discern from nature that you should be a Christian rather than a Buddhist (theist rather than non-theist), but you cannot discern from nature that you should be a Christian rather than a Jew, Muslim or for that matter Hindu. The special significance of Jesus is a question of history. Either God did incarnate into a specific 1stC Palestinian, or not. This is as such a historical fact (or fiction). And by and large the only kind of evidence we have about that event is historical in nature as well: the purported event comes to us in terms of written and non-written traditions.

Of course, there is a large grey zone between "Christianity is right" and "Christianity is wrong". If we for example assume that the Hindus know the "real God", then Christianity is more right than atheism, but less right than Hinduism. Nevertheless, this case also shows that the characteristics of Christianity are intimately bound to its historical derivation from the reported actions and teachings of Christ. For the way in which Christianity would be right then is precisely in the way in which Christianity is not particularly Christian. Christianity might have gotten it right that the universe was created. Christian mystics might have touched God in their contemplations. Such non-specific statements are "Hindu-compatible". But to expect that Christ dying on the cross is somehow directly related to being saved would not be "Hindu-compatible", and hence part of why Christianity would be false as compared to Hindu-truth.

As I've already mentioned, I do not think that personal belief is established primarily through historical argument. It is more a spiritual conviviality that drives conversions IMHO. However, in a structural sense Christianity overall is a historical enterprise. Indeed, all religions are in terms of their transmission, but Christianity is particularly explicit about it. The core of Christian faith are historical events centring around a historical person, largely as reported by historical writings. So I'm not saying that most Christians become Christians by first believing that the Son of God in a historical sense walked 1stC Palestine. But I am saying that in becoming Christian they are joining a faith where structurally this is primary.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What would you say to me if DNA evidence was found which proved that Jesus had no human father? That science cannot speak to religious claims? I don't think so.

Firstly, what would count as DNA evidence that Jesus had no human father? It was found that one of the purported foreskins had only half the usual complement of chromosomes? But that would still require us to think the evidence that the foreskin actually derived from Jesus was reliable. Also, the doctrine of the incarnation requires that Jesus was an actual functioning human being, and it would be questionable whether an entity with only half the usual chromosomes would count as fully human, even were he biologically functional.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
People can't get together to exchange goods and services until and unless they get together … People meet up, create a village, establish relationships, so create a society within which trade takes place ...

Mainstream modern economics - 'neoliberal economics' - may restrict itself to people exchanging goods and services, but I would argue that the production of those goods is part of the economy. The fact that it largely isn't interested in production is one of the many major blinkers that afflict modern mainstream economics.

Even so, there's a bit of a chicken and egg thing going on. Who are these people who are establishing a village? Where did they come from? Did they never engage in trade wherever they came from previously? With what materials and tools did they build the village? Does Ug, while building his hut, not ever ask Og to lend him her hammer to bang in a few pegs?

The idea that people could form a society, and only once the society is formed, start trading goods and services seems to me entirely implausible.
No human is ever completely self-sufficient (we each gestated nine months in the womb, and then for the first few years after our births were completely dependent on other humans). A group of humans who at some point start to receive and grant goods and services simply isn't coherent; at every stage an imaginable human group is already receiving and exchanging. That means that there is no set of activities to be the subject matter of economics that can be isolated from everything else that humans do. One cannot define the market in such a way that some things are part of the market and other things are external interference.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Well worth a listen on this subject - maybe start at #1...

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What would you say to me if DNA evidence was found which proved that Jesus had no human father? That science cannot speak to religious claims? I don't think so.
Firstly, what would count as DNA evidence that Jesus had no human father? It was found that one of the purported foreskins had only half the usual complement of chromosomes? But that would still require us to think the evidence that the foreskin actually derived from Jesus was reliable. Also, the doctrine of the incarnation requires that Jesus was an actual functioning human being, and it would be questionable whether an entity with only half the usual chromosomes would count as fully human, even were he biologically functional.

I can virtually guarantee he wouldn't be viable - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_QvbMFjrnDwC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=lethal+recessive+allele+human+genome&source=bl&ots=cR6 Tp9zO8B&sig=tEedM1aGj5emKSZTYU1xKedcQiA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wjgMVdiEIMLIPN_4gKAO&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lethal%20recessive%20a llele%20human%20genome&f=false -

We are only alive because we're diploid. I would expect Jesus' genome, were it available to us, and even supposing the doctrine of the virgin birth to be true, to apparently have a human father. There'd be a terribly tell-tale Y chromosome, for starters.

[ 20. March 2015, 14:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: I can virtually guarantee he wouldn't be viable

If He did make it to adulthood with only half of each chromosome, at least we'd have solid proof of a miracle [Smile]

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What would you say to me if DNA evidence was found which proved that Jesus had no human father? That science cannot speak to religious claims? I don't think so.
Firstly, what would count as DNA evidence that Jesus had no human father? It was found that one of the purported foreskins had only half the usual complement of chromosomes? But that would still require us to think the evidence that the foreskin actually derived from Jesus was reliable. Also, the doctrine of the incarnation requires that Jesus was an actual functioning human being, and it would be questionable whether an entity with only half the usual chromosomes would count as fully human, even were he biologically functional.
I can virtually guarantee he wouldn't be viable - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_QvbMFjrnDwC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=lethal+recessive+allele+human+genome&source=bl&ots=cR6 Tp9zO8B&sig=tEedM1aGj5emKSZTYU1xKedcQiA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wjgMVdiEIMLIPN_4gKAO&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lethal%20recessive%20a llele%20human%20genome&f=false -

We are only alive because we're diploid. I would expect Jesus' genome, were it available to us, and even supposing the doctrine of the virgin birth to be true, to apparently have a human father. There'd be a terribly tell-tale Y chromosome, for starters.

If The Master of The Universe can/could/would/did create life, the universe and everything … and later be born in the flesh to a young innocent girl from Nazareth … I don't see why creating a sperm cell or two in her reproductive tract would be an impossibility for such a God as Adonai Elohim ...

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What would you say to me if DNA evidence was found which proved that Jesus had no human father? That science cannot speak to religious claims? I don't think so.
Firstly, what would count as DNA evidence that Jesus had no human father? It was found that one of the purported foreskins had only half the usual complement of chromosomes? But that would still require us to think the evidence that the foreskin actually derived from Jesus was reliable. Also, the doctrine of the incarnation requires that Jesus was an actual functioning human being, and it would be questionable whether an entity with only half the usual chromosomes would count as fully human, even were he biologically functional.

With all due respect plus some additional bonus respect that isn't due, you're missing the point. It was a rhetorical question about a hypothetical situation, so your issues are unimportant here. unless you,re sidestepping, of course, in which case I take back the abovementioned respect (both due and undue).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I find the question very interesting.

What if we found unequivocal, scientific evidence that all that is written in the Gospels was true?

I'm not interested in the mechanics of what such evidence would entail. Heck, if you want to, imagine a time machine that could transport us back to the 1st Century invisibly, and we could see it all with our own eyes. Him walking on water, Him dying, Him ressurecting ... I'll even throw in some invisible scientific measuring equipment if you want, to really establish that He was dead.

It doesn't matter how. What if you had the most solid proof you couldn't deny, that it was all true?

I think that my first reaction would be disappointment. Believing in something that has been proven isn't half the fun ...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

LeRoc

Presumably, it would not arouse feelings of transcendence and the numinous? But I'm not sure. I would say that humans yearn to go beyond, well, beyond lots of things, but beyond the ego, beyond this reality, and religion partly satisfies that. Well, so do other things, e.g. music, art.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What would you say to me if DNA evidence was found which proved that Jesus had no human father? That science cannot speak to religious claims? I don't think so.
Firstly, what would count as DNA evidence that Jesus had no human father? It was found that one of the purported foreskins had only half the usual complement of chromosomes? But that would still require us to think the evidence that the foreskin actually derived from Jesus was reliable. Also, the doctrine of the incarnation requires that Jesus was an actual functioning human being, and it would be questionable whether an entity with only half the usual chromosomes would count as fully human, even were he biologically functional.
With all due respect plus some additional bonus respect that isn't due, you're missing the point. It was a rhetorical question about a hypothetical situation, so your issues are unimportant here. unless you,re sidestepping, of course, in which case I take back the abovementioned respect (both due and undue).

Sure, science speaks to religious claims. Until the early twentieth century it was a religious claim that the universe wasn't eternal and had a finite beginning in the past (contra the prevailing Newtonian scientific view). The current standard cosmological model now speaks in support of that claim. Point is understanding the limits that science brings to our understanding of reality. We don't resolve moral questions using "science" as our final arbiter (for instance).

Don't know how many times we've been round this particular carousel on the Ship.....

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
With all due respect plus some additional bonus respect that isn't due

I don't think anything in my post was personal in this way, was it?
A small cynical and perhaps unfair voice suggests to me that you're being deliberately personal and unpleasant in order to evade honest criticism of your 'point'. If the small cynical voice is correct, the place to be deliberately personal and unpleasant is Hell.

quote:
It was a rhetorical question about a hypothetical situation, so your issues are unimportant here.

My issues were equally rhetorical. Your point was that Christians contrary to their professed claims would abandon NOMA if it suited us. My rhetorical issues were there to illustrate the fact that we wouldn't.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Until the early twentieth century it was a religious claim that the universe wasn't eternal and had a finite beginning in the past (contra the prevailing Newtonian scientific view). The current standard cosmological model now speaks in support of that claim.

In the sense in which a religious claim that the universe has a finite beginning in the past contradicted the Newtonian scientific view(*), it predicted that the finite beginning was roughly six thousand years ago, give or take a couple of thousand years. That claim has been comprehensively rubbished.

The sense in which it was made as a genuinely religious claim, it was just as compatible with a universe that is eternal in time, as pointed out by Aquinas no less (who, having no better information, thought it true in both senses).

(*) Newton himself thought the religious claims were literally true.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Until the early twentieth century it was a religious claim that the universe wasn't eternal and had a finite beginning in the past (contra the prevailing Newtonian scientific view). The current standard cosmological model now speaks in support of that claim.
In the sense in which a religious claim that the universe has a finite beginning in the past contradicted the Newtonian scientific view(*), it predicted that the finite beginning was roughly six thousand years ago, give or take a couple of thousand years. That claim has been comprehensively rubbished.

The sense in which it was made as a genuinely religious claim, it was just as compatible with a universe that is eternal in time, as pointed out by Aquinas no less (who, having no better information, thought it true in both senses).

(*) Newton himself thought the religious claims were literally true.

Bishop Usher reckoned the universe was about 6,000 years old. Paul didn't put a date on it - just said that God existed before the universe, and that everything that was made (all material and non material) came into existence through Christ.

BTW, the idea that the universe is past eternal is as comprehensively rubbished by the same evidence that shows it's older than 6,000 years, as well as the philosophical and mathematical absurdity of the idea of there being an infitite number of past events.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
as well as the philosophical and mathematical absurdity of the idea of there being an infitite number of past events.

Could you state your sources for the this. Aristotal thought the universe was eternal. Aquinas didn't agree but this was based on revelation rather than philosophy. His view was that philosophy couldn't answer the question either way and was irrelevant anyway as God was beyond time, and was an ontological, not temporal first cause. Even a universe with an infinite number of past events wouldn't answer the question as to why it existed in the first place as (in Thomist language), its essence 'what it is' isn't the same as its existence 'that it is'. It's only God who fits that criteria which is why he's a necessary being.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:

BTW, the idea that the universe is past eternal is as comprehensively rubbished by the same evidence that shows it's older than 6,000 years, as well as the philosophical and mathematical absurdity of the idea of there being an infitite number of past events.

Is it? Surely an infinitely long universe with repeated Big Bangs and Big Crunches is far harder to disprove than YEC simply because it is impossible to prove what happened before time.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Bishop Usher reckoned the universe was about 6,000 years old.

And Leo Allatius thought Saturn's rings was Jesus's foreskin.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I find the question very interesting.

What if we found unequivocal, scientific evidence that all that is written in the Gospels was true?

I asked somebody a variant of that once. Her response was "I wouldn't believe anyway. I don't want to."

Which I found appalling but refreshingly honest.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I find the question very interesting.

What if we found unequivocal, scientific evidence that all that is written in the Gospels was true?

I asked somebody a variant of that once. Her response was "I wouldn't believe anyway. I don't want to."

Which I found appalling but refreshingly honest.

I have thought about that case. I would ask why God has not helped us since then? Why has he left us to suffer, to wage war, to go through famines, disease, or what have you.

Why are you a tyrant!!!

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:

BTW, the idea that the universe is past eternal is as comprehensively rubbished by the same evidence that shows it's older than 6,000 years, as well as the philosophical and mathematical absurdity of the idea of there being an infitite number of past events.
Is it? Surely an infinitely long universe with repeated Big Bangs and Big Crunches is far harder to disprove than YEC simply because it is impossible to prove what happened before time.

Quick word to your good self and Jack O Green. On the absurdity of actual infinities, pay a visit to
Hilbert's Hotel which is always full and where there's always a vacancy.

On the repeated Bangs and Crunches you don't have a "before time" in an absolute sense, just before the formation of each universe. You still have to cope with an initial finite beginning - the first Bang since an actual infinite of bangs is absurd.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Bishop Usher reckoned the universe was about 6,000 years old. Paul didn't put a date on it - just said that God existed before the universe, and that everything that was made (all material and non material) came into existence through Christ.

Bishop Usher reached his figure by doing arithmetic on the ages of patriarchs in the Bible, and trying to correlate that with secular history. He no doubt made some subjective judgements along the way, but he's going along with the rough time span set out by the literal text of the Bible.
The point being that prior to the eighteenth century I think most Christians, whether or not they would have accepted Usher's exact date, believed in a world that began shortly before recorded human history.

quote:
BTW, the idea that the universe is past eternal is as comprehensively rubbished by the same evidence that shows it's older than 6,000 years, as well as the philosophical and mathematical absurdity of the idea of there being an infitite number of past events.

The question isn't whether or not the universe is or is not past eternal; it is whether the question has any bearing on the truth of Christianity.

The idea of an infinite number of past events is intuitively hard to grasp, but mathematically there isn't a problem with it, there being just as many negative numbers as positive. When one tries to turn the intuitive difficulty into an actual counterargument, one can't manage it.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:

On the repeated Bangs and Crunches you don't have a "before time" in an absolute sense, just before the formation of each universe. You still have to cope with an initial finite beginning - the first Bang since an actual infinite of bangs is absurd.

I Am Not A Mathematician (or a cosmologist) but a circular system of time which keeps crunching and banging is not impossible to comprehend to me.

It might not be true, but I cannot see why it is so obviously easy to disprove. There is no beginning or end, the thing just keeps cycling around and starting again.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:

On the repeated Bangs and Crunches you don't have a "before time" in an absolute sense, just before the formation of each universe. You still have to cope with an initial finite beginning - the first Bang since an actual infinite of bangs is absurd.
I Am Not A Mathematician (or a cosmologist) but a circular system of time which keeps crunching and banging is not impossible to comprehend to me.

It might not be true, but I cannot see why it is so obviously easy to disprove. There is no beginning or end, the thing just keeps cycling around and starting again.

Fair do's. We'll agree to differ then.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Dafyd. Bit of a tangent this, but interesting. Question I was coming in on was whether science had anything to say to the claims of Christianity. I'm relaxed that it does. There's a stack of historical discoveries made by Christians - the modern scientific method emerged in the Christian West spearheaded by scientists who believed the universe was ordered by a creative Mind and therefore should be open to investigation. Eastern and Middle Eastern philosophical worldviews took a different tack and were slower to get on board.

The point about the finite beginning of the universe is that Paul believed the universe had one. Misguided attempts to date that from Scripture doesn't change that core belief. Over the years the church has had a few daft ideas based on poor hermeneutics. As one joker put it, cosmologists climbed the mountain of knowledge to discover the origin of the universe and when they got there they found a group of theologians enjoying afternoon tea.

On an actual infinite of past events (as opposed to infinity as a useful tool in pure maths) - nope, still don't get it.

Can you reconcile an infinite universe with the claims of Christianity? Well Aquinas and Mr Cheesy reckon so, so you're in good company, and Newton himself didn't have a problem with it. From my point of view, it's a discussion we don't need to have - I'm not going to get too excited about it, since it's a respectable view with a long history in Christian thought.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I thought that Aquinas wasn't concerned with the beginning of the universe, but saw God as underpinning creation at each moment. In some Eastern religions, there is the interesting idea that each moment is the beginning, but I don't think that is a Thomist idea.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that Aquinas wasn't concerned with the beginning of the universe, but saw God as underpinning creation at each moment. In some Eastern religions, there is the interesting idea that each moment is the beginning, but I don't think that is a Thomist idea.

Pretty much on your first point. Didn't matter to Aquinas whether the universe had a finite beginning or not - more important to him is that its existence, moment by moment, depends on God (as the writer to Hebrews puts it, Christ sustains the world by his word of power). Here's a summary of some cosmological ideas and how Aquinas's views are relevant. Personally not convinced about some of the conclusions, but it shows the continuing relevance and applicability of the thoughts of a brilliant theologian.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
There's a stack of historical discoveries made by Christians - the modern scientific method emerged in the Christian West spearheaded by scientists who believed the universe was ordered by a creative Mind and therefore should be open to investigation.

I believe this is true. But it's a rather different proposition.
The claims made by advocates for the potential of empirical natural philosophy in the seventeenth century depended upon theistic metaphysics. And the thought that empirical natural philosophy ought to work better than axiomatic natural philosophy depended historically upon theistic metaphysics. But that would be true whatever results the empirical natural philosophical enterprise came up with. Just because the theistic metaphysics of the time could be used as a basis to argue that natural philosophy required empirical and experimental techniques, it was irrelevant to that link what the outcome of those techniques was. If theistic metaphysics requires empirical experimental investigation to determine results in natural philosophy, then none of those results can be more compatible with theistic metaphysics than any other.

quote:
The point about the finite beginning of the universe is that Paul believed the universe had one. Misguided attempts to date that from Scripture doesn't change that core belief.

Well, yes, he did. But I'm not sure he would have thought that was a more salient feature than the order of magnitude of the date.
Certainly, the context in which he thought that was not the questions we are considering in this thread.

quote:
On an actual infinite of past events (as opposed to infinity as a useful tool in pure maths) - nope, still don't get it.

It is theoretically no different from an infinite number of future events. Well, possibly there's an asymmetry in that an infinite number of past events but a finite number of future events is difficult to get one's head round. The point I think is to remember that no single event is infinitely far in the past.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

Aristotle's thoughtful musing remains every bit as good even after more than twenty centuries, i.e., "Why is there anything at all, rather than nothing … ???"

And … No ... "A random fluctuation in the primordial vacuum ..." isn't a sufficient answer ...

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

Absolutely. Despite a quantum vacuum often being characterised as nothing - even by some scientists, it is anything but.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I Am Not A Mathematician (or a cosmologist) but a circular system of time which keeps crunching and banging is not impossible to comprehend to me.

It might not be true, but I cannot see why it is so obviously easy to disprove. There is no beginning or end, the thing just keeps cycling around and starting again.

It's certainly not self-evidently self-contradictory. One can disagree on whether it's true. There is no disagreement on whether it's clearly impossible. It clearly is not.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

ISTM that trying to figure out where everything came from always hits a "but where did THAT come from?" problem.

If a Creator (of any religious flavor) is the Uncaused Cause of everything else,...well, how can there be something that's uncaused?

In a non-theistic, Big Bang scenario, where did the materials for the bang come from?

In a steady-state, "everything's always been here" scenario, where did the everything come from?

ISTM we're all kind of in the same boat.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
ISTM we're all kind of in the same boat.

No, we are not. And your very own words show that... You had to modify your question when talking about the "uncaused Cause", and that is no accident. The thrust of the question has been deflected, since the point of being "uncaused" is basically not coming from anywhere at any time. And if we continue our queries, then we indeed ask practically how such an entity can be, i.e., we ask what characteristics the "uncaused Cause" must have in order to be able to exist as an "uncaused Cause". That's exactly the classical path of discussion that you can find in the Summa Theologiae: first show the necessity of an "uncaused Cause", then show what it necessarily must be like.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Here is a reasonable summary.

At any rate, I think it's reasonable.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
ISTM that trying to figure out where everything came from always hits a "but where did THAT come from?" problem.

If a Creator (of any religious flavor) is the Uncaused Cause of everything else,...well, how can there be something that's uncaused?

In a non-theistic, Big Bang scenario, where did the materials for the bang come from?

In a steady-state, "everything's always been here" scenario, where did the everything come from?

ISTM we're all kind of in the same boat.

I don't understand what IngoB wrote above, but one who believes in an eternal universe is emphatically not in the same boat, because there is no beginning or end, the thing is just constantly cycling. There is no need to explain where the big bang came from - as it was from the debris of the previous universe.

I don't really see why this so difficult to grasp.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Where did the first lot of debris come from? Doesn't an infinite series have a first term?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand what IngoB wrote above, but one who believes in an eternal universe is emphatically not in the same boat, because there is no beginning or end, the thing is just constantly cycling. There is no need to explain where the big bang came from - as it was from the debris of the previous universe.

Let's take an infinite sequence: F0: ..., -3, 2, -1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8... (yes, the Fibonacci sequence from n= -4 to n= 6 if I've got it right).

Now let's take another: F1: ... -11, 7, -4, 3, -1, 2, 1, 3, 4, 7, 11... (the same sequence offset by 1 at one at n=3, again if I've got it right.).

And a third: F2: ... 4, -1, 3, 0, 1, 1, 2, 4, 9....
(Which is n= 2n(-1) + n(-2) - n (-3) IIGIR.)

From any point within those sequences it is true that the value is entirely determined by the previous two values. Nevertheless, it still looks as if there are two more questions that need to be asked to fully explain what is going on: namely, why are the values in this sequence set at the value they are - the difference between the Fibonacci sequence and the F1 sequence; and then why are the rules the way they are (the difference between the Fibonacci sequence and the F2 sequence).

Those look like they're valid questions, even though they cannot be answered by the techniques you'd use to determine what n(x) is at any point given sufficient prior values.

[ 22. March 2015, 14:59: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Where did the first lot of debris come from? Doesn't an infinite series have a first term?

The debris (in this hypothesis) came from the previous universe. There was no 'first'. Why does it have to be linear?

I just don't see why or how there could be any mathematical proof to show that an infinite series had a beginning. Start at any point along this series and the numbers stretch out infinitely in both directions - and.. maybe.. join up.

As I said before, no proof it is like this - but no proof it is not either. A loop would solve the problem of where it all came from, if nothing else.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

From any point within those sequences it is true that the value is entirely determined by the previous two values. Nevertheless, it still looks as if there are two more questions that need to be asked to fully explain what is going on: namely, why are the values in this sequence set at the value they are - the difference between the Fibonacci sequence and the F1 sequence; and then why are the rules the way they are (the difference between the Fibonacci sequence and the F2 sequence).

Those look like they're valid questions, even though they cannot be answered by the techniques you'd use to determine what n(x) is at any point given sufficient prior values.

I agree the question of why the universe is like this rather than any other formation is (presumably) valid to a cosmologist, but is not the question I am talking about - which was the question of whether an eternal universe can be as easily disproved as YEC. As far as I can see, an infinite looping universe is unprovable but fits the available information and answers the question of origins by saying there was no origin. YEC does none of those things and requires one to ignore the available evidence.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I agree the question of why the universe is like this rather than any other formation is (presumably) valid to a cosmologist, but is not the question I am talking about - which was the question of whether an eternal universe can be as easily disproved as YEC.

As far as I could tell, nobody was talking about YEC.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Can one not decide that the answer to the question "what is the ultimate purpose of my existence?" be "no purpose at all"? Would such an answer be equally religious in nature as something like "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever"?

One can – and it would be if religion were defined in such a way as to accommodate it.

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Hugh. You said

Generally, where the state provides a level of protection against the consequences of old age, poor health, unemployment etc. fewer people demonstrate a need for supernatural beliefs

Sorry mate, you're well out of date on this one. The rise if faith in general has coincided with a growth in prosperity. You see it in Africa, Latin America, Africa and the Far East. In Turkey and India, modernisation has helped create an upwardly mobile bourgeoisie who are the most fervent supporters of the religious parties. I gave you the reference to China. The evidence is there if you want to do your homework.

In how many of these countries are the masses (not the bourgeoisie) being provided with real security - decent minimum wage levels, tax credits for poor workers, child benefits, meaningful old age pensions, affordable high quality healthcare? The upwardly mobile may support religion as a tool of their elitism - that doesn't mean they follow its precepts. Religion is still too often one of the opiates of the masses.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
my point is that where personal uncertainty increases so does recourse to the supernatural. That this is commonly accepted is illustrated by the constant, and very silly, repetition of “there are no atheists in foxholes”.
If 'there are no atheists in foxholes' is silly then it does not illustrate your point. If you use silly evidence to illustrate a point, that shows that the point itself is silly.

Really, you're engaging in Just So stories here. The little sociological research that I'm aware of tends to reject such single factor causes

The fact that religious people often claim that there are no atheists in foxholes shows that they agree with my point - that where personal uncertainty increases so does recourse to the supernatural. The actual reference to atheists in foxholes is silly - but that does not mean that the misused concept behind it is invalid. And no - little is caused by a single factor, but I doubt you'd recommend ignoring personal hygiene because disease can be spread in a variety of ways.

quote:
It is also a possible explanation for the alliance of some businessmen and some religious leaders in the US who spend vast amounts of time and money trying to prevent the poorer citizens gaining increased peace of mind regarding their health needs.

quote:
This attributes a degree of self-awareness to the leaders of the religious right that does not appear warranted.

Then why do they spend so much time and effort opposing things that would benefit their flocks?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Ingo--

The different wording for the first question was a) sloppy writing on my part; and b) I remembered the phrase "uncaused cause" from certain Old Dead Greek Dudes. [Biased]

No reference to the Summa intended.

Barnabas--

Thanks for the link.

mr. cheesy--

I'm not necessarily against your Constantly Cycling Thing--but where did it come from?

Not when did it begin its cycling. But--thinking of it as a discrete thing--where did it come from?

And no, I wasn't pushing YEC at all. I'm MOTR about how we got here, though I could cope if YEC turned out to be true.

I was just saying that whether you (gen.) go with non-theistic evolution, steady state, a Constantly Cycling Thing, all the technicolor flavors of some sort of theistic creation, etc., you wind up saying "Stop here, and don't go any further back".

Because without that limit, it's "Turtles All The Way Down".

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Hugh writes

In how many of these countries are the masses (not the bourgeoisie) being provided with real security - decent minimum wage levels, tax credits for poor workers, child benefits, meaningful old age pensions, affordable high quality healthcare? The upwardly mobile may support religion as a tool of their elitism - that doesn't mean they follow its precepts. Religion is still too often one of the opiates of the masses.

So the poor are believers because they don't have the best of modern social protection, and the bourgeoisie are beleivers because it supports their elitism. Who does that leave out?

You'd be a tad more credible if you could recognise when your arguments don't stack up.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Dyfed, see this post top of this page:

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Bishop Usher reckoned the universe was about 6,000 years old. Paul didn't put a date on it - just said that God existed before the universe, and that everything that was made (all material and non material) came into existence through Christ.

BTW, the idea that the universe is past eternal is as comprehensively rubbished by the same evidence that shows it's older than 6,000 years, as well as the philosophical and mathematical absurdity of the idea of there being an infitite number of past events.

I dispute the idea that an eternal universe has been comprehensively rubbished as has YEC.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

mr. cheesy--

I'm not necessarily against your Constantly Cycling Thing--but where did it come from?

Not when did it begin its cycling. But--thinking of it as a discrete thing--where did it come from?

Nowhere. An eternal universe is exactly what it says - a universe which has always existed. Even before moment of the beginning of time (the Big Bang), the constituents of the universe existed.

Maybe my teenage interest in SciFi makes this idea far easier for me to grasp than others in this thread, I don't know.

quote:
And no, I wasn't pushing YEC at all. I'm MOTR about how we got here, though I could cope if YEC turned out to be true.

I could not cope if YEC turned out to be true for reasons discussed on these boards ad nauseum. One simply has to ignore the evidence to postulate anything approaching a cosmology that is less than 10,000 years old.

But then, I was not accusing anyone of believing in YEC, I was simply trying to assert that the evidence has not, and could not, disprove the idea of an eternal universe and that it is an explanation which fits the available evidence - unlike YEC which ignores it.

quote:
I was just saying that whether you (gen.) go with non-theistic evolution, steady state, a Constantly Cycling Thing, all the technicolor flavors of some sort of theistic creation, etc., you wind up saying "Stop here, and don't go any further back".

Nope, that is totally not what I'm saying. I am saying the universe is cyclical, there is no 'back' to go to.

All the stuff in the universe constantly existed and just periodically bangs and contracts, creating time and setting off the processes we see in the cosmos today. Eventually that all contracts and the process starts again.

In this schemata, there is no 'beginning' of all the stuff, it just always was and always will be.

Again, if one is able to comprehend a deity which always existed and was at no point created, apply the same logic to the existence of everything in the universe. All I'm saying is that the status of matter is constantly in flux whilst the existence of such things is a constant.

quote:
Because without that limit, it's "Turtles All The Way Down".

Not really the same thing at all, although thanks for the memory of Discworld again [Big Grin]

[ 23. March 2015, 07:45: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The fact that religious people often claim that there are no atheists in foxholes shows that they agree with my point - that where personal uncertainty increases so does recourse to the supernatural. The actual reference to atheists in foxholes is silly - but that does not mean that the misused concept behind it is invalid.

Yes, it does, or would, mean that the concept behind it is invalid. If David Cameron gets up and says that UKIP's worries about immigration are ignorant rabble-rousing, but they show immigration is out of control, we would rightly think he is being insincere somewhere. He can either say UKIP is engaged in ignorant rabble-rousing or say UKIP are right to express concern, but not argue both lines at once.

(I could also ask you to quantify 'often' in your first sentence. How 'often' is 'often'?)

Are you actually drawing on any recent sociological research, covering the range of the literature? Or is this something that came out of some atheist polemicist's head fifty years ago?

quote:

quote:
This attributes a degree of self-awareness to the leaders of the religious right that does not appear warranted.
Then why do they spend so much time and effort opposing things that would benefit their flocks?

As an outsider, it is my understanding that it's the outcome of a historical trajectory that largely boils down to: a) opposition to communism; and b) slavery and racism. Black religious leaders do not generally oppose these measures, as I understand it.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Hugh writes

In how many of these countries are the masses (not the bourgeoisie) being provided with real security - decent minimum wage levels, tax credits for poor workers, child benefits, meaningful old age pensions, affordable high quality healthcare? The upwardly mobile may support religion as a tool of their elitism - that doesn't mean they follow its precepts. Religion is still too often one of the opiates of the masses.

So the poor are believers because they don't have the best of modern social protection, and the bourgeoisie are beleivers because it supports their elitism. Who does that leave out?

You'd be a tad more credible if you could recognise when your arguments don't stack up.

I don't see the contradiction here. This kind of analysis sees religion as sanctifying the social hierarchy - the rich man in his castle, and so on. So each level of society appears to gain something, although the analysis would say an illusory benefit. Other types of analysis are available!

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Alas, this thread is bound for nowhere. The faithful are very difficult to impeach: they can claim in all honesty and sincerity about accepting scientific facts. However, they always have a special card up their sleeves, which I call The Doctrine of Infinite Exceptions. The fact that there is not only no evidence for God, but no evidence for their miracle claims either (healing, walking on water, etc.) does not bother them. They can merely say "ah, the obscurity and lack of evidence is all part of God's magical plan"—and your questioning the fact that there is no evidence only fulfils what they see as prophetic words from the Bible or Christian thinkers that reason is an enemy of God. Knowing this, they can always play that card.

It makes real dialogue between Humanists (as an example) and the religiously convicted extremely difficult. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to convince them to value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, then what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?

K.
The claim that "there is no evidence for God" is a claim -- not a fact ...

It could only be adjusted to allow that we do not know of any evidence. I suppose it is possible that there is evidence somewhere that has yet to be discovered. It's surely important to be open to new discovery, I agree.

Let's shuffle off to Dead Horses if you want to discuss whether or not there is a god or gods.

K.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand what IngoB wrote above, but one who believes in an eternal universe is emphatically not in the same boat, because there is no beginning or end, the thing is just constantly cycling. There is no need to explain where the big bang came from - as it was from the debris of the previous universe. I don't really see why this so difficult to grasp.

The most famous proponent of the classical cosmological argument, St Thomas Aquinas, is also famous for arguing that one cannot philosophically demonstrate that the world had a beginning. That immediately tells you that the classical cosmological argument does not rely at all on the universe having a beginning, unlike the modern versions of for example William Craig.

An endlessly recycling universe explains every next temporal state in terms of the previous temporal state. And I agree, you can extend that back to the past infinitely in time (and forward to the future infinitely as well) without logical contradiction. But if you now look at the entire infinite recycling series of universes as a whole, then you still have not answered why it all is there rather than not.

If your universe consisted of a single bottle, that got filled, used, smashed, its glass melted and reshaped into a bottle, then this could endlessly repeat. Here we ignore for the sake of argument where the water that fills the bottle comes from, what supports the fire that melts the glass, etc., i.e., we strip these things away from the analogy. Then we can indeed say that the bottle now is caused by an infinite series of prior recycled bottles. But what you have not explained is how come that there is such a bottle and such a recycling process at all! That's a different kind of question, it does not probe the sequence of changes to the bottle and how they connect together. You can say that the bottle is formed out of the molten glass. That does answer one kind of question about what is happening, but it cannot answer another kind of question. Namely, it cannot answer what make the molten glass and the bottle, and the change from one to the other, exist at all. Since they could not be there, we have to explain why they are there. Graphically:

code:

... --> molten glass --> new bottle --> filled bottle --> empty bottle --> ...
     ^        ^       ^     ^        ^        ^        ^       ^        ^
     |        |       |     |        |        |        |       |        |
   being    being   being being    being    being    being   being    being

You can not try to address this "support of being" question in terms of more "fundamental" units. So maybe you talk about molecules, and then atoms, and then quarks or whatever to replace the "being" in the above

code:

... --> new bottle --> ...
           ^ 
           |
       molecules
           ^
           |
         atoms
           ^
           |
         quarks
           ^
           |
           :
           :
           ^
           |
          ???

and you could add at every level relevant "physical law" or indeed at some point consider these laws as some kind of supporting reality themselves. The problem is that this sequence of "support of being" is like a pillar that props up the causal series of changes to your bottle, see the previous diagram. And this kind of series one cannot logically extend to infinity. Because it is not a series in time, it is one in "explanation". We explain the bottle in terms of its molecules, the molecules in terms of the atoms, the atoms in terms of the quarks, etc. But we have to stop somewhere, or in the end we explain nothing. Really all this does is to move our gaze from the bottle to the most fundamental supporting thing, and then we can still ask the very same question about that, whatever it may be: why is that there then, rather than nothing. And the only way we can stop this questioning process is by saying that right at the bottom of it all must be something that necessarily exists. Something which is defined precisely by saying that the reason why it is is that its essence is to be. We do not say this because we know what this may be, rather we are using a process of exclusion: since it is impossible that this explanatory series goes on forever, at the bottom of the "pillar of being" must be a necessary being, an "ender-of-the-why-question", an entity that requires no explanation for its being because its very nature is to be.

And that is what we classically mean by the "uncaused Cause". One can then argue that this entity is God, or more accurately, that theistic conceptions of God are compatible with this, so that one can identify this with God, some god, if one so pleases. But the idea of the "uncaused Cause" is basically to define the necessary endpoint to questions of origin, the ultimate support of existence. One can also critique this kind of argument, of course, though I personally don't think that anybody has succeeded against it. But the important point here is that for this kind of argument it is completely irrelevant whether the universe has a beginning, i.e., whether in the first diagram on the left hand side the dots extend back to an infinite past or just a finite one. This kind of argument is about saying that in the second diagram the dots cannot extend infinitely deep down. This classical cosmological argument is "orthogonal" to arguments that invoke the "Big Bang".

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
ISTM we're all kind of in the same boat.
No, we are not. And your very own words show that... You had to modify your question when talking about the "uncaused Cause", and that is no accident. The thrust of the question has been deflected, since the point of being "uncaused" is basically not coming from anywhere at any time. And if we continue our queries, then we indeed ask practically how such an entity can be, i.e., we ask what characteristics the "uncaused Cause" must have in order to be able to exist as an "uncaused Cause". That's exactly the classical path of discussion that you can find in the Summa Theologiae: first show the necessity of an "uncaused Cause", then show what it necessarily must be like.

I'm not sure whether I'm about to agree or disagree with you here, but I think we are all in the same boat that we all have to account either for an ultimate beginning, or for something which is beginningless.

Since none of us have anything in our direct experience which is beginningless (or otherwise uncaused), we are all in the position of having to believe something (at least provisionally) that we cannot comprehend. The analogy to a mathematical infinite series extending forward and back is of limited conceptual help (to me at least) - I agree that in principle the series itself has no beginning, but to say the universe has no beginning is like trying to imagine some immortal mathematician reading out an infinite series of numbers and never having started with one particular number.

The advantage that a theistic 'uncaused cause' has, it seems to me, is to be by definition some completely different category of 'thing' to anything else in the physical/material/temporal universe. I can't comprehend it, but I can see immediately why I ought not to be able to comprehend it (and, indeed, why no finite intelligence ever could). God eternally existing isn't conceptually the same thing as an infinite series of past events. I can meaningfully ask (or so it seems to me) of an eternal or uncaused universe, "what would that have looked like if an observer like me had been around to witness events 'before'?" and when I do I find that this meaningful question has no meaningful answer. Whereas I don't think I can meaningfully ask what an observer like me would have seen given the opportunity to enquire into the origins of God.

Reading that back, I'm not sure its all that clear. I mean something like - my question about "What happened at the big bang?" is not rendered meaningless just because there were in fact no people about to see it, or because as a matter of causative process there couldn't have been - the event (or series of events) was a physical occurrence and it is conceptually possible for physical occurrences to be witnessed. Whereas God is eternal and incomprehensible by definition - he isn't the sort of thing even susceptible to explanation of the "this is what I would have seen" sort.

So I think we're stuck with incomprehension either way - theistic or non-theistic - but the theistic account at least locates the incomprehension properly in something that we can see must be incomprehensible. The non-theistic "it just is" is harder for me to accept than anything which I have to assume on theistic grounds.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

IngoB, thanks that is an interesting and well-argued explanation.

But again, I think it can simply be answered that it is what it is. Maybe there are practical reasons why the universe operates in this way rather than in any other way - or maybe at each Big Bang in the cycle the universe is created to a set of random standards, I have no idea.

As far as I can understand these things, the existence of the bottle (in your analogue) maybe does not need explaining: it just is, has been and will be for ever. The physical constituents of the bottle are there today because they have always been there.

Again, with the obvious proviso that I am not in any way a cosmologist, I don't really see why we have to explain the "uncaused Cause" if there is an eternal universe. If everything is in fact donut shaped rather than linear, perhaps we are actually living on the debris that our own universe will eventually be recreated from. Then the universe would be the creator/precursor of itself.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am saying the universe is cyclical, there is no 'back' to go to.

What do you mean by "cyclic"? Is each 'Big Bang' the same actual event or not?

If you mean that the universe is cyclic in a sort of life-cycle sense (egg-caterpillar-cocoon-butterfly-egg...) you might be right that there could be an infinitely repeating pattern, but each egg is still a different egg. The fact that, as a matter of detail, the infinite past contains an infinite number of points resembling one another and through which no specific information about prior states can pass does not make any real material difference to the difficulty in conceiving a real infinite series of past events with no beginning.

I suppose you might be saying that time itself is cyclic - that there is exactly one Big Bang event, which it will always be true to say we both came from and are heading towards. That would be a different way of describing a beginningless universe, but not, it seems to me, an explanation of it.

So far it is not clear to me which you mean - what would a hypothetical observer see? The process repeating infinitely many times (with or without observable variation each time), or one process, not 'repeated' but self-contained in one circular causative loop?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Nicely done, IngoB. That's what I was grasping for (and missing) in my "debris" question.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

Since none of us have anything in our direct experience which is beginningless (or otherwise uncaused), we are all in the position of having to believe something (at least provisionally) that we cannot comprehend. The analogy to a mathematical infinite series extending forward and back is of limited conceptual help (to me at least) - I agree that in principle the series itself has no beginning, but to say the universe has no beginning is like trying to imagine some immortal mathematician reading out an infinite series of numbers and never having started with one particular number.

Interesting, but I don't understand the problem with imagining a mathematician engaging with an infinite series somewhere in the middle. This is the nature of biology (and essentially any observed science), isn't it?

quote:
The advantage that a theistic 'uncaused cause' has, it seems to me, is to be by definition some completely different category of 'thing' to anything else in the physical/material/temporal universe. I can't comprehend it, but I can see immediately why I ought not to be able to comprehend it (and, indeed, why no finite intelligence ever could). God eternally existing isn't conceptually the same thing as an infinite series of past events. I can meaningfully ask (or so it seems to me) of an eternal or uncaused universe, "what would that have looked like if an observer like me had been around to witness events 'before'?" and when I do I find that this meaningful question has no meaningful answer. Whereas I don't think I can meaningfully ask what an observer like me would have seen given the opportunity to enquire into the origins of God.

I don't understand this. What are you saying about the person of the deity that is different to cosmology? Why is it harder to believe that all things (in the universe) are eternal rather than that an individual is eternal? Maybe you'll explain more below..

quote:
Reading that back, I'm not sure its all that clear. I mean something like - my question about "What happened at the big bang?" is not rendered meaningless just because there were in fact no people about to see it, or because as a matter of causative process there couldn't have been - the event (or series of events) was a physical occurrence and it is conceptually possible for physical occurrences to be witnessed.

I don't understand why 'what happened at the Big Bang" is a meaningless question.

quote:
Whereas God is eternal and incomprehensible by definition - he isn't the sort of thing even susceptible to explanation of the "this is what I would have seen" sort.

But isn't that an assertion? If we can conceive of a universe that is created from the ruins of itself, maybe we could understand the general nature of God. I still don't see why it is that the one is infinitely incomprehensible whereas the other is understandable.

quote:
So I think we're stuck with incomprehension either way - theistic or non-theistic - but the theistic account at least locates the incomprehension properly in something that we can see must be incomprehensible. The non-theistic "it just is" is harder for me to accept than anything which I have to assume on theistic grounds.

OK, I appreciate the honesty - basically you are saying (I think) that it is easier to put the creation of the universe onto an incomprehensible deity rather than accept it is all a merry-go-round which functions on its own.

Personally, I don't think it is a whole lot different.

quote:

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What do you mean by "cyclic"? Is each 'Big Bang' the same actual event or not?

Time was, apparently, started at the Big Bang, so we have all kinds of problems using terms like 'before' the existence of time. Maybe the point before the Big Bang was the crunch of our own universe. Think donut.

quote:
If you mean that the universe is cyclic in a sort of life-cycle sense (egg-caterpillar-cocoon-butterfly-egg...) you might be right that there could be an infinitely repeating pattern, but each egg is still a different egg.

I think it is easier to use IngoB's bottle analogue from above. Each bottle is produced from exactly the same materials.

quote:
The fact that, as a matter of detail, the infinite past contains an infinite number of points resembling one another and through which no specific information about prior states can pass does not make any real material difference to the difficulty in conceiving a real infinite series of past events with no beginning.

Erm. No, sorry, that's beyond me.

quote:
I suppose you might be saying that time itself is cyclic - that there is exactly one Big Bang event, which it will always be true to say we both came from and are heading towards. That would be a different way of describing a beginningless universe, but not, it seems to me, an explanation of it.

Well, isn't it? Why is that not an explanation?

quote:
So far it is not clear to me which you mean - what would a hypothetical observer see? The process repeating infinitely many times (with or without observable variation each time), or one process, not 'repeated' but self-contained in one circular causative loop?

Either or both. Maybe the loop contains many (an infinite number of) chains or maybe it is an elastic band with the end joined to the beginning. I don't really see that either changes the possibility that all things in the universe are eternal.

[ 23. March 2015, 10:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As far as I can understand these things, the existence of the bottle (in your analogue) maybe does not need explaining: it just is, has been and will be for ever. The physical constituents of the bottle are there today because they have always been there.

Once more, that's the wrong direction of argument (horizontal in my diagrams). If you say "it's there because it always has been there (if in other forms)", then you are thinking about the "time" direction. I'm thinking about the "explanation / possibility" direction (vertical in my diagrams). The universe could not have been. Even an endless cyclical universe could not have been. But it is. I'm asking "why?" That's not a "why" that can be answered by "has been, is, will be". I don't care whether this thing lasts for a picosecond, an eon, or indeed forever. However long it may last, this existence itself still could not have been, but is. And that requires an explanation.

Now you can say that the existence of the universe (whether eternally cyclical or not) is just a "brute fact". That there is "no reason" for that. Two things need to be said about that: First, that is exactly why I say that atheism (or at least atheistic materialism) is less rational than theism (or at least Creator-ism). Because the latter can affirm all the reasoning of the former, but claims additionally reason even for the existence of all things. Personally, I'm a theist intellectually because I'm an optimist about human reason, i.e., I think we are right in thinking that the existence of everything has a reason. Second, obviously we cannot simply assign "brute fact" status to just everything we like, or we completely destroy all human knowledge and know how. Why is the sky blue? Brute fact. Why do teeth rot? Brute fact. Why did the car's motor fail? Brute fact. Etc. That doesn't work, that just makes us utterly stupid. Practically speaking, we do not "brute fact" most of the world. Thus the person wishing to apply brute-fact-ness as a kind of exit strategy from in depth questioning must give reason why one can sensibly attribute brute fact status to certain things. And that reason cannot just be "because it conveniently shuts up the questioner". Until such an explanation is forthcoming, this is IMHO simply not a valid intellectual move. It is merely rhetoric, it is merely assuming as given that which one cannot motivate, and then fronting hard about it.

So I will say to this "brute fact" approach to the existence of the universe: First, I personally don't want it. I am too optimistic about human reason to accept it. Second, if you want it, you need to work for it. A simply declaration is not enough to establish it.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Once more, that's the wrong direction of argument (horizontal in my diagrams). If you say "it's there because it always has been there (if in other forms)", then you are thinking about the "time" direction. I'm thinking about the "explanation / possibility" direction (vertical in my diagrams). The universe could not have been. Even an endless cyclical universe could not have been. But it is. I'm asking "why?" That's not a "why" that can be answered by "has been, is, will be". I don't care whether this thing lasts for a picosecond, an eon, or indeed forever. However long it may last, this existence itself still could not have been, but is. And that requires an explanation.

I think you are making an assertion that it could not have been. I am saying it is because it was. I agree with your other points about language, but you are asking for an explanation for something that does not need an explanation (well, not necessarily) IMO.

quote:
Now you can say that the existence of the universe (whether eternally cyclical or not) is just a "brute fact". That there is "no reason" for that. Two things need to be said about that: First, that is exactly why I say that atheism (or at least atheistic materialism) is less rational than theism (or at least Creator-ism). Because the latter can affirm all the reasoning of the former, but claims additionally reason even for the existence of all things. Personally, I'm a theist intellectually because I'm an optimist about human reason, i.e., I think we are right in thinking that the existence of everything has a reason. Second, obviously we cannot simply assign "brute fact" status to just everything we like, or we completely destroy all human knowledge and know how. Why is the sky blue? Brute fact. Why do teeth rot? Brute fact. Why did the car's motor fail? Brute fact. Etc. That doesn't work, that just makes us utterly stupid. Practically speaking, we do not "brute fact" most of the world. Thus the person wishing to apply brute-fact-ness as a kind of exit strategy from in depth questioning must give reason why one can sensibly attribute brute fact status to certain things. And that reason cannot just be "because it conveniently shuts up the questioner". Until such an explanation is forthcoming, this is IMHO simply not a valid intellectual move. It is merely rhetoric, it is merely assuming as given that which one cannot motivate, and then fronting hard about it.

Again, I am not a cosmologist. But I am a scientist and the things you mention here can be explained with science, deduction, observation and logic. That in-and-of itself does not mean that the ultimate reality of the universe is the same kind of thing.

Of course, neither of us can know, but it clearly is not just rhetoric if it is actually true. If the universe is composed of stuff constantly being rearranged from components which always existed, then the question of where the stuff came from is moot: it was always there. Hence the term eternal.

quote:
So I will say to this "brute fact" approach to the existence of the universe: First, I personally don't want it. I am too optimistic about human reason to accept it. Second, if you want it, you need to work for it. A simply declaration is not enough to establish it.

I respect your right not to like it, I also do not like the idea that my life is a speck of sand on the great seashore of the universe.

But I don't accept your continued assertion that work is necessary to explain something that is eternal. You don't have to like or believe it, but an eternal thing is exactly that: eternal. Where it came from or why is answered by the simple repetition that it is eternal.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:

Originally posted by IngoB:

code:

... --> new bottle --> ...
           ^ 
           |
       molecules
           ^
           |
         atoms
           ^
           |
         quarks
           ^
           |
           :
           :
           ^
           |
          ???

On this rather beautiful bit of code, wouldn't it be rather marvellous if one could go down and down and down and down and then find that the smallest components of all reality are also the biggest? Maybe if we look hard enough we'll find the universe.

But probably not, that'd be very weird.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: I'm thinking about the "explanation / possibility" direction (vertical in my diagrams). The universe could not have been. Even an endless cyclical universe could not have been. But it is. I'm asking "why?" That's not a "why" that can be answered by "has been, is, will be". I don't care whether this thing lasts for a picosecond, an eon, or indeed forever. However long it may last, this existence itself still could not have been, but is. And that requires an explanation.

I'm completely with you so far.

My position is: God could be the explanation for this, but logically He doesn't have to be. It takes a leap of faith to accept Him as the explanation (a leap I'm prepared to make).

A scientism-ist or materialist will say (I've heard this argument many times on the Ship): "Science doesn't have an explanation for this, but some day it will". That's also a leap of faith, just in another direction.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Dyfed, see this post top of this page:

Ah. I don't think I'm altogether to blame for not realising you were thinking about that post, given that the people you mentioned in your post were IngoB and Golden Key.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it is easier to use IngoB's bottle analogue from above. Each bottle is produced from exactly the same materials.

In one sense if asked why the bottle is made of glass at time T, 'because it was made of glass at all times t less than T' is a valid explanation.
The problem is that it leaves a lingering feeling that there is another sense in which the question 'why isn't the bottle made of plastic at time T and also at all other times?' is still a valid question, and in that sense the question has not actually been answered.

(Going back to my Fibonacci series analogy, cosmology is capable of answering the questions, what are the values now? and of working out the actual rules governing the derivation of the values. The methods of cosmology are analogous to 'look at the values now', 'predict what the values will be', and 'compare the values with the predictions'. What cosmology cannot do with that tool box is work out why the series is the plain Fibonacci series rather than one of the other possible series.)

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What cosmology cannot do with that tool box is work out why the series is the plain Fibonacci series rather than one of the other possible series.)

Maybe there is no reason. Maybe it is just totally random. Given that there are no other universes to compare it with, it hard to even imagine what a different one would or could look like.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am saying it is because it was. I agree with your other points about language, but you are asking for an explanation for something that does not need an explanation (well, not necessarily) IMO.

In terms of my discussion, "it is because it was" has no value whatsoever. Because I can equally well say "it is not because it was not." All your temporal causation does is to perpetuate the fundamental contingency through time. You are not explaining why there is anything rather than nothing. You are merely explaining why something is now, given that something was before, and why something will be, given that something is now. It is not the same concern. Your only answer to my concern so far is that the existence of the universe is a brute fact. And I'm asking you why you allow your mind to accept this as a brute fact, when this is not the sort of thing you would normally accept as brute fact. Modern science is all about rejecting brute fact explanations and finding reasons for things, and the progress of science indicates that the more fundamental things get the more a "reasonable" explanation becomes accessible. Where we use "brute facts" in real life is where we are faced with highly complex situations full of detail, and avoid reasoning about most of it to achieve a rapid pragmatic resolution. For example, when you drive a car the motions of other vehicles and pedestrians are largely just a stream of brute facts to you. If suddenly a car drifts into your lane, you have to react rather than seek an explanation. (Though even there "anticipatory driving" is basically seeking reason in the motions of key players in order to improve motion forecasting.) It is however hard to see why the simple question "why is there anything rather than nothing" deserves the same treatment.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, I am not a cosmologist. But I am a scientist and the things you mention here can be explained with science, deduction, observation and logic. That in-and-of itself does not mean that the ultimate reality of the universe is the same kind of thing.

I'm also a professional scientist, and I accept no special pleading for the "ultimate reality" here. Just like for any other question, we have to pick the right domain knowledge and then observe systematically and think logically. That is the meaning of "science" in a general sense. And the "science" to be applied to this kind of question is metaphysics.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the universe is composed of stuff constantly being rearranged from components which always existed, then the question of where the stuff came from is moot: it was always there.

No, the question is not at all moot. To use an example, I believe from Aristotle himself: Imagine a foot standing in wet sand, endlessly. It forms a footprint in the sand, endlessly. And yet we still can say that the foot causes the footprint, is the reason why the sand in a particular spot is not nice and flat but shaped like a foot. You would have us look at the footprint, shrug our shoulders and say "well, that footprint is there always so there's nothing left to say, it just is, it is a footprint as a brute fact." But saying that is simply not reasonable. The foot is the cause of the footprint, the footprint shows forth the action of the foot. We can still say that the foot is logically prior, and makes the footprint be.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But I don't accept your continued assertion that work is necessary to explain something that is eternal. You don't have to like or believe it, but an eternal thing is exactly that: eternal. Where it came from or why is answered by the simple repetition that it is eternal.

I never said that you had to do work to show that the universe is eternal ("eternal" sloppily speaking, i.e., meaning "of infinite duration"). My point rather has been that whether a universe's duration is infinitesimal, finite or infinite does not change anything concerning its contingent status and the consequent question why it would be there. It really does not matter at all how long the universe lasts, that just does not address the question I'm asking.

The only thing that can escape the question I am asking is a necessary being. And that's exactly what the metaphysical "god" is: the kind of being that is necessary.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
IngoB: I'm thinking about the "explanation / possibility" direction (vertical in my diagrams). The universe could not have been. Even an endless cyclical universe could not have been. But it is. I'm asking "why?" That's not a "why" that can be answered by "has been, is, will be". I don't care whether this thing lasts for a picosecond, an eon, or indeed forever. However long it may last, this existence itself still could not have been, but is. And that requires an explanation.
I'm completely with you so far.

My position is: God could be the explanation for this, but logically He doesn't have to be. It takes a leap of faith to accept Him as the explanation (a leap I'm prepared to make).

A scientism-ist or materialist will say (I've heard this argument many times on the Ship): "Science doesn't have an explanation for this, but some day it will". That's also a leap of faith, just in another direction.

Furthermore, there is often operating an implied claim that to "explain" something is to "explain it AWAY" … Yet the rational and experiential basis for that claim is itself never entirely "explained" …

It comes down to, "Just trust me on this …"

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In terms of my discussion, "it is because it was" has no value whatsoever. Because I can equally well say "it is not because it was not." All your temporal causation does is to perpetuate the fundamental contingency through time. You are not explaining why there is anything rather than nothing.

I have many times, you just don't accept it as a plausible idea - namely that it is cyclical and all the intrinsic building-blocks of all things are eternal.

There is also something of an irony here that it is easier for you to accept that an eternally-prexisting deity created all things from nothing than that the stuff itself is eternal. Eternal things do not need an explanation, just as one cannot try to explain the origin of the deity, he just was.

quote:
It is however hard to see why the simple question "why is there anything rather than nothing" deserves the same treatment.

Because here we are talking about something which by definition cannot be interrogated by science and which we have no way to analyse.

quote:
I'm also a professional scientist, and I accept no special pleading for the "ultimate reality" here. Just like for any other question, we have to pick the right domain knowledge and then observe systematically and think logically. That is the meaning of "science" in a general sense. And the "science" to be applied to this kind of question is metaphysics.

I don't accept your definitions of science, I'm sorry. Nor do I accept that all things are capable of being interrogated by the schematics of the forms of science we commonly use in the linear world in which we live. The proper term for this is actually philosophy.

quote:
]No, the question is not at all moot. To use an example, I believe from Aristotle himself: Imagine a foot standing in wet sand, endlessly. It forms a footprint in the sand, endlessly. And yet we still can say that the foot causes the footprint, is the reason why the sand in a particular spot is not nice and flat but shaped like a foot. You would have us look at the footprint, shrug our shoulders and say "well, that footprint is there always so there's nothing left to say, it just is, it is a footprint as a brute fact." But saying that is simply not reasonable. The foot is the cause of the footprint, the footprint shows forth the action of the foot. We can still say that the foot is logically prior, and makes the footprint be.

Well, there isn't anything I can say to you that will persuade you that it is reasonable to say that stuff exists because it has always existed. Why it is this rather the other than could, as I said, be entirely random.

quote:
I never said that you had to do work to show that the universe is eternal ("eternal" sloppily speaking, i.e., meaning "of infinite duration"). My point rather has been that whether a universe's duration is infinitesimal, finite or infinite does not change anything concerning its contingent status and the consequent question why it would be there. It really does not matter at all how long the universe lasts, that just does not address the question I'm asking.

The only thing that can escape the question I am asking is a necessary being. And that's exactly what the metaphysical "god" is: the kind of being that is necessary.

Again, the irony abounds. Whatever - if it is good enough for you to believe that a deity created all things from nothing, that's fine. In my view it is equally, perhaps more, believable that the matter itself is eternal. No creating from nothing is then necessary.

[ 23. March 2015, 19:05: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

I am pleased to see where this conversation has headed, with a frank concession that the old materialist-atheist objection, "If God created the universe, then who created God … ???" gets us nowhere, or at best, to the same spot as the notion (claim) that the universe itself is eternal (uncreated) …

IOW, Aristotle's question is still a really good one ...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is also something of an irony here that it is easier for you to accept that an eternally-prexisting deity created all things from nothing than that the stuff itself is eternal. Eternal things do not need an explanation, just as one cannot try to explain the origin of the deity, he just was.

But God is not simply declared to be eternal. God is necessarily existent, and therefore eternal. There is a reason given why God has to be eternal. You give no reason why your building blocks should be eternal. You simply assert this as a "brute fact".

It is like saying "1 plus 1 in the decimal system necessarily equates 2" on one hand, and "2, brute fact" on the other hand. The former gives a reason why "2" is the answer, the latter just asserts it without further ado. Can you not see that there is a difference?

If you want to put your building blocks on the same footing as God, then you have to declare that the universe must necessarily exist. Do you wish to claim that?

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because here we are talking about something which by definition cannot be interrogated by science and which we have no way to analyse.

I assume by "science" you mean here something like "modern physics"? I would agree that modern physics is limited in what it can say about all this. But it does not follow that we cannot analyse the situation. This would only follow if "modern physics" was the only "science". It is not, certainly not in the general sense of the word.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't accept your definitions of science, I'm sorry. Nor do I accept that all things are capable of being interrogated by the schematics of the forms of science we commonly use in the linear world in which we live. The proper term for this is actually philosophy.

It is not my definition of "science". It is the formerly common definition of "science", which now is regrettably falling into disuse as "modern science" dominates language usage. However, you still find the old usage explained in for example the Oxford English Dictionary (Mac version):

a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject: the science of criminology.
archaic knowledge of any kind. his rare science and his practical skill.

Indeed, the particular name of the relevant science is "philosophy", or more accurately, "metaphysics". I already said that... My basic point here is that there is proper observation and analysis beyond the realm of the modern natural sciences. "Philosophy" is not equivalent to "sophistry and opinion", or at least it does not have to be.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well, there isn't anything I can say to you that will persuade you that it is reasonable to say that stuff exists because it has always existed. Why it is this rather the other than could, as I said, be entirely random.

If you say that there is some kind of cosmic die roll that decides whether there is an eternal universe, or not - whether all your eternal building blocks are there or not - then I do not argue about the universe and its building blocks any longer, at all. Rather I point to the cosmic die roll itself and ask "why does that cosmic die roll exist then, rather than nothing?" Do you get it? Whatever wild and wonderful thing you can imagine as ultimate support of the world's existence, I can always imagine just as easily that this support is lacking. With a single exception - if there is a thing that must exist, then I cannot imagine that it does not exist, because then my imagination would contradict itself.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Whatever - if it is good enough for you to believe that a deity created all things from nothing, that's fine. In my view it is equally, perhaps more, believable that the matter itself is eternal. No creating from nothing is then necessary.

Do you think that matter is the kind of thing that has to be eternal? For otherwise I can reasonably ask you why it is, according to you. And yes, God is the kind of thing that has to be eternal. That's precisely the reason why one can reject modern process theology as nonsensical. (I could also stick a bit closer to physics and ask you in what sense you believe that matter can be eternal, given that you propose a cyclical universe wherein matter regularly gets destroyed and formed again at a universe scale.)

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But God is not simply declared to be eternal. God is necessarily existent, and therefore eternal. There is a reason given why God has to be eternal. You give no reason why your building blocks should be eternal. You simply assert this as a "brute fact".

It is like saying "1 plus 1 in the decimal system necessarily equates 2" on one hand, and "2, brute fact" on the other hand. The former gives a reason why "2" is the answer, the latter just asserts it without further ado. Can you not see that there is a difference?

No.

quote:
If you want to put your building blocks on the same footing as God, then you have to declare that the universe must necessarily exist. Do you wish to claim that?

Why not? What is the problem with that?

quote:
I assume by "science" you mean here something like "modern physics"? I would agree that modern physics is limited in what it can say about all this. But it does not follow that we cannot analyse the situation. This would only follow if "modern physics" was the only "science". It is not, certainly not in the general sense of the word.

That's an assertion, based on the idea that the tools we have developed to analyse the world in space and time also function in the same kind of way outside of time. We cannot possibly know that, and there is no particular reason why it should.

quote:
It is not my definition of "science". It is the formerly common definition of "science", which now is regrettably falling into disuse as "modern science" dominates language usage. However, you still find the old usage explained in for example the Oxford English Dictionary (Mac version):
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject: the science of criminology.
archaic knowledge of any kind. his rare science and his practical skill.
Indeed, the particular name of the relevant science is "philosophy", or more accurately, "metaphysics". I already said that... My basic point here is that there is proper observation and analysis beyond the realm of the modern natural sciences. "Philosophy" is not equivalent to "sophistry and opinion", or at least it does not have to be.

Yeah, but philosophy is also not about logic. See Kierkegaard. I know that you regard true religion to be science, I regard it to be an entirely different thing to science.

quote:
If you say that there is some kind of cosmic die roll that decides whether there is an eternal universe, or not - whether all your eternal building blocks are there or not - then I do not argue about the universe and its building blocks any longer, at all. Rather I point to the cosmic die roll itself and ask "why does that cosmic die roll exist then, rather than nothing?" Do you get it?

No, because you are continuing to remake the process in the way you are comfortable with understanding it - namely that for something to exist, something else must have caused it or created it.

quote:
Whatever wild and wonderful thing you can imagine as ultimate support of the world's existence, I can always imagine just as easily that this support is lacking. With a single exception - if there is a thing that must exist, then I cannot imagine that it does not exist, because then my imagination would contradict itself.

Then you are limiting the whole universe by the standard of what you can imagine, which as I've shown above is rather limited.

quote:
Do you think that matter is the kind of thing that has to be eternal? For otherwise I can reasonably ask you why it is, according to you. And yes, God is the kind of thing that has to be eternal. That's precisely the reason why one can reject modern process theology as nonsensical. (I could also stick a bit closer to physics and ask you in what sense you believe that matter can be eternal, given that you propose a cyclical universe wherein matter regularly gets destroyed and formed again at a universe scale.)

I have no idea. I cannot see a reason why God has to be eternal whereas matter cannot possibly.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

So, again …

If an eternal (uncaused) universe is not a problem (for faith or for science), then an uncaused (eternal) "God" is not a problem either …

True ... ???

"Take it from me, Babe … You can't have it both ways …"
-- "Jane," to "Jonas," in "Leap of Faith"

[ 23. March 2015, 21:13: Message edited by: Teilhard ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Interesting, but I don't understand the problem with imagining a mathematician engaging with an infinite series somewhere in the middle. This is the nature of biology (and essentially any observed science), isn't it?

Yes – but that isn't the problem. The problem is having a series that is infinite in extent in both directions not beginning in the middle.

I'll try an illustration – have you have played the Minecraft computer game? It has a character exploring a computer-generated enviroment, and involves (so I'm told) a rather clever algorithm that can extrapolate terrain indefinitely from a short string of characters as a 'seed'. The extrapolation isn't random – the same starting point will always produce the same world, and no matter how far the player explores, he or she will never reach the end. But having said that – the computer has not actually generated an infinite world – in principle it would be possible to say what lies a billion blocks to the left of the player's current position, but no one has yet done the calculation and actually drawn that terrain.

An infinite mathematical sequence is like a Minecraft world. It is theretically possible to extend it infinitely backwards, but that does not imply that anyone has actually counted that far back. Postulating an actually infinite universe goes one step further – its saying that those endless past events have all actually happened, not merely that they can be extrapoloated. It's like suggesting a Minecraft world that has been fully explored. It's a different sort of conceptual claim altogether.

I can easily imagine a Minecraft world that is infinite in principle – my computer can generate hundreds. I can't imagine fully exploring one. There will always be one block more to go. The claim that we are living in an infinitely old universe is the same – obviously we can't ever have reached the 'end' that's forward in time, because it can never happen – there's always one more block – but somehow I have to imagine that the 'end' infinitely extended back in time has happened, even though it is just as infinite, and therefore just as inaccessible, as the one still lying in the future.

I don't say that's impossible – just that I can't imagine what it would be like if it were possible.

Your cyclic universe is different if you mean it to be truly cyclic. In that universe, we're not playing Minecraft, but Pac-Man, where going too far left takes you back to the extreme right-hand edge. The universe is 'endless' (you can't fall off the screen) but not infinite – a sufficiently big but not infinite computer could draw the whole map. I think that is an important distinction.

quote:
I don't understand this. What are you saying about the person of the deity that is different to cosmology? Why is it harder to believe that all things (in the universe) are eternal rather than that an individual is eternal? Maybe you'll explain more below.

IngoB's already said it better than I could. The point is that neither he nor I are seeing God (for this purpose) as “an individual” but as “necessary being”. If we are right that this sort of God exists, then everything else depends wholly on him and could never account for or explain him. We aren't just talking about a universe that happens to contain a vast and immortal mind but something utterly different in nature from anything alse we can think of.

quote:
I don't understand why 'what happened at the Big Bang" is a meaningless question.

You misunderstand me – I think it is a meaningful question. My point was that the question isn't invalidated by pointing out (correctly) that it would have been an event impossible to witness.

quote:
OK, I appreciate the honesty - basically you are saying (I think) that it is easier to put the creation of the universe onto an incomprehensible deity rather than accept it is all a merry-go-round which functions on its own.

Not quite – I'm saying that there is good reason to see why God (the sort of God I am talking about must be incomprehensible, and if I'm faced with some measure of incomprehensibility on any fully considered world-view, I prefer one that explains why the incomprehensible is what it is.

quote:
Time was, apparently, started at the Big Bang, so we have all kinds of problems using terms like 'before' the existence of time. Maybe the point before the Big Bang was the crunch of our own universe. Think donut.

I think the donut (Pac-Man) universe is different to the infinitely extended (explored-Minecraft) one. I think I agree that it might be easier to conceptualise if we had any reason to think that time is genuinely cyclic – that the butterfly hatches from the egg which it will itself lay – rather than merely repetitive, which as far as I can see we do not. But it still runs into the issues of causation that IngoB is setting out. Unless you are saying that the universe has to be this way for a specific explained reason you are proposing something bafflingly odd as “it just is”. Theism has thought deeper than that about what sort of being “just is”, and there are rational grounds to prefer it to an attempted explanation that goes no further than a self-contained cycle of physcial events that “just are”.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Interesting, but I don't understand the problem with imagining a mathematician engaging with an infinite series somewhere in the middle. This is the nature of biology (and essentially any observed science), isn't it?
Yes – but that isn't the problem. The problem is having a series that is infinite in extent in both directions not beginning in the middle.

I'll try an illustration – have you have played the Minecraft computer game? It has a character exploring a computer-generated enviroment, and involves (so I'm told) a rather clever algorithm that can extrapolate terrain indefinitely from a short string of characters as a 'seed'. The extrapolation isn't random – the same starting point will always produce the same world, and no matter how far the player explores, he or she will never reach the end. But having said that – the computer has not actually generated an infinite world – in principle it would be possible to say what lies a billion blocks to the left of the player's current position, but no one has yet done the calculation and actually drawn that terrain.

An infinite mathematical sequence is like a Minecraft world. It is theretically possible to extend it infinitely backwards, but that does not imply that anyone has actually counted that far back. Postulating an actually infinite universe goes one step further – its saying that those endless past events have all actually happened, not merely that they can be extrapoloated. It's like suggesting a Minecraft world that has been fully explored. It's a different sort of conceptual claim altogether.

I can easily imagine a Minecraft world that is infinite in principle – my computer can generate hundreds. I can't imagine fully exploring one. There will always be one block more to go. The claim that we are living in an infinitely old universe is the same – obviously we can't ever have reached the 'end' that's forward in time, because it can never happen – there's always one more block – but somehow I have to imagine that the 'end' infinitely extended back in time has happened, even though it is just as infinite, and therefore just as inaccessible, as the one still lying in the future.

I don't say that's impossible – just that I can't imagine what it would be like if it were possible.

Your cyclic universe is different if you mean it to be truly cyclic. In that universe, we're not playing Minecraft, but Pac-Man, where going too far left takes you back to the extreme right-hand edge. The universe is 'endless' (you can't fall off the screen) but not infinite – a sufficiently big but not infinite computer could draw the whole map. I think that is an important distinction.

quote:
I don't understand this. What are you saying about the person of the deity that is different to cosmology? Why is it harder to believe that all things (in the universe) are eternal rather than that an individual is eternal? Maybe you'll explain more below.
IngoB's already said it better than I could. The point is that neither he nor I are seeing God (for this purpose) as “an individual” but as “necessary being”. If we are right that this sort of God exists, then everything else depends wholly on him and could never account for or explain him. We aren't just talking about a universe that happens to contain a vast and immortal mind but something utterly different in nature from anything alse we can think of.

quote:
I don't understand why 'what happened at the Big Bang" is a meaningless question.
You misunderstand me – I think it is a meaningful question. My point was that the question isn't invalidated by pointing out (correctly) that it would have been an event impossible to witness.

quote:
OK, I appreciate the honesty - basically you are saying (I think) that it is easier to put the creation of the universe onto an incomprehensible deity rather than accept it is all a merry-go-round which functions on its own.
Not quite – I'm saying that there is good reason to see why God (the sort of God I am talking about must be incomprehensible, and if I'm faced with some measure of incomprehensibility on any fully considered world-view, I prefer one that explains why the incomprehensible is what it is.

quote:
Time was, apparently, started at the Big Bang, so we have all kinds of problems using terms like 'before' the existence of time. Maybe the point before the Big Bang was the crunch of our own universe. Think donut.
I think the donut (Pac-Man) universe is different to the infinitely extended (explored-Minecraft) one. I think I agree that it might be easier to conceptualise if we had any reason to think that time is genuinely cyclic – that the butterfly hatches from the egg which it will itself lay – rather than merely repetitive, which as far as I can see we do not. But it still runs into the issues of causation that IngoB is setting out. Unless you are saying that the universe has to be this way for a specific explained reason you are proposing something bafflingly odd as “it just is”. Theism has thought deeper than that about what sort of being “just is”, and there are rational grounds to prefer it to an attempted explanation that goes no further than a self-contained cycle of physcial events that “just are”.

It sounds to me that the infinite-eternal universe -- "cycling," or not -- idea turns out to be a physics version of a "just so story," then … ???

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I've reflected on the fascinating exchanges in this thread and rather hope that Fool has at least been kibbitzing. They have done a pretty good job of endorsing deano's "invitation".

Here is the quote from the OP which is making me chuckle.

quote:
I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
So, again …

If an eternal (uncaused) universe is not a problem (for faith or for science), then an uncaused (eternal) "God" is not a problem either …

True ... ???

Well yes. Nor is an invisible unicorn or Russel's Teapot. But nor are they necessary, or, the atheist would argue, evidenced.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
but somehow I have to imagine that the 'end' infinitely extended back in time has happened, even though it is just as infinite, and therefore just as inaccessible, as the one still lying in the future.

A mathematician would say that this is the same as saying that for any age you care to pick, there was an event at that time. There are no past events that are infinitely far away.

The twin primes conjecture in mathematics is unsolved: it claims that if you consider pairs of prime numbers such as 17 and 19, or 41 and 43, differing by 2, there are an infinite number of such pairs. Nobody has proved (or disproved) it; it may be impossible to prove or disprove. Yet it is either true or false. I don't think that claim is easier to get one's head around than the claim that there's been an actual infinity of past events. Yet it's fairly easy to state.

Infinities are hard to get one's head around, although often one can treat them mathematically.

[ 23. March 2015, 22:28: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
So, again …

If an eternal (uncaused) universe is not a problem (for faith or for science), then an uncaused (eternal) "God" is not a problem either …

True ... ???

Well yes. Nor is an invisible unicorn or Russel's Teapot. But nor are they necessary, or, the atheist would argue, evidenced.

Well … Except, of course … We're not talking about such "straw" questions -- Bert Russell's teapot in orbit around the Sun, or somebody's proposed invisible unicorn …

Nice try …

But the fact is that very commonly in the past, some atheist materialists used to raise an objection (posed as a question, but it was nothing of the sort) -- "If 'God' created the universe, then who created 'God' … ???" …

But now ... Instead, with no shame at all, some materialist atheists are now claiming that the universe itself is "a se," i.e., "uncaused," and simply eternal …

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Except, of course … We're not talking about such "straw" questions -- Bert Russell's teapot in orbit around the Sun, or somebody's proposed invisible unicorn …

They're not straw questions, at least not as Russell originally proposed them: in the sense that they are questions with non-trivial answers. Namely that the question 'does God exist?' is a different sort of question to 'does a chocolate teapot exist?' or even 'does Thor exist?'; it is closer to 'is mathematical realism true?'

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Except, of course … We're not talking about such "straw" questions -- Bert Russell's teapot in orbit around the Sun, or somebody's proposed invisible unicorn …
They're not straw questions, at least not as Russell originally proposed them: in the sense that they are questions with non-trivial answers. Namely that the question 'does God exist?' is a different sort of question to 'does a chocolate teapot exist?' or even 'does Thor exist?'; it is closer to 'is mathematical realism true?'

I am not aware that anyone has ever seriously proposed that there IS a "teapot" in orbit around the Sun (one supposes, with a matching quilted "cozy" …???)

So, yes … It IS a "straw" question (and a trivial one at that) that has nothing to do with the long entirely seriously affirmed (and sometimes EXPERIENCED !!!) Reality of the Mystery we call, "God" ...

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
but somehow I have to imagine that the 'end' infinitely extended back in time has happened, even though it is just as infinite, and therefore just as inaccessible, as the one still lying in the future.
A mathematician would say that this is the same as saying that for any age you care to pick, there was an event at that time. There are no past events that are infinitely far away.

Well there's no number "infinity" that you can reach by counting, so of course any particular two events that can be described will be a finite distance apart.

That doesn't resolve the problem though. If time extends infinitely in both directions then (by definition) there are hypothetical future events that will never happen because there will always be events that still have to happen. They can't be enumerated, because the event at day N, however big we make N, happens after a long finite time, we still never reach the end of the series.

However the corresponding end of the series in the past has happened, by definition, because it is in the past. The "infinitely far away" in the past has actually occurred, but the infinitely far ahead never will. Saying that we can't put a number, not even a big one, on things that must, on this world-view, have happened is basically re-stating, not solving, the difficulty, which is that we can't really get our heads round the idea of an infinite past.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
but somehow I have to imagine that the 'end' infinitely extended back in time has happened, even though it is just as infinite, and therefore just as inaccessible, as the one still lying in the future.
A mathematician would say that this is the same as saying that for any age you care to pick, there was an event at that time. There are no past events that are infinitely far away.
Well there's no number "infinity" that you can reach by counting, so of course any particular two events that can be described will be a finite distance apart.

That doesn't resolve the problem though. If time extends infinitely in both directions then (by definition) there are hypothetical future events that will never happen because there will always be events that still have to happen. They can't be enumerated, because the event at day N, however big we make N, happens after a long finite time, we still never reach the end of the series.

However the corresponding end of the series in the past has happened, by definition, because it is in the past. The "infinitely far away" in the past has actually occurred, but the infinitely far ahead never will. Saying that we can't put a number, not even a big one, on things that must, on this world-view, have happened is basically re-stating, not solving, the difficulty, which is that we can't really get our heads round the idea of an infinite past.

The idea that we humans can -- should be able to; someday in fact will, or least in principle could -- "get our heads around" Ultimate Reality … ??? … certainly fits the definition of "infinite" Chutzpah (IMHO) …

If only if only we can fire up the super conducting hadron collider to a high enough energy and run enough experiments and peer far far far away far far far back in time with ever more powerful telescopes … then … we can "figure it out" -- the answer to the Ultimate Question -- "life, the Universe, EVERYTHING" … (and, BTW, not incidentally, then we won't "need 'God'" any more, since "42" will be all sufficient ("42" is after all, a "math" solution, isn't it … ???)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Well there's no number "infinity" that you can reach by counting, so of course any particular two events that can be described will be a finite distance apart.

That doesn't resolve the problem though. If time extends infinitely in both directions then (by definition) there are hypothetical future events that will never happen because there will always be events that still have to happen.

Huh? Every future event is a finite amount of time from now, so eventually we'll get there.

quote:
They can't be enumerated, because the event at day N, however big we make N, happens after a long finite time, we still never reach the end of the series.

But we don't have to reach the end of the series. There are no events at the end of the series. All the events are within the series. There is no "end of the series" at all, by definition.

It sounds like you're trying to make some kind of Zeno's paradox out of this but we're not talking about infinitely sliceable time, but infinitely extending time. If we're talking about a simple numberline-like infinite time scale, every point on it will eventually be reached (assuming time keeps going and going). There is no point on the line you can point to and say, "We'll never get here." We most certainly will.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On this rather beautiful bit of code, wouldn't it be rather marvellous if one could go down and down and down and down and then find that the smallest components of all reality are also the biggest? Maybe if we look hard enough we'll find the universe.

But probably not, that'd be very weird.

YES! That's been my thinking, too! [Yipee]

I sometimes frame it as a Moebius strip. (But then, I'm fond of them.)

You might like the novel "A Wind In The Door", by Madeleine L'Engle.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I am not aware that anyone has ever seriously proposed that there IS a "teapot" in orbit around the Sun (one supposes, with a matching quilted "cozy" …???)

Yes, that's the point of the question.
The argument is of the form:
You assert it is not irrational to believe in x on grounds abc.
You assert it is rational to believe in y on grounds abc (where abc are similar or identical).
Which is a contradiction.

It is aimed at the argument that you can't disprove the existence of God, so it's not irrational to believe in God. (I don't think the argument works as applied to God, but that's because of special features of belief in God. It works applied to the Loch Ness Monster.) An atheist wanting to take aim at arguments from mystical practice would need other arguments to do so.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

There is an important difference: saying that God created all things from nothing is not really answering the question of where all things came from (either), because it is a contradiction in terms to get something from nothing.

If one says that stuff is, itself, eternal, there is no need to come up with a way to get something from nothing.

All this blather about a deity still comes back to this point: whilst an atheistic system might not have all the answers you insist need to be answered (eg why IngoB's bottle is the shape it is), you are actually in no better position. In fact you are also answering the questions with 'because it is'.

In fact eternal matter and crunching and banging universes answers the questions as well as those postulating a deity - and in at least one respect answers it better.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
So, again …

If an eternal (uncaused) universe is not a problem (for faith or for science), then an uncaused (eternal) "God" is not a problem either …

True ... ???

Well yes. Nor is an invisible unicorn or Russel's Teapot. But nor are they necessary, or, the atheist would argue, evidenced.
Well … Except, of course … We're not talking about such "straw" questions -- Bert Russell's teapot in orbit around the Sun, or somebody's proposed invisible unicorn …

Nice try …

But the fact is that very commonly in the past, some atheist materialists used to raise an objection (posed as a question, but it was nothing of the sort) -- "If 'God' created the universe, then who created 'God' … ???" …

But now ... Instead, with no shame at all, some materialist atheists are now claiming that the universe itself is "a se," i.e., "uncaused," and simply eternal …

My point is not to defend atheism, given that I am not in fact an atheist. I'm simply pointing out that no-one is seriously claiming that God is incompatible with the observed universe, but simply that the observed universe gives no particularly compelling reason to believe he exists; that he is "not imcompatible" is not evidence that he is real. Science does not preclude God, but nor does it affirm him either.

[ 24. March 2015, 08:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My point is not to defend atheism, given that I am not in fact an atheist. I'm simply pointing out that no-one is seriously claiming that God is incompatible with the observed universe, but simply that the observed universe gives no particularly compelling reason to believe he exists; that he is "not imcompatible" is not evidence that he is real. Science does not preclude God, but nor does it affirm him either.

Precisely. It is entirely consistent to postulate a universe which needs no God. One way is to suggest it is cyclical and/or eternal (and I don't actually think that distinction makes any real difference).

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is an important difference: saying that God created all things from nothing is not really answering the question of where all things came from (either), because it is a contradiction in terms to get something from nothing.

If one says that stuff is, itself, eternal, there is no need to come up with a way to get something from nothing.

All this blather about a deity still comes back to this point: whilst an atheistic system might not have all the answers you insist need to be answered (eg why IngoB's bottle is the shape it is), you are actually in no better position. In fact you are also answering the questions with 'because it is'.

In fact eternal matter and crunching and banging universes answers the questions as well as those postulating a deity - and in at least one respect answers it better.

on something from nothing...

I'm not sure the 2nd Law of thermodynamics applies to the spiritual world.

Unless you're capable of weighing and Angel and determining its calorific requirement to fly from the third level of Heaven to Grimsby and back... Then the calculation just requires that some unit of distance is defined. I forsee a lot of difficulties.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
on something from nothing...

I'm not sure the 2nd Law of thermodynamics applies to the spiritual world.

Unless you're capable of weighing and Angel and determining its calorific requirement to fly from the third level of Heaven to Grimsby and back... Then the calculation just requires that some unit of distance is defined. I forsee a lot of difficulties.

You might want to discuss this with IngoB. I'm totally comfortable with imagining cosmological systems which operate outside of conventional linear time and science.

[ 24. March 2015, 09:04: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is an important difference: saying that God created all things from nothing is not really answering the question of where all things came from (either), because it is a contradiction in terms to get something from nothing.

It isn't a contradiction in terms. The logical problem raised by getting something from nothing is that you have to answer the question of why this something rather than that something (or within time why then and not later). The contradiction comes in when you have a implies b, and a implies c, but also b and c are mutually exclusive. That question is answered by referring it to the will of God. As soon as you can answer why b and not c, it ceases to be a logical contradiction.
Strictly the doctrine of creation out of nothing is simply to say that the question 'what is creation made out of' - i.e. does it have any properties that preexist God creating it' lacks application.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It isn't a contradiction in terms. The logical problem raised by getting something from nothing is that you have to answer the question of why this something rather than that something (or within time why then and not later).

Nope. Nothing is exactly that: nothing. Making something from nothing is unknown in science. Hence it is an impossibility. Hence it is a logical problem.

quote:
The contradiction comes in when you have a implies b, and a implies c, but also b and c are mutually exclusive. That question is answered by referring it to the will of God. As soon as you can answer why b and not c, it ceases to be a logical contradiction.

Hahaha. So it is 'answered' by saying 'it just is the will of God' but not by saying that pre-existing eternal matter just is. Oookay then.

quote:
Strictly the doctrine of creation out of nothing is simply to say that the question 'what is creation made out of' - i.e. does it have any properties that preexist God creating it' lacks application.

No not really. To make something you have to have something to make it from. Making something from nothing is, in and of itself, a contradiction. For anyone, God included.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Eliab, I think your problem is not one of relative stepping, but of absolute positioning. And I think you might have stumbled on a proof of God conditional on the existence of an endless universe.

What you are straining against is trying to measure your current point in time against some past point in time. Like we say that it is 2015 now, in (approximate) reference to Christ's birth, or we could say that we are at 14 billion years after the Big Bang. This does not work if one replaces the finite number (however big) with an infinite one - we indeed cannot imagine the meaning of that. But we do not have to, we do not need to say that "now is an infinite time after then". Because in an eternal universe there is no clock start that we would compute against.

The "correct" way of looking at time in an endless universe is to put "zero time" at the now. Then the past is "negative in time", and an infinite past is just as imaginable as an infinite future. From where we are now, we can imagine the next second, and the next one after that, and billions of seconds after that and in some limit sense an infinite amount of future seconds. Likewise, from the now we can imagine the previous second, the previous one before that, and billions of seconds before that and in some limit sense an infinite amount of past seconds. While our grasp of "infinitely past" is nebulous, it is so in a good way, just as our grasp of "infinitely future" is nebulous. It is in a good way because it is the limit of something we do grasp, namely finite relative stepping.

However, there does remain one problem in this picture, namely of absolute positioning. Faced with a universe stretching endlessly into both the past and the future, we can ask how come that our actual "now" is precisely at this particular point in time, rather than at any other of the available infinite time points along the time line. This is not about stepping backward and forward in time (possibly infinitely far), since this relative motion is not so mysterious. The question here is where we start off from, why our "now" is just this "now", not one of the infinite number of other possibilities.

I think we understand what is involved here. If you have ever drawn a number line or a Cartesian coordinate system, then those line(s) represent finitely an infinite reality (hence the little arrowheads we make to indicate endless extension). But in order to do anything with a number line or Cartesian coordinate system, you have to mark the origin. You have to make a tick somewhere and write "0" next to it. Then, and only then, do you know where "+1" or "-5" are located. Something similar applies here. If we arbitrarily consider our now as the "0" tick mark, then this origin has to be placed somewhere on the infinity in time, so that we then can consider all other time points relative to that.

And I think this is a kind of proof of God - though this one is conditional on the universe being endless, and is still a bit undeveloped. But the basic idea would be that setting the origin is not something that can come from within the time line, it must be imposed from the outside. We can step relatively from the now, even to infinity, but somehow we have to be placed at this point among all this infinity, rather than at another. And it seems impossible that this "absolute time localisation" can come from the relative stepping along the time line, i.e., physical processes. It must be imposed from the "outside", hence from God.

To put it differently, if we think that there is cyclical universe, then we are in one particular cycle. And there was a cycle before that and there will be one after that. The problem is not to point to the one before or the one after. The problem is that if we consider this endless time line of cycle, we have to decide which ones to point to. It's this cycle here which is ours, and this one is the one before, and this one the one after. But that has to be a particular cycle, and we cannot derive which one it is from stepping backward and forward. It's an extra bit of knowledge, it is the marking of an origin that allows us to convert relative stepping into absolute positioning.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:

I'm not sure the 2nd Law of thermodynamics applies to the spiritual world.

Unless you're capable of weighing and Angel and determining its calorific requirement to fly from the third level of Heaven to Grimsby and back... Then the calculation just requires that some unit of distance is defined. I forsee a lot of difficulties.

Do angels make that journey often? Good angel food cake and Starbuck's coffee in Grimsby? Or does a barista slip them some devil's food cake in a brown paper bag?

As to thermodynamics and the spiritual world, I just had to look that up! [Smile]

So I searched on "metaphysics law of thermodynamics", sometimes adding "spiritual". Some odd and interesting stuff out there! Samples:

Biblical evidence for Catholicism: Current Models in Cosmological Physics Concerning the Origin of the Universe (Dark Energy & Matter, Etc.), & Their Interaction With Metaphysics.

And this one is "passing strange"!
Metabolic Metaphysics--Entropy: Nature's Preferred Direction?

[ 24. March 2015, 12:03: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It isn't a contradiction in terms. The logical problem raised by getting something from nothing is that you have to answer the question of why this something rather than that something (or within time why then and not later).
Nope. Nothing is exactly that: nothing. Making something from nothing is unknown in science. Hence it is an impossibility. Hence it is a logical problem.

There are at least two logical gaps in there. Just because something is unknown in science does not logically mean it is impossible. Just because something is impossible empirically does not mean it is logically impossible.

Even if you strengthen the statement to say that certain conservation laws apply (mass-energy, for example), it doesn't follow that those conservation laws apply logically. You cannot derive which conservation laws apply and which do not by pure logic without observation.

quote:

quote:
The contradiction comes in when you have a implies b, and a implies c, but also b and c are mutually exclusive. That question is answered by referring it to the will of God. As soon as you can answer why b and not c, it ceases to be a logical contradiction.
Hahaha. So it is 'answered' by saying 'it just is the will of God' but not by saying that pre-existing eternal matter just is. Oookay then.

God is supposedly a logically necessary being: that is, supposedly it really is logically impossible for God to be other than God is. God can freely make decisions about what to create. But God's nature is logically necessary.

It might of course be true that pre-existing eternal matter-energy logically exists (or rather quantum vacuum), but that has some rather counterintuitive implications: for example, that a sufficiently good logician could deduce your surroundings reading the words simply from the basic logical axioms.
While the ontological argument for God is a bit of a stretch, the ontological argument for the location of mr cheesy's coffee cup seems a stretch too far.

quote:

quote:
Strictly the doctrine of creation out of nothing is simply to say that the question 'what is creation made out of' - i.e. does it have any properties that preexist God creating it' lacks application.
No not really. To make something you have to have something to make it from. Making something from nothing is, in and of itself, a contradiction.

Your argument is circular. If you say that to make something you have to have something to make it from, you are simply reasserting your denial of the claim 'God can create out of nothing' in different words. You're not giving any reason for me to believe you if I don't already.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
So, again …

If an eternal (uncaused) universe is not a problem (for faith or for science), then an uncaused (eternal) "God" is not a problem either …

True ... ???

Well yes. Nor is an invisible unicorn or Russel's Teapot. But nor are they necessary, or, the atheist would argue, evidenced.
Well … Except, of course … We're not talking about such "straw" questions -- Bert Russell's teapot in orbit around the Sun, or somebody's proposed invisible unicorn …

Nice try …

But the fact is that very commonly in the past, some atheist materialists used to raise an objection (posed as a question, but it was nothing of the sort) -- "If 'God' created the universe, then who created 'God' … ???" …

But now ... Instead, with no shame at all, some materialist atheists are now claiming that the universe itself is "a se," i.e., "uncaused," and simply eternal …
My point is not to defend atheism, given that I am not in fact an atheist. I'm simply pointing out that no-one is seriously claiming that God is incompatible with the observed universe, but simply that the observed universe gives no particularly compelling reason to believe he exists; that he is "not imcompatible" is not evidence that he is real. Science does not preclude God, but nor does it affirm him either.

Yes … The natural sciences aren't about "God" … They're about measuring the velocity of light in a vacuum, determining the mass of a proton, studying and understudying the fossil record, etc., etc. …

Some harsh critics of "God," however, do indeed claim that the observed universe is incompatible with "God" (as Creator) … (How they determine that is an interesting question in itself…)

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My point is not to defend atheism, given that I am not in fact an atheist. I'm simply pointing out that no-one is seriously claiming that God is incompatible with the observed universe, but simply that the observed universe gives no particularly compelling reason to believe he exists; that he is "not imcompatible" is not evidence that he is real. Science does not preclude God, but nor does it affirm him either.
Precisely. It is entirely consistent to postulate a universe which needs no God. .

As a postulation I agree with you. But what about the universe in which we find ourselves? Given that, in this discussion at least, we are comfortable with the notion that God exists is it more or less likely to conclude that our observed universe is the result of an act of God?

For me, I'm attracted to the proposition that it is more likely when I think of what the universe is, and why anything might exist in the first place. I think it's reasonable to say that anything that begins to exist has a reason for its existence. The reason is either that what exists does so necessarily (it has to exist) or that it is contingent (some other factor led to its existence).

By "the universe" I mean all matter, and all energy. If the universe is "essential" then it needs no cause other than itself. But it would seem that the universe isn't essential at all. If, for example, the forces of gravity and expansion were different, we could have a formless mass of matter, or a universe that didn't exist any longer because it would have imploded on itself. So if the universe is contingent, then the reason for its existence must, I think be something other than matter and energy - in short, it would need to be immaterial and all powerful. And if the universe began to exist, then the cause can reasonably be considered personal. If the cause was impersonal, then there would be no reason for it to have caused the creation of the universe at any particular point. As long as the cause existed, so would the effect, unless the cause had some power of autonomy.

Now, Mr Cheesy, if we take your cyclic universes, I think we still have to answer the question of the reason for the existence of this cycle and whether that reason is necessary or contingent.

What do you think?

Hatless - I accept your pint above. If we change the proposition from our observable universe being compatible/incompatible with the existence of God to one in which the existence of God is more/less likely how does that sit? [B][/B]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I agree with you. But what about the universe in which we find ourselves? Given that, in this discussion at least, we are comfortable with the notion that God exists is it more or less likely to conclude that our observed universe is the result of an act of God?

quote:
For me, I'm attracted to the proposition that it is more likely when I think of what the universe is, and why anything might exist in the first place.

I'm sorry, you are saying that it is more likely that God exists than doesn't..? Or something else?

quote:
I think it's reasonable to say that anything that begins to exist has a reason for its existence. The reason is either that what exists does so necessarily (it has to exist) or that it is contingent (some other factor led to its existence).

By "the universe" I mean all matter, and all energy. If the universe is "essential" then it needs no cause other than itself. But it would seem that the universe isn't essential at all. If, for example, the forces of gravity and expansion were different, we could have a formless mass of matter, or a universe that didn't exist any longer because it would have imploded on itself. So if the universe is contingent, then the reason for its existence must, I think be something other than matter and energy - in short, it would need to be immaterial and all powerful. And if the universe began to exist, then the cause can reasonably be considered personal. If the cause was impersonal, then there would be no reason for it to have caused the creation of the universe at any particular point. As long as the cause existed, so would the effect, unless the cause had some power of autonomy.

Now, Mr Cheesy, if we take your cyclic universes, I think we still have to answer the question of the reason for the existence of this cycle and whether that reason is necessary or contingent.

What do you think?

I think you are still trying to bang the drum of a linear universe. I get it that others do not like it as an explanation, but it is simply a truth that in an infinite and/or cyclical universe with matter which is eternal, the reason it exists today is because it existed before. There is no need to explain the existence of the cycle, it just is.

Just as you might not want to explain the existence of a deity: he/she just exists, has and will do forever.

Beginning clearly has no meaning whatsoever if the thing has been existing for eternity and will exist for eternity.

I don't know what else to say.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Huh? Every future event is a finite amount of time from now, so eventually we'll get there.

Once a particular future event is given a place on the time line, it happens at that time, of course. It’s a finite distance away. If time keeps going, we get to it eventually.

However if time is infinite, there will never be a point at which all future events have happened. There will always be events still to come. The future will never be fully explored.

On my Minecraft analogy, you can ask what’s a billion, ten billion, one hundred billion… blocks East, and in principle there’s an answer. You can’t ask what’s “infinity blocks East”, because infinity isn’t a number like that. The concept of infinity isn’t there to define the map coordinate of the furthest block – it’s to indicate that there is no furthest block, the map goes on and on.

quote:
But we don't have to reach the end of the series. There are no events at the end of the series. All the events are within the series. There is no "end of the series" at all, by definition.
[…]
If we're talking about a simple numberline-like infinite time scale, every point on it will eventually be reached (assuming time keeps going and going). There is no point on the line you can point to and say, "We'll never get here." We most certainly will.

That’s exactly the point my argument relies on. There is no end to the series, which is why we never get there. As far as future events are concerned this presents little conceptual difficulty.

The problem arises once it is claimed that the universe has already been going on forever. Then it’s not just a claim about events that could in theory be extrapolated indefinitely, it’s a claim about things that have actually happened. Specifically, it’s a claim that all past events have happened – that the past has been fully explored in a way that the future cannot be. It’s a claim to have already explored all the blocks to the West on the Minecraft map, even though it is obviously impossible to go on to explore all the blocks to the East, and the map is just as infinite in both directions.

As long as we’re in the realm of the purely theoretical, saying that there are infinitely many positive numbers and infinitely many negative ones, are exactly equivalent and exactly as unproblematic. The problem comes from relating the infinite series to actual history.

Putting it another way, I do not think that there is a comprehensible answer to explain why “I’m just going to start from zero and count for so long that I’ll list all the positive numbers” is an ambition that it is impossible to achieve, but “I have been counting for so long that I listed all the negative numbers and have just reached zero” is plausibly true.

The mathematical model assumes that the “positive” and “negative” sides of the number line are symmetrical. However in reality “the past” and “the future” are not symmetrical. The past has actually happened – all of it. The future hasn’t all happened, and, obviously, never will all have happened. Conceptually extending time infinitely far backwards is therefore more problematic that doing the same thing forward.

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The idea that we humans can -- should be able to; someday in fact will, or least in principle could -- "get our heads around" Ultimate Reality … ??? … certainly fits the definition of "infinite" Chutzpah (IMHO) …

Is anyone arguing for that idea? I’m certainly not. I think any explanation of the universe is going to come up against something beginningless, or uncaused, or both, and that this something is going to be inherently incomprehensible. My preference is to locate that incomprehensibility in a God whom I can see has to be incomprehensible, beginningless and uncaused if he exists at all, and while I’m not going as far as to claim that this is a proof of God (though it might be) I do claim that it is a rational ground for entertaining the notion that there might be a God.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

The idea that we humans can -- should be able to; someday in fact will, or least in principle could -- "get our heads around" Ultimate Reality … ??? … certainly fits the definition of "infinite" Chutzpah (IMHO) …
Is anyone arguing for that idea? I’m certainly not. I think any explanation of the universe is going to come up against something beginningless, or uncaused, or both, and that this something is going to be inherently incomprehensible. My preference is to locate that incomprehensibility in a God whom I can see has to be incomprehensible, beginningless and uncaused if he exists at all, and while I’m not going as far as to claim that this is a proof of God (though it might be) I do claim that it is a rational ground for entertaining the notion that there might be a God. [/QB]

The problem -- at least part of the problem -- is the misunderstanding of "God" as an explanatory "hypothesis" … (Obviously, devising the experiments and agreeing on the correct observations to test such an hypothesis is a daunting challenge in itself.)

But, yes, there are some scoffer-skeptical materialist atheists who float the claim that at least in principle, all of life, the universe and everything -- including the vagaries of history -- can eventually be reduced to an equation or set of equations …

Such a claim IMHO is not only unrealistic, it also hobbles freedom of thought and inquiry ...

[ 24. March 2015, 15:35: Message edited by: Teilhard ]

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

@Mr Cheesy. Then if I understand you correctly, the universe is either "brute fact" or exists necessarily. The former view allows you to avoid finding an explanation of any description. As I said, I don't think we can say the universe is necessary in the same way that God is - the universe doesn't have to be there. But as you say, you can take the view that it just is.

I trust my drum banging wasn't too cacaphonic [Biased]

.

On a slightly different tack - and without prejudice to your conclusion above - how would you account for the existence of spiritual beings in the universal order (angelic beings and such like)?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Teilhard: But, yes, there are some scoffer-skeptical materialist atheists who float the claim that at least in principle, all of life, the universe and everything -- including the vagaries of history -- can eventually be reduced to an equation or set of equations …

Then they still would need to explain where these equations come from.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Teilhard: But, yes, there are some scoffer-skeptical materialist atheists who float the claim that at least in principle, all of life, the universe and everything -- including the vagaries of history -- can eventually be reduced to an equation or set of equations …
Then they still would need to explain where these equations come from.

It comes back to Aristotle's incisive question, yes … ???

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

On a slightly different tack - and without prejudice to your conclusion above - how would you account for the existence of spiritual beings in the universal order (angelic beings and such like)?

I have never seen any evidence that such beings exist.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

On a slightly different tack - and without prejudice to your conclusion above - how would you account for the existence of spiritual beings in the universal order (angelic beings and such like)?
I have never seen any evidence that such beings exist.

But you haven't directly*personally "seen" the Earth in orbit around the Sun, either …

For good reasons, you accept that understanding as consonant with direct personal experience(s) you have had …

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But you haven't directly*personally "seen" the Earth in orbit around the Sun, either …

For good reasons, you accept that understanding as consonant with direct personal experience(s) you have had …

Er.. there is a lot of good evidence that the earth orbits the Sun, and I happen to believe it is the best explanation of various seasonal effects. There could, I guess, be some massive conspiracy hiding me from the truth, but I choose to believe that as highly unlikely even though I have personally not been in a position to witness the earth orbiting the Sun.

I do not see that this has anything at all to do with any experiences I have not had with angelic beings. As I said, I happen to believe that there is zero evidence that such things exist. That I have or have not experienced them is not, in itself, evidence in either direction.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But you haven't directly*personally "seen" the Earth in orbit around the Sun, either …

For good reasons, you accept that understanding as consonant with direct personal experience(s) you have had …
Er.. there is a lot of good evidence that the earth orbits the Sun, and I happen to believe it is the best explanation of various seasonal effects. There could, I guess, be some massive conspiracy hiding me from the truth, but I choose to believe that as highly unlikely even though I have personally not been in a position to witness the earth orbiting the Sun.

I do not see that this has anything at all to do with any experiences I have not had with angelic beings. As I said, I happen to believe that there is zero evidence that such things exist. That I have or have not experienced them is not, in itself, evidence in either direction.

Yes …
For various reasons -- philosophical, scientific, rational, emotional, social, religious, etc. -- each one of us gives more or less credence and weight to particular ideas, explanations, claims, understandings, authorities, etc., in our own personal search for patterns to existence and to ways of getting knowledge of reality …

I happen to be both scientifically trained and experienced and also a person of deep religious faith, and I have no difficulty with affirming both the natural sciences (as a way of getting information about how the universe works) and also traditional religious faith (as Ultimate Reality orientation) …

I have not had direct personal experiences of angels, but some of my friends and congregants have recounted such to me so I am not inclined to *dismiss" angels as -- "no evidence for them" ..

[ 24. March 2015, 20:30: Message edited by: Teilhard ]

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Teilhard: But, yes, there are some scoffer-skeptical materialist atheists who float the claim that at least in principle, all of life, the universe and everything -- including the vagaries of history -- can eventually be reduced to an equation or set of equations …
Then they still would need to explain where these equations come from.

As a Divine Conceptualist, I would have to argue the mind of God. Atheists would also need to explain how these equations have a creative rather than merely descriptive power.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

I happen to be both scientifically trained and experienced and also a person of deep religious faith, and I have no difficulty with affirming both the natural sciences (as a way of getting information about how the universe works) and also traditional religious faith (as Ultimate Reality orientation) ...

Fair enough, I also believe there are different types of truth other than things which are capable of being interrogated by science and logic. I'm certainly not dissing your belief, I just don't believe it.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But you haven't directly*personally "seen" the Earth in orbit around the Sun, either

Ludwig Wittgenstein: Why did people use to think the Sun went round the Earth?
Elizabeth Anscombe: That's the way it looks.
Ludwig Wittgenstein: How would it look if the Earth went round the Sun?

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But you haven't directly*personally "seen" the Earth in orbit around the Sun, either
Ludwig Wittgenstein: Why did people use to think the Sun went round the Earth?
Elizabeth Anscombe: That's the way it looks.
Ludwig Wittgenstein: How would it look if the Earth went round the Sun?

And now that we understand (or think we understand) that time and motion are "relative," the notion that the Sun is in a *fixed* central position, with the planets in orbit around it … is … well … not exactly set*in*stone any more, either ...

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Is it just me, or has the OP silently slipped away?

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Is it just me, or has the OP silently slipped away?

"absconditus" …

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, the snark was a boojum, you see.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

So hard to find good atheists with the courage of their convictions.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Five posts and out. Such a pity; he really didn't give himself a proper chance.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I wonder if our resident atheists have a thought about whether this guy might have made a useful addition to the ship, or if he was just an embarrassment to their ranks?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Perhaps he was dismayed that Christians didn't throw the Atheist to the lions? I think he came expecting a fight.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Poor lamb.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Five posts and out. Such a pity; he really didn't give himself a proper chance.

"I don't want to go in the cart … I'm feeling better … I think I'll go for a walk … I feel happyyyy … !!!"

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Perhaps he was raptured! [Biased]

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents .

To return to Fool's original question, during my 46 year Christian journey, which began at the age of 15, I've come to appreciate the words of the anonymous writer of the medieval English mystical tract "The Cloud of Unknowing" when he said of God "By love may He be gotten and holden, but by thought never." From a thinking aspect I'm quite agnostic, in that I think God's existence or not, is both unknown and completely unknowable in our present condition. But I feel Him in my heart as a living and guiding presence, who leads me further into a life of devotion.

It's only now, in the autumn of my years, that I'm able to reconcile and harmonise the tension of living in that state. I am at one with the psalmist whi writes of a longing for God, which, in my case gets stronger all the time. I disagree with Fools's assertion that the supernatural has never manifested itself beyond our imagination. Whether or not one believes in miracles, the collective life of the Jewish people from the slavery of Egypt to the freedom as God's children in the promised land, and even more importantly Christ's submission to the world, in odedience to Our Father, are all the Theophany I need to help me on my journey.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Ahem. This thread is not for speculation as to Fool's whereabouts, state of mind, and so forth, especially not when such speculation descends into the territory of personal attack.

/hosting

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:

I'm not sure the 2nd Law of thermodynamics applies to the spiritual world.

Unless you're capable of weighing and Angel and determining its calorific requirement to fly from the third level of Heaven to Grimsby and back... Then the calculation just requires that some unit of distance is defined. I forsee a lot of difficulties.
Do angels make that journey often? Good angel food cake and Starbuck's coffee in Grimsby? Or does a barista slip them some devil's food cake in a brown paper bag?

As to thermodynamics and the spiritual world, I just had to look that up! So I searched on "metaphysics law of thermodynamics", sometimes adding "spiritual". Some odd and interesting stuff out there! Samples:

Biblical evidence for Catholicism: Current Models in Cosmological Physics Concerning the Origin of the Universe (Dark Energy & Matter, Etc.), & Their Interaction With Metaphysics.

And this one is "passing strange"!
Metabolic Metaphysics--Entropy: Nature's Preferred Direction?

Nice links - thankyou - Entropy doesn't work for nature because we are dissipative structures - we cream off a small amount of the energy flowing from the sun. Prigogine & Stengers. I think that is a correct analogy metaphysically as well - there is a continuous flow of Love from God and we exist because we are both created and sustained by it, just like a small eddy in a stream is sustained by the flow of the stream.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents .
To return to Fool's original question, during my 46 year Christian journey, which began at the age of 15, I've come to appreciate the words of the anonymous writer of the medieval English mystical tract "The Cloud of Unknowing" when he said of God "By love may He be gotten and holden, but by thought never." From a thinking aspect I'm quite agnostic, in that I think God's existence or not, is both unknown and completely unknowable in our present condition. But I feel Him in my heart as a living and guiding presence, who leads me further into a life of devotion.

It's only now, in the autumn of my years, that I'm able to reconcile and harmonise the tension of living in that state. I am at one with the psalmist whi writes of a longing for God, which, in my case gets stronger all the time. I disagree with Fools's assertion that the supernatural has never manifested itself beyond our imagination. Whether or not one believes in miracles, the collective life of the Jewish people from the slavery of Egypt to the freedom as God's children in the promised land, and even more importantly Christ's submission to the world, in odedience to Our Father, are all the Theophany I need to help me on my journey.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Teilhard: But, yes, there are some scoffer-skeptical materialist atheists who float the claim that at least in principle, all of life, the universe and everything -- including the vagaries of history -- can eventually be reduced to an equation or set of equations …
Then they still would need to explain where these equations come from.

No they wouldn't. The equations are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe what things do. The things themselves do not need to have any equations in order to do the "right" thing.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I'm not sure what supernatural means really; isn't it possible to conceive of the transcendent without invoking the supernatural? But maybe I am straying into paganism!

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure what supernatural means really; isn't it possible to conceive of the transcendent without invoking the supernatural? But maybe I am straying into paganism!

The word 'supernatural' is philosophically problematic. Originally it means something is performing a task that is more complex than its inherent nature allows. Balaam's donkey is supernatural when it speaks, not because it is a miracle but because donkeys cannot speak. Arguably a guide dog is supernatural, because it has been trained to assist its guide in a way in which dogs do not normally know how to assist pack members. God is not supernatural since there is no taks that is more complex than God's inherent nature allows.
That meaning is now almost defunct.

These days it means entities outside the competence of science as presently understood. Rigourously defined, anything supernatural doesn't exist by definition: if ghosts do exist somebody could set up a branch of science to study them and therefore they wouldn't be supernatural. (The exception being God who is outside the remit of any possible body of organised knowledge.)
C.S.Lewis in his history of the meaning of words, says that the word 'supernatural' means something about which you would feel the moods you'd feel in reading a ghost story.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: No they wouldn't. The equations are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe what things do. The things themselves do not need to have any equations in order to do the "right" thing.

Alright, let me formulate it in another way. They (the materialists) would still need to explain why things behave in the way that is described by these equations. They would need to say why things do the 'right' thing.

Suppose for a moment that we'd live in a simple Newtonian universe, described by the equation F=m⋅a. The conversation could go like this.

A: Why does this particle behave in this way?
B: F=m⋅a
A: But where does this equation come from?
B: Equations are descriptive, not prescriptive.
A: But why does the particle behave in such a way that its movements are described by F=m⋅a?

That's a valid question. And Science cannot claim that it can fully explain the Universe without answering it.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Two things:

First, I'm not sure anyone is claiming to be able to totally explain the origins of the universe.

Second, it is possible to suggest that those equations only work because we happen to be in the universe where they work.

Maybe that is just an eternal constant. There is no need for further explanation, it just is.

Or maybe each Big Bang randomly produces new sets of constants in a different type of space-time.

We might think there is something special about the constants we have, when in reality we have just obtained them by something random, or as a result of the fact that they're eternal.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure what supernatural means really; isn't it possible to conceive of the transcendent without invoking the supernatural? But maybe I am straying into paganism!
The word 'supernatural' is philosophically problematic. Originally it means something is performing a task that is more complex than its inherent nature allows. Balaam's donkey is supernatural when it speaks, not because it is a miracle but because donkeys cannot speak. Arguably a guide dog is supernatural, because it has been trained to assist its guide in a way in which dogs do not normally know how to assist pack members. God is not supernatural since there is no taks that is more complex than God's inherent nature allows.
That meaning is now almost defunct.

These days it means entities outside the competence of science as presently understood. Rigourously defined, anything supernatural doesn't exist by definition: if ghosts do exist somebody could set up a branch of science to study them and therefore they wouldn't be supernatural. (The exception being God who is outside the remit of any possible body of organised knowledge.)
C.S.Lewis in his history of the meaning of words, says that the word 'supernatural' means something about which you would feel the moods you'd feel in reading a ghost story.

But surely science is ontology-free; it does not concern itself with reality or truth.

But I was also thinking of the 'new mysterians', who seem to argue that science may never describe consciousness, but that does not translate as supernatural, does it?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The word 'supernatural' is philosophically problematic. Originally it means something is performing a task that is more complex than its inherent nature allows. Balaam's donkey is supernatural when it speaks, not because it is a miracle but because donkeys cannot speak.

This is not quite the traditional meaning of "supernatural" as used by the Roman Catholic Church. Rather:

quote:
"Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas" by Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
The supernatural, according to the Catholic Church, is that which is above all created nature; which, although it exceeds the powers and requirements of any nature created or capable of being created, does not exceed the passive capacity of perfectibility and aptitude of our nature. (Cf. Denz, nos. 1790, 1795, 1808, 1816; Garrigou-Lagrange, De revelatione, I, 193, 197, 202.)

Moreover, according to the Church, supernaturalness is at least twofold, namely:
The supernaturalness of miracles, which surpasses the efficient powers and requirements of any created nature, but not, however, the cognitive powers of human nature. (Denz, nos. 1790, 1818.)
The supernaturalness of mysteries strictly speaking and of the life of grace and glory is that which surpasses not only the efficient powers and requirements of any created nature, but also the cognitive and appetitive powers (or natural merit) of any intellectual nature created or capable of being created.
...
This division of supernaturalness may be otherwise expressed according to the terminology rather generally accepted among theologians, thus:
The absolute supernatural exceeding the powers and requirements of any created nature
with respect to substance or the formal cause
uncreated, substantial of itself
God in the most intimate sense of His Divinity and Trinity.
The uncreated person of the Word subsisting in the human nature of Christ.
created (accidental)
Habitual and actual grace, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Ghost (supernatural by virtue of their formal object).
with respect to the manner or to the extrinsic causes, that is, in the manner both of its extrinsic disposition and of its production
in regard to the end
Natural act, such as acquired temperance, as supernaturally ordered by charity to a supernatural end.
in regard to the efficient cause (Ia, q. 105, a. 8)
The miraculous substantially (the glorification of the body or prophecy).
The miraculous subjectively (nonglorified resurrection, the knowledge of the secrets of heart).
The miraculous modally (sudden cure of a fever, the gift of tongues).

Thus Balaam's donkey speaking is a supernatural miracle, just as common sense would dictate: it is supernatural subjectively ("the donkey ...") in regard to the end ("... speaks ...") and the efficient cause ("... by the power of God"). No created being (whether existent now or imaginable) could have made that donkey talk, only God could, hence it is supernatural. But not in the sense that it surpasses our natural cognitive powers (we hear the donkey talk).

So if we ask once more in a common sense "what is supernatural?", then there are two different answers, depending on what exactly one means by that. If we mean all occurrences inexplicable in terms the natural (created) entities and powers, then there are many supernatural things: all the miracles, the sacraments, etc. If we mean who can be a supernatural actor, then by definition there is only one: God. Any and all of the many supernatural manifestations are due to God alone, since God alone is supernatural (uncreated).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mr cheesy: There is no need for further explanation, it just is.

No, "it just is" isn't an answer, it's an evasion of the question. (Going to a multiple universes doesn't help you either, it just moves the question to a different level.)

If you say that Science cannot explain everything, then we can shake hands, and we need to discuss no further. (I'm not claiming that religion can explain everything either.)

But if materialists claim that Science can explain everything, then they need to set the same standards for the question "why is there something instead of nothing?" (which is what this ultimately boils down to) as for all the other questions about the Universe.

If Science itself deems a certain kind of answer unacceptable for all other questions, it cannot suddenly find it acceptable for this question.

For example:

To the question "why does an apple fall to the ground", Science finds the answer "it just does" unacceptable.
To the question "why are there all these glimmering points in the night sky?", Science finds the answer "they just are" unacceptable.
To the question "why is there life on Earth?", Science finds the answer "it just is" unacceptable.

It isn't just me who finds these answers unacceptable, it is Science itself. Science can do much better than this, and in fact Science has been developped (gravity, evolution, astronomy ...) exactly by finding much better answers to these questions.

So, if Science itself finds "it just is" an unacceptable (insufficient) answer to all other questions, it cannot claim to have explained the Universe if it has answered an important question with "it just is".

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It seems preferable to say, we don't know, and possibly, we may never know.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is not quite the traditional meaning of "supernatural" as used by the Roman Catholic Church. Rather:

quote:
"Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas" by Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
The supernatural, according to the Catholic Church, is that which is above all created nature; which, although it exceeds the powers and requirements of any nature created or capable of being created, does not exceed the passive capacity of perfectibility and aptitude of our nature. (Cf. Denz, nos. 1790, 1795, 1808, 1816; Garrigou-Lagrange, De revelatione, I, 193, 197, 202.)

This.

What does this suggest?

Does the universe operate according to a single set of fairly intractable & predictable mechanics?

Does it have two distinct systems, one operating as above, and the other to be called upon when its creator doesn't care for the way current events are trending, and wishes to obviate some particular outcome?

Does it have no real system at all, but a human capacity / sense for tidiness and order suggests one to us?

Does it have several competing systems?

Where does nature begin and end (and how do we determine this) when all we've got to go on are 5 senses plus mechanical extensions of same and laughably short life spans and limited imaginations? Criminy, we've only had writing for 5-6,000 years.

[code]

[ 25. March 2015, 12:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
No, "it just is" isn't an answer, it's an evasion of the question. (Going to a multiple universes doesn't help you either, it just moves the question to a different level.)

If you say that Science cannot explain everything, then we can shake hands, and we need to discuss no further. (I'm not claiming that religion can explain everything either.)

But if materialists claim that Science can explain everything, then they need to set the same standards for the question "why is there something instead of nothing?" (which is what this ultimately boils down to) as for all the other questions about the Universe.

I'm sorry, clearly you don't believe it and/or you don't understand the point, but it is still an answer: there is something because there was always something.

quote:
If Science itself deems a certain kind of answer unacceptable for all other questions, it cannot suddenly find it acceptable for this question.

For example:
To the question "why does an apple fall to the ground", Science finds the answer "it just does" unacceptable.
To the question "why are there all these glimmering points in the night sky?", Science finds the answer "they just are" unacceptable.
To the question "why is there life on Earth?", Science finds the answer "it just is" unacceptable.
It isn't just me who finds these answers unacceptable, it is Science itself. Science can do much better than this, and in fact Science has been developped (gravity, evolution, astronomy ...) exactly by finding much better answers to these questions.

The point is that as we are talking about something happening which is not capable of being interrogated by science (it happened before time began), it is purely in the realms of speculation, religion and philosophy. There is nothing which could be observed to prove or disprove the phenomena.

quote:
So, if Science itself finds "it just is" an unacceptable (insufficient) answer to all other questions, it cannot claim to have explained the Universe if it has answered an important question with "it just is".

Yeah, so you keep saying, but this is a (perhaps uniquely) different question given that we're talking about something which can only be speculated upon given the position we where we are - within a specific universe where time exists and without any experience of other universes or any ability to measure or observe anything outside of the thing we are within.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mr cheesy: I'm sorry, clearly you don't believe it and/or you don't understand the point, but it is still an answer: there is something because there was always something.

This just leads to another question: why was there always something?

quote:
mr cheesy: The point is that as we are talking about something happening which is not capable of being interrogated by science (it happened before time began), it is purely in the realms of speculation, religion and philosophy.

Okay, I have no problem if you admit that it's outside of the realm of Science.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This just leads to another question: why was there always something?

Because.

Imagine you are talking about a deity that has pre-existed for eternity and apply the same logic to the universe instead. You can't answer questions about the origin of the deity, because there was no origin.

quote:
Okay, I have no problem if you admit that it's outside of the realm of Science.

I have said this all along.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mr cheesy: Because.

The same answer I would give as a child when my mother arrived home and asked me "Why is there chocolate around your mouth?"

quote:
mr cheesy: Imagine you are talking about a deity that has pre-existed for eternity and apply the same logic to the universe instead. You can't answer questions about the origin of the deity, because there was no origin.

I don't apply logic to a deity. I can't answer questions about the origin of the deity, because the deity is outside the realm described by logic.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
mr cheesy: Because.
The same answer I would give as a child when my mother arrived home and asked me "Why is there chocolate around your mouth?"

quote:
mr cheesy: Imagine you are talking about a deity that has pre-existed for eternity and apply the same logic to the universe instead. You can't answer questions about the origin of the deity, because there was no origin.
I don't apply logic to a deity. I can't answer questions about the origin of the deity, because the deity is outside the realm described by logic.

I would add to this that the logic around the explanation of God, and the logic around the explanation of the universe isn't the same logic. Any regression of causes needs a logical stopping point. If God exists, then by definition there can be no greater cause than himself. As IngoB pointed out above, God exists necessarily. If God exists at all, he exists because he has to, or he wouldn't be God.

You can't apply that logic to the universe. The universe doesn't have to exist (even if it is eternal) since its possible to conceive a state of affairs when nothing exists. Of if God exists, we can conceive of a state when the only existence in the universe is God himself.

The other problem with saying that the universe just is is this. Why just the universe? Why is it not the case that anything else that exists, also just is? As Le Roc says, we don't take that view with anything else in the universe, so by what logic should we make that assumption about the universe?

I think, Mr Cheesy, these are the conundrums you have to solve. The logic for God's existence won't work for the universe - you need something else. And you also need to account for the fact that it's only the universe itself that needs no explanation, and not any other observable thing we can think of.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I would add to this that the logic around the explanation of God, and the logic around the explanation of the universe isn't the same logic. Any regression of causes needs a logical stopping point. If God exists, then by definition there can be no greater cause than himself. As IngoB pointed out above, God exists necessarily. If God exists at all, he exists because he has to, or he wouldn't be God.

How do you know a) that God has to exist and b) the universe does not?

quote:
You can't apply that logic to the universe. The universe doesn't have to exist (even if it is eternal) since its possible to conceive a state of affairs when nothing exists. Of if God exists, we can conceive of a state when the only existence in the universe is God himself.

There is no way that you can prove that assertion.

quote:

I think, Mr Cheesy, these are the conundrums you have to solve. The logic for God's existence won't work for the universe - you need something else. And you also need to account for the fact that it's only the universe itself that needs no explanation, and not any other observable thing we can think of.

No, you are just insisting on those for your own mental satisfaction. There is nothing else that is needed to explain an infinite anything by their very nature.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

Would it be wrong to point out that the wisest teacher said "everything is meaningless"?

You can say the universe exists because you can see/ touch/ taste/ smell it or measure it in someway and repeat experiments for certain parts of the mechanics. You just can't say the reason whyexists (if it does have a reason other than it just happened this way).

Even if you can argue that a deity exists you cannot be certain from such an argument that the god so deduced is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Zeus or a flying spaghetti monster. Actually knowing God is dependant on something else entirely. So what is the point such a reasoning exercise?

Everything is meaningless.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Teilhard: But, yes, there are some scoffer-skeptical materialist atheists who float the claim that at least in principle, all of life, the universe and everything -- including the vagaries of history -- can eventually be reduced to an equation or set of equations …
Then they still would need to explain where these equations come from.
No they wouldn't. The equations are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe what things do. The things themselves do not need to have any equations in order to do the "right" thing.

And to the dismay of the skeptic-scoffer atheists, the proposed equations would indeed be merely ONLY "descriptive," and not in any respect "explanatory," i.e., they would not begin to address Aristotle's question, "Why is there anything at all, rather than nothing … ???"

We might think of the proposed set of equations as giving loads of information about the engineering parameters and aerodynamic physics of a modern jet plane … but without the cockpit voice recorder, which gets to the really interesting stuff …

Life, the universe and everything (IMHO) is less about "numbers" and more about "words," and especially, THE Word ...

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Would it be wrong to point out that the wisest teacher said "everything is meaningless"?

You can say the universe exists because you can see/ touch/ taste/ smell it or measure it in someway and repeat experiments for certain parts of the mechanics. You just can't say the reason whyexists (if it does have a reason other than it just happened this way).

Even if you can argue that a deity exists you cannot be certain from such an argument that the god so deduced is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Zeus or a flying spaghetti monster. Actually knowing God is dependant on something else entirely. So what is the point such a reasoning exercise?

Everything is meaningless.

Except … The Wise Teacher concluding her/his musings and advice thusly:

"Fear God and keep His commandments; for this is the whole duty of everyone. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil."
-- Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Mr Cheesy. Last hurrah from me ol' son and I'll leave you in peace. You reckon the universe doesn't need an explanation of its existence because it's eternal. Doesn't work mate. You need more than that. You see, we're not talking about just any universe here, or universes in general, we're talking about this universe. This universe is made up in a particular way. The atoms are arranged in a certain order, the constants that hold it all together have closely defined strengths and ratios that keep it from all falling apart di dah di dah.

That's the point. This universe could have been arranged differently. With less energy to play with it could have been smaller, it could now be collapsing instead of expanding etc.

You can get away with an eternal universe that's contingent on God who's also eternal.

You need more than eternity on its own to explain our universe assume it's eternal. And you do need an explanation because it doesn't have to be the way it is.

Right - I'm off to put a wet towel around my head. Have fun with this.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Would it be wrong to point out that the wisest teacher said "everything is meaningless"?

You can say the universe exists because you can see/ touch/ taste/ smell it or measure it in someway and repeat experiments for certain parts of the mechanics. You just can't say the reason whyexists (if it does have a reason other than it just happened this way).

Even if you can argue that a deity exists you cannot be certain from such an argument that the god so deduced is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Zeus or a flying spaghetti monster. Actually knowing God is dependant on something else entirely. So what is the point such a reasoning exercise?

Everything is meaningless.
Except … The Wise Teacher concluding her/his musings and advice thusly:

"Fear God and keep His commandments; for this is the whole duty of everyone. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil."
-- Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

1 – there are reasonable grounds for doubting that either David or Solomon existed, and if either/both did it was probably only as the patriarch of an extended family occupying a small, politically insignificant territory. (Scholars advise that its construction suggests that Ecclesiastes was not written prior to 450BCE – Solomon is assumed to have reigned some 500 years earlier.

2 – the Teacher believes the earth to be eternal (1:4) - it isn't; views the sun as moving around the earth (1:5) - it doesn't; and would suffer cognitive dissonance if faced with a car, a computer, a CT scanner or a chocolate cup-cake (1:9/10). Since accuracy is hardly his strong point perhaps he's not the best source to rely upon for valid conclusions?

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Would it be wrong to point out that the wisest teacher said "everything is meaningless"?

You can say the universe exists because you can see/ touch/ taste/ smell it or measure it in someway and repeat experiments for certain parts of the mechanics. You just can't say the reason whyexists (if it does have a reason other than it just happened this way).

Even if you can argue that a deity exists you cannot be certain from such an argument that the god so deduced is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Zeus or a flying spaghetti monster. Actually knowing God is dependant on something else entirely. So what is the point such a reasoning exercise?

Everything is meaningless.
Except … The Wise Teacher concluding her/his musings and advice thusly:

"Fear God and keep His commandments; for this is the whole duty of everyone. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil."
-- Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
1 – there are reasonable grounds for doubting that either David or Solomon existed, and if either/both did it was probably only as the patriarch of an extended family occupying a small, politically insignificant territory. (Scholars advise that its construction suggests that Ecclesiastes was not written prior to 450BCE – Solomon is assumed to have reigned some 500 years earlier.

2 – the Teacher believes the earth to be eternal (1:4) - it isn't; views the sun as moving around the earth (1:5) - it doesn't; and would suffer cognitive dissonance if faced with a car, a computer, a CT scanner or a chocolate cup-cake (1:9/10). Since accuracy is hardly his strong point perhaps he's not the best source to rely upon for valid conclusions?

First of all, there is no reason to DOUBT that David and Solomon were historical figures …

Second, "Ecclesiastes" is obviously not a scientific treatise … so expecting it to be one and then dismissing it for not being such is hardly reasonable ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Mr Cheesy. Last hurrah from me ol' son and I'll leave you in peace. You reckon the universe doesn't need an explanation of its existence because it's eternal. Doesn't work mate. You need more than that. You see, we're not talking about just any universe here, or universes in general, we're talking about this universe. This universe is made up in a particular way. The atoms are arranged in a certain order, the constants that hold it all together have closely defined strengths and ratios that keep it from all falling apart di dah di dah.

Yes, but we are in this universe and we have no idea whether other universes are possible, hence we have no idea whether there is anything special about this universe compared to all the other possibilities. We are trying to observe the thing we are within and which we have nothing to compare to.

quote:
That's the point. This universe could have been arranged differently. With less energy to play with it could have been smaller, it could now be collapsing instead of expanding etc.

Maybe some universes are doing just that. Maybe we just happen to be in the universe which is doing this, and the collection of constants we see are just random.

Or maybe, as I keep saying, all these things are infinite. Maybe it is this way because it is this way and always has been.

quote:
You can get away with an eternal universe that's contingent on God who's also eternal.

You need more than eternity on its own to explain our universe assume it's eternal. And you do need an explanation because it doesn't have to be the way it is.

That's just an assertion.

See the thing is this: if one postulates a creator God who is eternal and made all things, then by definition he had to exist. That is part of the definition of the deity we are talking about.

But there is no particular reason to suppose that that is the only deity which is possible to imagine. One might be able to imagine a deity who was not eternally pre-existent. One might be able to imagine a deity which did not create all things. And so on.

The constant claims that a deity is a better explanation are itself dependent on acceptance of the claims about the deity.

Well, say for the sake of argument, I don't accept those claims. Then for me the hand-waving and passing off of the questions of the origins of the deity are not good enough. The acceptance that a deity can create something from nothing are not acceptable.

The one who believes in this kind of deity does not have to explain these origin questions because they are contingent on the type of deity you (the general you) say you believe in - all-powerful, eternal, pre-existing, etc and so on.

So now instead of saying those things about a deity, say them about the stuff that the universe is made from - that it is eternal (never had a beginning, never had an end), that it is pre-existing, that it can never be destroyed or created, and so on.

Constantly asking one who believes in this scenario about the origins or shape of the stuff (IngoB's bottle shape) is exactly like asking the one who believes in (this kind of) deity the same kind of questions.

They are null questions. They are questions that cannot be answered, they are questions that have no answer - because they are entirely dependent on the thing upon which one believes.

The one who believes in an infinite universe accepts that stuff exists because it has always existed.

I totally accept that this is a wild idea to someone who believes in an eternal all-powerful deity, but constantly asking the same questions in different ways does not change the simple fact - namely that you've rejected the idea because it is mentally uncomfortable for those who stake a claim on the type of deity they say they believe in.

There is nothing more logical in believing in this kind of deity than believing in the infinite eternal status of stuff. Neither can be proven in and of themselves.

Of course, the deists point to other evidence - that isn't the point I am making here, which is with regard to the question that there is something different in believing in an all-powerful eternal creating deity compared to pre-existing eternal stuff in the universe.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

Second, "Ecclesiastes" is obviously not a scientific treatise … so expecting it to be one and then dismissing it for not being such is hardly reasonable ...

Yes, but if this is claimed to be written by the wisest person who ever lived, you'd think it might be a bit less obviously stupid.

A plain reading of Ecclesiastes suggests to me that it is written by more than one person, because it is extremely difficult to square the one half with the other.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

Second, "Ecclesiastes" is obviously not a scientific treatise … so expecting it to be one and then dismissing it for not being such is hardly reasonable ...
Yes, but if this is claimed to be written by the wisest person who ever lived, you'd think it might be a bit less obviously stupid.

A plain reading of Ecclesiastes suggests to me that it is written by more than one person, because it is extremely difficult to square the one half with the other.

I think you're being a little unfair there Mr Cheesy. The assessment of the author's wisdom is made at a particular point in time. To say two and half millennia ago that someone is the wisest person who has lived, is not the same as saying they are the wisest person who ever will live.

It also begs the question as to how much of what we consider to be wisdom today, will be regarded as foolishness twenty centuries hence.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is nothing more logical in believing in this kind of deity than believing in the infinite eternal status of stuff. Neither can be proven in and of themselves.

To the contrary, it is precisely the logical analysis of the observations of nature which leads one to propose that there must be an "uncaused cause". This outcome of the analysis get appropriated by theists as "God", and that's fair enough if they play by the rules of that analysis (which many modern theists do not!). But it does not change that the core claims arise from a logical analysis of observed change.

The problem you have is that the universe undeniably changes all the time. That's why your speculations about "eternity" contain these unobserved cycles of universes. But the sort of temporal change you allow only gets you the existence of a universe now from the existence of the universe back then. It does not get you why any of this endless cycle has arisen in the first place. The universe is contingent, you have already admitted this by allowing temporal change even at the universe level (cycles of universes). But if the universe is contingent, then all the cycles throughout endless time are still contingent, for a series of contingencies does not become necessary. So we can still meaningfully ask: "How come any of this?"

The one and only answer possible here is obviously something that is not contingent, something that does not change, something that is necessarily existing always in the same way. The only way to escape contingency is necessity. And here we are talking necessity in the most fundamental sense, not based on some circumstances.

Your cycle of universe is not some kind of alternative to this. A necessary being follows as much from a finite universe as from your endless cycle of universes. Any kind of thinkable contingency must be grounded in necessity, or forfeit reason. Your one and only alternative move is the declaration of "brute fact". It is not your endless cycle of universes that is an alternative to God. It is your claim that the endless cycle of universes (or a finite universe, or egg on toast, ...) is a "brute fact" that is your actual alternative to God. Because the only alternative to the analytic reason that proposes a necessary being is non-reason. You can refuse to think about things, you can declare matters to be beyond human reason. The materialist position is precisely to do this for things like the universe. Theists think that materialists give up reason too early, they say one can still reason out the existence of God, and our reason only starts to falter when we try to analyse God.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yes, but if this is claimed to be written by the wisest person who ever lived, you'd think it might be a bit less obviously stupid.

I'm not sure that the author of Ecclesiastes was "the wisest person who ever lived," but what he has written is certainly not "obviously stupid." Rather it is pretty damn stupid to read Eccles 1 as some kind of physics treatise, rather than as a poetic assessment of the meaning of life and the scope of human action.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
To the contrary, it is precisely the logical analysis of the observations of nature which leads one to propose that there must be an "uncaused cause". This outcome of the analysis get appropriated by theists as "God", and that's fair enough if they play by the rules of that analysis (which many modern theists do not!). But it does not change that the core claims arise from a logical analysis of observed change.

Rubbish, because if that was universal logic, we'd all agree. Clearly we do not.

As I said earlier, these things are in the realms of philosophy not pure logic, science and observation. By necessity.

quote:
The problem you have is that the universe undeniably changes all the time. That's why your speculations about "eternity" contain these unobserved cycles of universes. But the sort of temporal change you allow only gets you the existence of a universe now from the existence of the universe back then. It does not get you why any of this endless cycle has arisen in the first place. The universe is contingent, you have already admitted this by allowing temporal change even at the universe level (cycles of universes). But if the universe is contingent, then all the cycles throughout endless time are still contingent, for a series of contingencies does not become necessary. So we can still meaningfully ask: "How come any of this?"

There is no reason why. It just is. Why is entirely the wrong question.

quote:
The one and only answer possible here is obviously something that is not contingent, something that does not change, something that is necessarily existing always in the same way. The only way to escape contingency is necessity. And here we are talking necessity in the most fundamental sense, not based on some circumstances.

Again, what you consider to change and to not change is totally irrelevant. You might have persuaded yourself that an eternal God is different to eternal stuff, but internal consistency is not the same as truth. I don't accept your truth claims nor the logic you use to get to them.

quote:
Your cycle of universe is not some kind of alternative to this. A necessary being follows as much from a finite universe as from your endless cycle of universes. Any kind of thinkable contingency must be grounded in necessity, or forfeit reason. Your one and only alternative move is the declaration of "brute fact". It is not your endless cycle of universes that is an alternative to God. It is your claim that the endless cycle of universes (or a finite universe, or egg on toast, ...) is a "brute fact" that is your actual alternative to God. Because the only alternative to the analytic reason that proposes a necessary being is non-reason. You can refuse to think about things, you can declare matters to be beyond human reason. The materialist position is precisely to do this for things like the universe. Theists think that materialists give up reason too early, they say one can still reason out the existence of God, and our reason only starts to falter when we try to analyse God.

Again, that is because you are insisting that others work within the parameters you have set by repeatedly insisting that this is the only way to think. It isn't.

quote:
I'm not sure that the author of Ecclesiastes was "the wisest person who ever lived," but what he has written is certainly not "obviously stupid." Rather it is pretty damn stupid to read Eccles 1 as some kind of physics treatise, rather than as a poetic assessment of the meaning of life and the scope of human action.

I agree. Wisdom is clearly a subjsective, cultural and temporal thing. Hence this is not something which can be used to argue anything.

[ 26. March 2015, 10:28: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Even if you can argue that a deity exists you cannot be certain from such an argument that the god so deduced is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Zeus or a flying spaghetti monster. Actually knowing God is dependant on something else entirely.

The arguments for the existence of a deity are more precisely for the existence of an unmoved mover, or a supreme good, who is then argued to have to possess such and such features by virtue of the argument, which features warrant the name God.

Zeus and the flying spaghetti monster don't possess the relevant features or else possess features that the argument rules out.

For example, if the unmoved mover is necessarily the way it is - it has to be to satisfy the argument - and the universe is contingent, the universe cannot be necessarily derived from the unmoved mover. Therefore the unmoved mover must be free to create the universe one way or another.
That means that the unmoved mover must have features analagous to knowledge and will.

The argument doesn't go: we need an explanation for the universe, therefore God. It is we need an explanation for the universe; any explanation has to have certain features; an entity with those features may be reasonably called God.

It's true that you can't deduce that the unmoved mover revealed themselves to the Israeli people, or that they became incarnate as Jesus. For that you need faith. But you can show that there's no incompatibility there.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The arguments for the existence of a deity are more precisely for the existence of an unmoved mover, or a supreme good, who is then argued to have to possess such and such features by virtue of the argument, which features warrant the name God.

Zeus and the flying spaghetti monster don't possess the relevant features or else possess features that the argument rules out.

For example, if the unmoved mover is necessarily the way it is - it has to be to satisfy the argument - and the universe is contingent, the universe cannot be necessarily derived from the unmoved mover. Therefore the unmoved mover must be free to create the universe one way or another.
That means that the unmoved mover must have features analagous to knowledge and will.

I think I agree with this - except that within a framework of a pre-existing eternal universe it is possible to imagine gods which are not the "unmoved mover" but are still sufficiently larger and more powerful than humans/humanity to appear to be such. Any named god could exist, but actually turn out to be something less than the unmoved mover. Even an eternal deity does not necessarily imply that they are the originator and creator of all things.

quote:
The argument doesn't go: we need an explanation for the universe, therefore God. It is we need an explanation for the universe; any explanation has to have certain features; an entity with those features may be reasonably called God.

Well, no, not really because lots of things could be called God from the perspective of humans living on a small planet in the unfashionable end of an undeveloped galaxy.

quote:
It's true that you can't deduce that the unmoved mover revealed themselves to the Israeli people, or that they became incarnate as Jesus. For that you need faith. But you can show that there's no incompatibility there.

OK, but there is also no incompatibility in such a deity existing but not being the creator of all things (or in fact being a bunch of other things) either. It isn't as simple as 'God-creator-of-the-universe' vs nothing.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

@IngoB. I was particularly attracted to your conclusion that the only way to avoid contingency is through necessity. Whilst self-evident when I think about it, it's elegantly put.

I also liked your point that you can't avoid contingency with respect to a cyclic universe theory since one universe is contingent on a previous one. How then, does one get from contingency to necessity?

And the point that materialists stop thinking though an issue before theists is well made. Materialism, by definition, hits a boundary of knowledge which theism comfortable traverses.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@IngoB. I was particularly attracted to your conclusion that the only way to avoid contingency is through necessity. Whilst self-evident when I think about it, it's elegantly put.

I also liked your point that you can't avoid contingency with respect to a cyclic universe theory since one universe is contingent on a previous one. How then, does one get from contingency to necessity?

And the point that materialists stop thinking though an issue before theists is well made. Materialism, by definition, hits a boundary of knowledge which theism comfortable traverses.

It's an interesting argument, but I'm not sure why it's a boundary of knowledge. It's guesswork, isn't it, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, but there is also no incompatibility in such a deity existing but not being the creator of all things (or in fact being a bunch of other things) either. It isn't as simple as 'God-creator-of-the-universe' vs nothing.

It's true. But I think that the philosophical traditions in the Abrahamic faiths would argue that no such being ought to be worshipped. The prohibition upon worshipping other deities is not contingent upon God having commanded it, but is a prohibition of natural reason like don't murder. Many atheists would say it was mere power worship also.
Anything that ought not to be worshipped is by definition not a deity.

[ 26. March 2015, 12:06: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

@Mr Cheesy. Can I just say I'm enjoying reading your posts and the discussion they are precipitating?

You said

lots of things could be called God from the perspective of humans living on a small planet in the unfashionable end of an undeveloped galaxy.

You might be missing the point of Dafyd's argument here. Let's leave aside for a moment the possibility of an eternal universe and explore the logic of Dafyd's unmoved mover.

Imagine you are the first person ever to ask the question "why does the universe exist?" As you embark on this ground-breaking venture you follow through a line of argument which leads you to a cause with certain characteristics. Everything that exists is contingent on this cause. So it has characteristics such as being omnipotent, eternal, and having the power to choose. Now I suppose that cause could be the combined effect of the combination of a number of other causes, but why complicate the issue? As William of Ockham is supposed to have suggested, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. We might add to this that we shouldn't posit plurality without necessity.

The point here is that we are not beginning by looking at powerful beings and saying they must be our creators. Rather we start with the observable universe and ask what created it. With the logical option of a single un-moved mover (Dafyd's logic is quite clear to follow) there is no need to posit a more complex combination of entities to achieve the same end.

Whilst we can still consider other alternatives to a necessary creator (as we are doing) if the options are between a single unmoved mover and one or more other beings, the un-moved mover wins by simplicity.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@IngoB. I was particularly attracted to your conclusion that the only way to avoid contingency is through necessity. Whilst self-evident when I think about it, it's elegantly put.

I also liked your point that you can't avoid contingency with respect to a cyclic universe theory since one universe is contingent on a previous one. How then, does one get from contingency to necessity?

And the point that materialists stop thinking though an issue before theists is well made. Materialism, by definition, hits a boundary of knowledge which theism comfortable traverses.
It's an interesting argument, but I'm not sure why it's a boundary of knowledge. It's guesswork, isn't it, not that there's anything wrong with that.

I think it's more a case of how far you allow yourself to take a logical argument. If you rule out metaphysics and philosophy as a way of understanding the universe (as some materialists do stridently, and others decide to do because they can find no practical use for these perspectives) then you are creating a boundary to knowledge. "Guesswork" feels a little pejorative.

Feel free to come up with an alternative if I'm missing your point.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's true. But I think that the philosophical traditions in the Abrahamic faiths would argue that no such being ought to be worshipped. The prohibition upon worshipping other deities is not contingent upon God having commanded it, but is a prohibition of natural reason like don't murder. Many atheists would say it was mere power worship also.
Anything that ought not to be worshipped is by definition not a deity.

So.. a being which is bigger than the galaxy, has an intelligence far outwith of the total of all humanity etc and so on should not be worshipped because he/she has not created it all.

The thing is that I can't see how one could possibly tell the difference. Why should such a being not be worshipped?

And anyway, even if one accepts these definitions of what is and what is not a god, this has zero bearing on the question at hand, namely whether the made-up assertion of a pre-existing eternal deity can or cannot be compared to the made up assertion of a pre-existing universe.

Both things are exactly parallel - in the sense that they are both made up!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@IngoB. I was particularly attracted to your conclusion that the only way to avoid contingency is through necessity. Whilst self-evident when I think about it, it's elegantly put.

I also liked your point that you can't avoid contingency with respect to a cyclic universe theory since one universe is contingent on a previous one. How then, does one get from contingency to necessity?

And the point that materialists stop thinking though an issue before theists is well made. Materialism, by definition, hits a boundary of knowledge which theism comfortable traverses.
It's an interesting argument, but I'm not sure why it's a boundary of knowledge. It's guesswork, isn't it, not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think it's more a case of how far you allow yourself to take a logical argument. If you rule out metaphysics and philosophy as a way of understanding the universe (as some materialists do stridently, and others decide to do because they can find no practical use for these perspectives) then you are creating a boundary to knowledge. "Guesswork" feels a little pejorative.

Feel free to come up with an alternative if I'm missing your point.

I don't think the idea of guessing is a negative one; surely science uses it quite a lot - there is a famous film by Feynman, in which he explains the use of guesses, although they are usually tested.

I am reminded of Hume's idea that causation is a human intellectual preference, rather than a direct perception. This connects for me with the idea found in some Eastern religions, that this moment cannot be anything else, (not the same as necessity maybe). Does this lead to God? Well, hmmm.

No time to pursue this right now, unfortunately.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Rubbish, because if that was universal logic, we'd all agree. Clearly we do not.

In an imaginary world in which people never get anything wrong this might be an argument. In this world, you are simply in error.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As I said earlier, these things are in the realms of philosophy not pure logic, science and observation. By necessity.

Point out where I have not employed logic, science and observation, if you can. In reality, you are simply trying to restrict logic, science and observation unduly. In particular:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is no reason why. It just is. Why is entirely the wrong question.

You are simply asserting here in order to protect your beliefs. The reason we must not ask such questions is that you do not like the answers that can be found. This is simple obscurantism, and it does not become rational just because it dons a lab coat.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You might have persuaded yourself that an eternal God is different to eternal stuff, but internal consistency is not the same as truth.

That's true. But internal incoherence is a sign of falsehood. Your assertions about the universe are incoherent, since you consider the universe to be contingent, but a series of universes not, without giving reason why such multiplying of contingencies should be less contingent.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, that is because you are insisting that others work within the parameters you have set by repeatedly insisting that this is the only way to think. It isn't.

Sure. There are also more limited and even incorrect ways of thinking.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wisdom is clearly a subjsective, cultural and temporal thing. Hence this is not something which can be used to argue anything.

Human nature does not change, hence while wisdom has to deal prudently with the cultural contingencies of time and place, it also invariably transcends them, and consequently its expressions have universal value to humans at all times and in every place. The idea that wisdom cannot speak to us is self-refuting individualism.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

@Q. Some other time. I'll look forward to it.

Drew

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

IngoB

quote:
You are simply asserting here in order to protect your beliefs. The reason we must not ask such questions is that you do not like the answers that can be found. This is simple obscurantism, and it does not become rational just because it dons a lab coat.

I do love you so when you claim that you are the only one who is capable of holding an idea and that when it disagrees with you it is a duff argument. Sorry, pal, I'm not taking your opinion on this.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Let's keep it focused on the ideas and not the people here.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Even if you can argue that a deity exists you cannot be certain from such an argument that the god so deduced is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Zeus or a flying spaghetti monster. Actually knowing God is dependant on something else entirely.
The arguments for the existence of a deity are more precisely for the existence of an unmoved mover, or a supreme good, who is then argued to have to possess such and such features by virtue of the argument, which features warrant the name God.

Zeus and the flying spaghetti monster don't possess the relevant features or else possess features that the argument rules out.

For example, if the unmoved mover is necessarily the way it is - it has to be to satisfy the argument - and the universe is contingent, the universe cannot be necessarily derived from the unmoved mover. Therefore the unmoved mover must be free to create the universe one way or another.
That means that the unmoved mover must have features analagous to knowledge and will.

The argument doesn't go: we need an explanation for the universe, therefore God. It is we need an explanation for the universe; any explanation has to have certain features; an entity with those features may be reasonably called God.

It's true that you can't deduce that the unmoved mover revealed themselves to the Israeli people, or that they became incarnate as Jesus. For that you need faith. But you can show that there's no incompatibility there.

Interesting points Dafyd.

I suppose the point is that Abram didn't come to the idea of God or prime mover watching the stars while shepherding his sheep and goats one night. God strikes up a conversation so the story goes.

We are rather short of texts that talk about what God is rather than relating to God. When texts do try to talk about what God is they seem to become numinous and the metaphors get over loaded until they break down into partial images.

I read Genesis 1-3 in a similar way to Revelation. I think they are accounts of visions rather than literal statements of how the world came to be; certainly not direct experiences (naturally no one was there until late on day 6).

@ Mr Cheesy.
Solomon or The Teacher may well have been the wisest person. Solomon also became a fool when power and a harem full of nagging wives got the better of him(so the story goes). It is as well not to confuse wisdom with knowledge. Wisdom is knowing how to use the knowledge you do have. I agree with the above- Ecclesiastes doesn't claim a scientific knowledge.

I don't see mismatch between the two halves. Ecclesiastes is a meditation on the mortality of man and the limit of his knowledge. It seems a logical progression. I don't have the knowledge of ancient Hebrew to talk about styles of authors and the like. Such a discussion is probably better off in Kergymania.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So.. a being which is bigger than the galaxy, has an intelligence far outwith of the total of all humanity etc and so on should not be worshipped because he/she has not created it all.

Even were the being causally responsible for the existence of the solar system or for life on earth or for the existence of humanity, it wouldn't command our worship. Respect, certainly - maybe even affection if it was benevolent. But the existence of such a being would have no importance for morality, or aesthetics.
Such a being might or might not exist; if so, it is of no relevance to human fulfilment.

There are quite a lot of atheist arguments that worshipping a god, any god, constitutes alienation from ourselves. Any Christian argument to the effect that worship does not consist of alienation depends upon God being genuinely constitutive of reality and goodness, such that worshipping such a being does not constitute alienation. And anything short of the unmoved mover or supreme good can't meet that requirement.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
First of all, there is no reason to DOUBT that David and Solomon were historical figures …

David scroll down to Historicity

Solomon scroll down to Historicity

David again

For good measure there is, AIUI, no reason other than the stories of the Bible (or subsequent works) to believe that Abraham, Noah or Moses existed. Whilst we're at it there's no independent confirmation (and, in each case, a lot of negative indication) for the stories of the Flood, the Exodus and the census which allegedly got Mary to Nazareth.

quote:

Second, "Ecclesiastes" is obviously not a scientific treatise … so expecting it to be one and then dismissing it for not being such is hardly reasonable ...

I agree with you that Ecclesiastes (as with the rest of the Bible) is not a scientific treatise – it is therefore appropriate to treat any conclusions based on it as, at best, tentative.

I took the quoting of Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 as being an endorsement of a viewpoint considered to be authoritative. If I was wrong I apologise.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
First of all, there is no reason to DOUBT that David and Solomon were historical figures …
David scroll down to Historicity

Solomon scroll down to Historicity

David again

For good measure there is, AIUI, no reason other than the stories of the Bible (or subsequent works) to believe that Abraham, Noah or Moses existed. Whilst we're at it there's no independent confirmation (and, in each case, a lot of negative indication) for the stories of the Flood, the Exodus and the census which allegedly got Mary to Nazareth.

quote:

Second, "Ecclesiastes" is obviously not a scientific treatise … so expecting it to be one and then dismissing it for not being such is hardly reasonable ...
I agree with you that Ecclesiastes (as with the rest of the Bible) is not a scientific treatise – it is therefore appropriate to treat any conclusions based on it as, at best, tentative.

I took the quoting of Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 as being an endorsement of a viewpoint considered to be authoritative. If I was wrong I apologise.

The historicity of many persons and recorded/reported events cannot be definitively *proven* … but that does not mean that they are therefore fictional … Even Jesus of Nazareth Himself is in that category, yes … ??? Yet very few reputable historians doubt His historicity ...

In any other cases, many "conclusions" (even in the natural sciences) are properly understood to be "tentative" … so that does not bear upon their veracity ...

[ 27. March 2015, 02:47: Message edited by: Teilhard ]

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

@Hugh. On the historicity of David, if you had read to the end of the article you referenced (Academic assessment) you would see that most of the scholars referenced accepted the existence of an historical David whilst seeking to reconstruct his story. That's what academic scholars do Hugh - it's what they need to do to make a living.

You also perpetuate a fallacy in suggesting that the Old Testament record should only be accepted in the light of independent evidence. What independent evidence would carry more weight? Interpreting fragmentary archaeological findings is notoriously difficult, as you can see from the different views expressed in the articles you referenced. The Old Testament writings are ancient historical texts and should be treated in the same way as other texts from the same milieu. They are intrinsically no more nor less reliable than texts from Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia or or any other ancient society.

A number of ancient creation myths refer to a great flood. It appears to be an ancient historical memory. Your suggestion to the contrary is simply inaccurate.

Whilst is much discussion over Luke's account of the census, it has not been shown to be false. The current scholarly consensus is that he has made an error or got censuses confused. The question is, however, still open, largely because Luke is generally regarded as a firs rate ancient historian. He has detailed knowledge of local customs and practices which point to a contemporary record from a writer interested in detail.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I agree with you that Ecclesiastes (as with the rest of the Bible) is not a scientific treatise – it is therefore appropriate to treat any conclusions based on it as, at best, tentative.

By coincidence, I just read the following relevant comment by Ed Feser (made in a different context):

quote:
... he was impressed by the logical positivists’ famous verification principle, and their application of it to a critique of metaphysics. The basic idea, as is well known, is that any meaningful statement must (the verification principle claims) be either analytically true (like “All bachelors are unmarried”) or empirically verifiable. Yet metaphysical statements are (the argument continues) neither. Therefore they are strictly meaningless, not even rising to the level of falsehood.

There are various problems with the verification principle, the most notorious being that it is self-refuting, insofar as the principle itself is neither analytically true nor empirically verifiable. It is thus no less “meaningless” and indeed “metaphysical” (as verificationists conceived of metaphysics) as the claims it was deployed against. Alternative formulations of the principle have been attempted, but the trouble is that there is no way to formulate the principle in such a way that it both avoids self-refutation and still has the anti-metaphysical bite the positivists thought it had.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I agree with you that Ecclesiastes (as with the rest of the Bible) is not a scientific treatise – it is therefore appropriate to treat any conclusions based on it as, at best, tentative.
By coincidence, I just read the following relevant comment by Ed Feser (made in a different context):

quote:
... he was impressed by the logical positivists’ famous verification principle, and their application of it to a critique of metaphysics. The basic idea, as is well known, is that any meaningful statement must (the verification principle claims) be either analytically true (like “All bachelors are unmarried”) or empirically verifiable. Yet metaphysical statements are (the argument continues) neither. Therefore they are strictly meaningless, not even rising to the level of falsehood.

There are various problems with the verification principle, the most notorious being that it is self-refuting, insofar as the principle itself is neither analytically true nor empirically verifiable. It is thus no less “meaningless” and indeed “metaphysical” (as verificationists conceived of metaphysics) as the claims it was deployed against. Alternative formulations of the principle have been attempted, but the trouble is that there is no way to formulate the principle in such a way that it both avoids self-refutation and still has the anti-metaphysical bite the positivists thought it had.

Yes …

The death of Logical Positivism has been widely underreported, and even when known, not always positively welcomed ...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think positivism of that kind confused scientific method with philosophy, thus producing a rather strange hybrid. Maybe the modern equivalent is scientism, but then that is not itself a scientific claim. Science is not aiming to describe truth or reality.

Most of the atheists that I chat to, seem pretty clued up on these distinctions, although there are always some of the village variety.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science is not aiming to describe truth or reality.

That is only one possible position; I don't think scientific realism has been made untenable yet.

Oddly, it seems to me that many people who reject scientific realism still hold naive scientific empiricist views about scientific method.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science is not aiming to describe truth or reality.
That is only one possible position; I don't think scientific realism has been made untenable yet.

Oddly, it seems to me that many people who reject scientific realism still hold naive scientific empiricist views about scientific method.

There are certainly some interesting arguments for realism, for example, that science works quite well! But scientific method does not seem dependent on it.

Posted by Fool (# 18359) on :

Returned from holiday. Malta was rather nice but unseasonably cool. Been busy doing post holiday admin.

I apologise that I haven't waded through all 7 pages as frankly some of the more arcane philosophising went over my head but it seems to me that most people believe in the supernatural because they were indoctrinated into it in childhood and then spend a life time trying to convince themselves and others that they believe. The clever they are the harder they have to work at convincing themselves the more arcane their thought processes are.

Nobody has offered a single shred of evidence to suggest the existence of the supernatural let alone that demonstrates that the supernatural has ever manifested its self in anyway at all.

I wish I could win the Euromillions Lottery tonight. In fact 'aberercadabera'. I've cast a magic spell to make it happen. If it does happen would anyone think it was the result of magic? If I pray for it would you think its happening is the intervention of god?

If I feel unwell, pray a bit and get better is it really likely that its the intervention of god? Considering that I get unwell from time to time and don't pray but get better how should we account for that?

If I have a dream featuring Kirstan Dunst and a bottle of baby oil is this proof of the supernatural? Why then if I dream of an imaginary friend should this be accepted as evidence of the supernatural?

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

hmmm

Not worth a well-thought-out response. That's what I though from the beginning.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I apologise that I haven't waded through all 7 pages…

Nobody has offered a single shred of evidence to suggest the existence of the supernatural let alone that demonstrates that the supernatural has ever manifested its self in anyway at all.

If you haven't been through all the pages, what is the basis for your belief that "[n]obody has offered a single shred of evidence to suggest the existence of the supernatural"? Or have you just started with the presupposition that no such evidence could exist, and concluded, therefore, that no such evidence can have been offered?

In the OP you said

quote:
<snip>I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists, and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents.

I am interested in two things about this. First is the question of what you would count as evidence? My first training was as a lawyer, and therefore when people talk about 'proof' of something, or 'evidence' for something those are the terms I tend to think in, whereas many people seem simply to mean scientific evidence. It does at least make me alert to the idea that different questions demand different kinds of evidence.

Secondly, I wonder what proof you are able to advance that the supernatural has "never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents". In general people have considered it philosophically impossible to prove a negative. I wonder if you simply mean that no-one has so far produced evidence which has satisfied you that the supernatural has manifested itself. That is, of course, a rather different statement.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Fool:
I apologise that I haven't waded through all 7 pages as frankly some of the more arcane philosophising went over my head but it seems to me that most people believe in the supernatural because they were indoctrinated into it in childhood and then spend a life time trying to convince themselves and others that they believe.

I agree with everything up to "but it seems to me."

To my fellow shipmates who waste their time responding to this pseudo-intellectual new atheist bullshit...as we say back home...bless your hearts.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by Fool:
I apologise that I haven't waded through all 7 pages as frankly some of the more arcane philosophising went over my head but it seems to me that most people believe in the supernatural because they were indoctrinated into it in childhood and then spend a life time trying to convince themselves and others that they believe.
I agree with everything up to "but it seems to me."

To my fellow shipmates who waste their time responding to this pseudo-intellectual new atheist bullshit...as we say back home...bless your hearts.

Amen

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

It certainly is rude behaviour to post a question, and then to come back and say you haven't read the multiple replies, but you know your question hasn't been answered. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Let's keep it impersonal, folks.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

Before Fool's reappearance I was going to compare him to the classic Fool in a medieval court. As a jester, the fascinating discussion ensuing from his o/p has entertained us royally.

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:

I apologise that I haven't waded through all 7 pages as frankly some of the more arcane philosophising went over my head but it seems to me that most people believe in the supernatural because they were indoctrinated into it in childhood and then spend a life time trying to convince themselves and others that they believe.

If this is a comment on the posters of this thread, then I would describe it as so remarkable as to be considered as a serious candidate for supernatural insight (given that no-one appears to have said anything about their childhood).

But alas, since I for one was not indoctrinated as a child, but converted to faith from being a professing atheist, Fool will need to look elsewhere for his evidence.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

My parents were atheist and agnostic while I was growing up, so not much indoctrination there. Given that you haven't read many of the responses to your original post, I'm puzzled as to why you would expect people to engage with you now.

One thing I would say is that when I discuss my faith, I never use the term 'supernatural' as it is always misunderstood. If defending my beliefs philosophically, I would do so from a mixture of Philosophical Idealism and Scholasticism. From these perspectives, God is the most 'natural' of realities. I did post earlier in the thread regarding avenues which you may find helpful if you wished to increase your knowledge regarding the philosophical basis for belief in God.

Certainty your crude and superficial response to what has been posted previously shows only that you fail to understand in any real way what you claim to not believe in.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Fool--

If you're going to insult us, you might as well read the thread so you can do it accurately!
[Biased]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Spare me from dogmatic atheists!

Posted by Fool (# 18359) on :

Touchy aren't we. I've read quite a lot of it but as I say I haven't read all of it so if anyone has offered even the the remotest shred I apologise.

I was careful to avoid using the word proof because if there was any some body would have mentioned it. Nobody has even managed to come up with the remotest suggestion beyond their own imagination. They offer the fact that other people have the same fantasies as proof.

I'm not a dogmatic atheist. I have no dogma. I see no evidence or suggestion of the supernatural and therefore no reason to believe in it. Nobody can give me any reason to do so.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

So, in the interests of a discussion, what is your response to the three questions I posed in my post?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I see no evidence or suggestion of the supernatural and therefore no reason to believe in it. Nobody can give me any reason to do so.

I agree with you.

I am a Christian, but my belief is in God and Jesus, not anything supernatural. Plenty of Christians say this is not possible, but there we are.

I think God can be described as 'that which is good' and Jesus was a real person, as full of God's spirit (that which is good) as it's possible for a human to be.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
So, in the interests of a discussion, what is your response to the three questions I posed in my post?

Really?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents

Seeing as you've now returned, perhaps you could oblige us by explaining the nature of this proof you have discovered.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I was careful to avoid using the word proof because if there was any some body would have mentioned it. Nobody has even managed to come up with the remotest suggestion beyond their own imagination. They offer the fact that other people have the same fantasies as proof.

The observation of contingency and change in the world by logical deduction requires the existence of a necessary being. This being is commonly identified with God. A considerable chunk of the discussion upthread was about that. My own posts concerning this are here, here, here and here.

The metaphysical proof of the existence of God I'm defending there does not require any observation of miracles or apparitions, nor does it rely on Divine revelation, prophetic visions or what have you. It is simply a logical analysis by applying human natural intelligence to empirical observations of the world, if in a different mode to modern natural science. The usual atheist shtick of simply refusing all evidence of the miraculous or Divine in the world as delusional fantasies shared by many due to wishful thinking simply does not work against this kind of proof. I need nothing "special" or "supernatural" to make it work. 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.

This leaves you in the weak position of having to argue why the human mind falters at certain apparently reasonable questions, but not at others. mr cheesy has at least tried to do that above, which is honest engagement (though in my opinion he managed little more than detailing his non-intellectual prejudices in the end). You have not done so this far. Maybe this was simply because you have skipped the "more difficult" posts, something you can and should rectify now. If however you continue to pretend that people here are simply making fantastical assertions of blind faith, then you are demonstrating that you are atheism is mere agitprop.

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I'm not a dogmatic atheist. ... Nobody can give me any reason to do so.

The former is simply a label for the latter. (Not that I like the label much, because it insults dogma...) If we cannot reach you by reason and argument, then what exactly do you wish us to do here, in a place of public discussion? Are you asking us to pray for you, that God may gently open the closed fist of your mind?

[ 27. March 2015, 20:18: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science is not aiming to describe truth or reality.
That is only one possible position; I don't think scientific realism has been made untenable yet.

Oddly, it seems to me that many people who reject scientific realism still hold naive scientific empiricist views about scientific method.
There are certainly some interesting arguments for realism, for example, that science works quite well! But scientific method does not seem dependent on it.

Yes … The Natural Sciences are not a branch of "Philosophy" …

Further, if "Philosophy" is such a sure and certain dependable way of getting in touch with the nature of real Reality (via "Logic" and "Reason" and "Metaphysics" and such), one wonders why the Philosophers ( "Sages, Luminaries and other Paid Professional Thinking Persons") still find anything signifiant to fuel their arguments and disagreements with each other …

*shrug*

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Teilhard said:

quote:
The Natural Sciences are not a branch of "Philosophy" …

Actually, they were, for a long, long time.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Teilhard said:

quote:
The Natural Sciences are not a branch of "Philosophy" …
Actually, they were, for a long, long time.

Emphasis on: "they WERE … "

The devotees of Logical Positivism, Reductionism, et al., want to remain stuck in those Good Old Days … but especially in these post-Modern times, the entire realm of Epistemology is thrown considerable more wide open ...

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

well, whether they are a branch or not, the natural sciences are still grounded in a philosophy - and it is a big mistake to think that they are not.

Castles on sand. But worse.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
well, whether they are a branch or not, the natural sciences are still grounded in a philosophy - and it is a big mistake to think that they are not.

Castles on sand. But worse.

The Natural Sciences are an excellent way of getting information about how the universe works -- understanding stellar nuclear synthesis, studying and interpreting the fossil record, decoding the relationship between nucleic acid structure and protein synthesis in living cells, measuring the mass of a proton, etc., etc. -- and that's all …

Some well-meaning people, however, then take the unfortunate step of over-interpreting the data provided via the Natural Sciences and make a leap of faith into Materialism and Reductionism … and some then go on to promulgate a dogmatic stance derived from that leap of faith ...

[ 28. March 2015, 00:10: Message edited by: Teilhard ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

No it doesn't.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I'm not a dogmatic atheist. ... Nobody can give me any reason to do so.
The former is simply a label for the latter. (Not that I like the label much, because it insults dogma...)

I like this bit of gentle self-deprecating wit. [Overused]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.

You gotta love the intellectual tenor of this place. So unlike the mindless wrangling that happens on other internet sites.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
You gotta love the intellectual tenor of this place. So unlike the mindless wrangling that happens on other internet sites.

Yes, I do … LOL ...

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are certainly some interesting arguments for realism, for example, that science works quite well! But scientific method does not seem dependent on it.

If you're going to say that scientific method works as long as it works, you need to come up with a definition of 'works' that isn't circular, which applies to say palaeontology as well as to quantum physics, and doesn't depend on actual technological applications.
Realism works for that. I'm not sure instrumentalism can do anything that isn't circular (no doubt instrumentalists disagree).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Philosophising is not arcane, but it does require a capacity for abstract thought. Here's the standard definition of philosophy.

quote:
The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

I think what you have confessed, Fool, is that you have difficulty following some of the more abstract arguments here. I'm not alone in thinking that IngoB has written with remarkable clarity in this thread. It may be worthwhile looking at his posts again, and his subsequent response.

It is not flattery to describe IngoB as "sky high bright". And his occupation is stated as computational neuroscientist. You can be sure that he has an excellent understanding of the scientific method, of the nature of evidence and of what constitutes proof. He's demonstrated those things very well in this thread.

I recommend you do that part of the review and then ask any questions, make any criticisms you like.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Indeed you have mousethief. Rolling out the same old circular arguments that are the sound of one bodged stool leg clapping has been going on since Aristotle. Like all apologetics they play to a draw using special pleading and therefore lose.

The reason why this week I've had to re-inoculate the pre-modern in to the postmodern, is because Mary and Jesus dealt with Archangels in person.

Nothing to do with four million self-repudiated Thomist words.

It's all about the credibility of the witnesses, as every juror knows.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@IngoB. I was particularly attracted to your conclusion that the only way to avoid contingency is through necessity. Whilst self-evident when I think about it, it's elegantly put.

I also liked your point that you can't avoid contingency with respect to a cyclic universe theory since one universe is contingent on a previous one. How then, does one get from contingency to necessity?

And the point that materialists stop thinking though an issue before theists is well made. Materialism, by definition, hits a boundary of knowledge which theism comfortable traverses.
It's an interesting argument, but I'm not sure why it's a boundary of knowledge. It's guesswork, isn't it, not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think it's more a case of how far you allow yourself to take a logical argument. If you rule out metaphysics and philosophy as a way of understanding the universe (as some materialists do stridently, and others decide to do because they can find no practical use for these perspectives) then you are creating a boundary to knowledge. "Guesswork" feels a little pejorative.

Feel free to come up with an alternative if I'm missing your point.
I don't think the idea of guessing is a negative one; surely science uses it quite a lot - there is a famous film by Feynman, in which he explains the use of guesses, although they are usually tested.

I am reminded of Hume's idea that causation is a human intellectual preference, rather than a direct perception. This connects for me with the idea found in some Eastern religions, that this moment cannot be anything else, (not the same as necessity maybe). Does this lead to God? Well, hmmm.

No time to pursue this right now, unfortunately.

Says it all really.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

It's all about the credibility of the witnesses, as every juror knows.

Not all, surely? But the credibility of witnesses, or the general witness, is undoubtedly important.

And I don't think causation and first cause arguments are just a matter of self-interested preference. Whereas a preference for free lunches may definitely show a kind of self-interested preference, don't you think?

[BTW your PM box is full]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

When it comes down it in my acute and days long experience. The doctors of the law were foolish children in the playground compared with the stories of the witnesses.

To argue that there must be an exception to the rule for all the other rules to work is ... rule based. I thought Gödel had something to say about that? By way of analogy on my part of course.

Write a story and summarize it with a poem and put that to music. If that doesn't work, NOTHING will.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are certainly some interesting arguments for realism, for example, that science works quite well! But scientific method does not seem dependent on it.
If you're going to say that scientific method works as long as it works, you need to come up with a definition of 'works' that isn't circular, which applies to say palaeontology as well as to quantum physics, and doesn't depend on actual technological applications.
Realism works for that. I'm not sure instrumentalism can do anything that isn't circular (no doubt instrumentalists disagree).

We get ourselves into small boxes and tight corners when we try to formulate a Universal Process which then quickly becomes held up as an ideology (an "-ism") which we then try to use as THE standard recipe-formula-method ...

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
So, in the interests of a discussion, what is your response to the three questions I posed in my post?
Really?

Well, yes. If there is to be a discussion then Fool has to do more than simply pop back in, announce that he hasn't read what people have posted, and then restate his views. But it's probably fair cop on the first of my questions which was mainly rhetorical.

As for the others, in the OP Fool talked about "not one shred of evidence" - I happen to think there's more than a shred, but there's not much point in making the case if we don't have some commonality of mind about what constitutes evidence.

He talked about "plenty of proof that [the supernatural] has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents". I think there is some discussion to be had about proving a negative.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

It is interesting, yes … ???

People who confidently (I might say, brashly) make the claim, "There is NO evidence for the reality of God …" none the less do not bother to provide any evidence -- not one shred of evidence -- for THEIR religious faith claim …

"Isn't it ironic, don't you think … ??? … a little too ironic …"
-- St. Alanis Morissette

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@IngoB

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.

The crucial difference between what you are talking about and modern science is the latter includes means to evaluate success or lack of it. A common objection to the metaphysical proof you speak of is simply that it is unwise to draw conclusions from extrapolations about causality way beyond our experience.

For instance our observations of natural reality at this moment in time means that in the Standard Model of particle physics we have a fairly good account of around 4% of the Universe. So the best understanding we have of the fundamental nature of our universe is restricted to 4% of it. The other 96% that we think is made of dark energy and dark matter is a pretty much a closed book. And if we are wrong about the existence of the 96% then we possibly know a lot less about the 4% than we think we do. This is hardly a rich seam of data to draw conclusions about universals, especially when you consider our - ahem - universe may well be only a small part of reality as a whole.

quote:
This leaves you in the weak position of having to argue why the human mind falters at certain apparently reasonable questions, but not at others.

No it doesn't, if he doesn't accept that metaphysical speculation and scientific knowledge are one and the same thing. He might reasonably ask how you think the human mind determines success when extrapolating "...these "universals" by logic to deduce the existence of previously unknown and otherwise not readily accessible entities."

We have had long discussions about this before, so this is all repetition, but hey ho. Under naturalism/materialism, the collective endeavours of human minds and human reason in philosophy, science and beyond (including our everyday lives) have built up incomplete, imperfect maps of the territory we find ourselves existing in. When we discover something new about the territory, we update the maps. Of course, we all have different versions, and some people's maps are a more accurate reflection of reality than others, and there is much disagreement about this, which is why the Internet was invented, apparently.

Some people are so taken with their map that they confuse it with the territory, thinking if they study it hard enough they will get a full account of all the unmapped parts without having to visit them. Some others of a theistic bent further think their map is a gift from God that could point them to ultimate truth if only they learn to read it correctly.

I'm interested in where you stand on this. You seem to believe that there's a map existing now, heavily influenced by the work of Aquinas, that, regardless of what we might discover in the uncharted areas of the actual territory, is accurate enough to tell us about any territory that exists. If I have that right, how do you justify that belief? If not, what have I got wrong about it?

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Alright Grokssk? You wrote

So the best understanding we have of the fundamental nature of our universe is restricted to 4% of it. The other 96% that we think is made of dark energy and dark matter is a pretty much a closed book. And if we are wrong about the existence of the 96% then we possibly know a lot less about the 4% than we think we do.

Didn't follow this. Taking your figures as read, so what? There may be virtually sod all to know about 96% of the universe. If the 4% is all the interesting stuff, that really matters, having a thorough knowledge of nothing useful isn't going to help much. Think of it this way. Having an in--depth knowledge of a motorway ain't much help in understanding the socialnmake up, economy, crime rate, design, architecture etc of the cities in between.

Never got the argument that empirically testable methodologies are better than untestable ones. Depends what you're testing. If your trying to discover something that is empirically untestable then the model's not going to help much. Metaphysical theories are testable by logic. Sounds a bit like a category error.

Still, let's have a look at what Ingo says since you asked him in his professional capacity as a scientist.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think the point is just that knowing only of 4% means it is hard to extrapolate accurately to the rest. Our little bit might be quite different to everything else.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@mr cheesy

Exactly that.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Alright Grokssk? You wrote

So the best understanding we have of the fundamental nature of our universe is restricted to 4% of it. The other 96% that we think is made of dark energy and dark matter is a pretty much a closed book. And if we are wrong about the existence of the 96% then we possibly know a lot less about the 4% than we think we do.

Didn't follow this. Taking your figures as read, so what? There may be virtually sod all to know about 96% of the universe. If the 4% is all the interesting stuff, that really matters, having a thorough knowledge of nothing useful isn't going to help much. Think of it this way. Having an in--depth knowledge of a motorway ain't much help in understanding the socialnmake up, economy, crime rate, design, architecture etc of the cities in between.

Never got the argument that empirically testable methodologies are better than untestable ones. Depends what you're testing. If your trying to discover something that is empirically untestable then the model's not going to help much. Metaphysical theories are testable by logic. Sounds a bit like a category error.

Still, let's have a look at what Ingo says since you asked him in his professional capacity as a scientist.

The "empirically testable [scientific] method" is very useful for what it's good for, which is, getting information about how the universe works …

The Rules of Baseball are very good for managing a baseball game … but they're not anything about "the fossil record" or stellar nuclear synthesis …

Various different disciplines and ways of understanding have their own (limited) usefulness, but none can legitimately claim to be the route to knowing everything about everything ...

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the point is just that knowing only of 4% means it is hard to extrapolate accurately to the rest. Our little bit might be quite different to everything else.

I get that. The 4%'s easier to know about since it's easier to investigate. The 96% may be harder to analyse since there's nothing much there to find out anything about.

All scientific endeavour (and historical research for that matter) draws conclusions from the information that's available. We run with that until we find something new to worry us that we've got it wrong. We don't worry that we got it wrong because we know there's more to learn.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Teiilhard. When you said

Various different disciplines and ways of understanding have their own (limited) usefulness, but none can legitimately claim to be the route to knowing everything about everything ...

....I nodded approvingly [Smile]

FWIW

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So what evidence is there for God in Onchocerca volvulus boring children's eyes inside out?

Fool is right.

As I walked away from an old friend's hospital bed for the last time four months ago, although he took another month to die elsewhere, and his wife died of Alzheimer's in the meantime, as I walked away from his unrecognizable cancerous ruin, where we'd talked and laughed and cried, where he'd spoken of long distant love affairs, never mentioned to a living soul before, that haunted him still after 50 years (know THAT feeling!), as I walked away, I thanked God for His kindness.

I forgot why last night when I played it back. Then I remembered this morning. It was that in the collapsing ruins there was love.

That.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well said, Martin. I don't see love as evidence really, but as I get older it is everything there is, and makes everything. 50 year old love affairs, oh no, let's not go there.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So what evidence is there for God in Onchocerca volvulus boring children's eyes inside out?

Fool is right.

As I walked away from an old friend's hospital bed for the last time four months ago, although he took another month to die elsewhere, and his wife died of Alzheimer's in the meantime, as I walked away from his unrecognizable cancerous ruin, where we'd talked and laughed and cried, where he'd spoken of long distant love affairs, never mentioned to a living soul before, that haunted him still after 50 years (know THAT feeling!), as I walked away, I thanked God for His kindness.

I forgot why last night when I played it back. Then I remembered this morning. It was that in the collapsing ruins there was love.

That.

Life is what it is … Suffering and incompleteness and death are part of the deal …

There have always been people who complain that, "Life isn't fair … " … and, "Why me … ???" … and some go on to conclude that, "There is no God …" (which is quite an illogical leap, IMHO) …

See: the Book of Job … Toward the end of that amazing insightful book of wisdom, God answers Job's complaint with a question of His own (38:1ff) -- "Where were you during the Initial Conditions of the Big Bang … ???"

[ 28. March 2015, 16:37: Message edited by: Teilhard ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Doubly agreed q! It was the presence of humble love in my friend in the utter absence, nullity of the kindness of God that enabled me to invoke it then and again last night. It's NEVER there unless we invoke it. And the starting point is gratitude. As one very mainly forgets.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Teilhard. PART?! I don't see the connection of your second paragraph in response to anything I've said. Life, like apologetics and the fact of the supernatural, is the only way it can possibly be: absurd. The book of Job has always been my favourite book of The Books.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

For sure, "God" is not the Cosmic Errand Boy Sugar Daddy who comes down the chimney at midnight and fixes everything that has gone wrong today …

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Teilhard. PART?! I don't see the connection of your second paragraph in response to anything I've said. Life, like apologetics and the fact of the supernatural, is the only way it can possibly be: absurd. The book of Job has always been my favourite book of The Books.

Concluding that, "Life is 'absurd' …" … ???
Who says so … ???

I think life is terribly interesting, even when it's simply mostly terrible …

But the observed fact is that, indeed, I am not the center of the universe, no matter how much I may sometimes wish it otherwise, especially when I'm in trouble … I was not present at the Initial Conditions of the Big Bang correcting the Creator's mistakes and omissions as (S)he laid out the foundations …

I don't see that as "absurd" … It's just a fact ...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Life says so. Faith says to trust God regardless. The conclusion of Job. I've been given that in infinite depth, but I'm just too shallow for it. Despite the absurd simple contingency of meaningless existence, I can't not believe God and in the supernatural although I see no evidence for them whatsoever and never will in this life - just like everyone else without exception. Beyond my contingent disposition including the disposition to invoke Him, His kindness, His infinite patience, tolerance, efficacy, Love. Despite the even greater absurdity of levels, dimensions of existence beyond our 4%

[ 28. March 2015, 17:35: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
Nobody has offered a single shred of evidence to suggest the existence of the supernatural let alone that demonstrates that the supernatural has ever manifested its self in anyway at all.

There's always the existence of Christianity: I'm not aware of any particularly convincing explanation of why there's a new movement within first century Judaism that believes its Messiah got crucified and then rose from the dead that doesn't involve the Messiah being crucified and rising from the dead.
You can certainly say you don't believe the supernatural is an explanation and therefore although we don't have a naturalistic explanation that doesn't count as evidence. But in that case you're ruling out the purported evidence on the basis of a prior commitment to there being no supernatural rather than dismissing the explanation on the basis that there's no evidence.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I agree Dafyd. But I would. My disposition is such that the beguilingly simple stories of the gospel with their outrageous claims and impact on ordinary people sufficient to bring civilization to its knees are completely credible. Nothing can possibly convince Fool apart from dying first.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
People who confidently (I might say, brashly) make the claim, "There is NO evidence for the reality of God …" none the less do not bother to provide any evidence -- not one shred of evidence -- for THEIR religious faith claim …

I'm struggling to understand this post.

Is it that you think that atheism (the absence of belief in the existence of a god or gods) is a faith based claim? If so; it isn't.

In case anyone thinks that atheism is a faith-based claim I offer the following:-

The rule is simple - when a disputed claim is made it is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate the validity of the claim (not the responsibility of the doubter to disprove it) and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you think the rule untrue consider the consequences of such a stance.

1) If you were religious you would have to be able to disprove the validity of every other religious belief that has ever existed because otherwise they would be equally as valid as your religious belief. (Merely being certain that if it isn't Christianity/Islam/Scientology etc. it must be untrue does not constitute proof)

2) If I claim that there is a three inch high, purple unicorn wearing an orange jumpsuit and sitting on your left shoulder whilst reciting unpublished Shakespearian sonnets in your ear you have to prove that I'm wrong? You can't see or hear it, well neither can I, that simply proves that our brains, via our eyes and ears, are incapable of detecting said unicorn; but I still believe it so it's true until you produce evidence proving that my belief is wrong.

The problems are that, ISTM, every argument you use against purple unicorns in orange jumpsuits

a) could be applied equally to the existence of god(s) and

b) none of them would disprove the existence of the unicorn.

Martin Luther apparently said, several times and presumably in German, that if you wish to be a Christian you must first pluck out the eye of reason - some of us can't do so.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
..... some of us can't do so.

doesn't mean we're right of course, but we rather suspect we may be and, anyroadup, we can't do so - that's how we are.

[ 28. March 2015, 23:05: Message edited by: HughWillRidmee ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But that statement by Luther (pluck out the eye of reason), can be applied to many things. For example, could I find love via reason, or trust, or hope? In fact, I'm not sure that I can find reality via reason.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
People who confidently (I might say, brashly) make the claim, "There is NO evidence for the reality of God …" none the less do not bother to provide any evidence -- not one shred of evidence -- for THEIR religious faith claim …
I'm struggling to understand this post.

Is it that you think that atheism (the absence of belief in the existence of a god or gods) is a faith based claim? If so; it isn't.

In case anyone thinks that atheism is a faith-based claim I offer the following:-

The rule is simple - when a disputed claim is made it is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate the validity of the claim (not the responsibility of the doubter to disprove it) and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you think the rule untrue consider the consequences of such a stance.

1) If you were religious you would have to be able to disprove the validity of every other religious belief that has ever existed because otherwise they would be equally as valid as your religious belief. (Merely being certain that if it isn't Christianity/Islam/Scientology etc. it must be untrue does not constitute proof)

2) If I claim that there is a three inch high, purple unicorn wearing an orange jumpsuit and sitting on your left shoulder whilst reciting unpublished Shakespearian sonnets in your ear you have to prove that I'm wrong? You can't see or hear it, well neither can I, that simply proves that our brains, via our eyes and ears, are incapable of detecting said unicorn; but I still believe it so it's true until you produce evidence proving that my belief is wrong.

The problems are that, ISTM, every argument you use against purple unicorns in orange jumpsuits

a) could be applied equally to the existence of god(s) and

b) none of them would disprove the existence of the unicorn.

Martin Luther apparently said, several times and presumably in German, that if you wish to be a Christian you must first pluck out the eye of reason - some of us can't do so.

I am not aware that anyone has proposed or embraced a claim about the reality if a three inch high purple unicorn dressed in an orange jumpsuit … So, who cares about that … ???

Nor is the issue any particular claim made by the late Rev. Fr. Prof. Dr. Martin Luther, OSA ...

But, yes … "A-Theism" is a religious faith claim when the positive truth claim is made that, "There is no God …" …

An "A-Theist" OTOH who simply passively does not actively believe in any God (or, gods) believes NOTHING about "God" (or, gods) ...

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
But, yes … "A-Theism" is a religious faith claim when the positive truth claim is made that, "There is no God …" …

An "A-Theist" OTOH who simply passively does not actively believe in any God (or, gods) believes NOTHING about "God" (or, gods) ...

Claiming that there is no God(s) is done, but it isn't atheism. It's usually referred to within the atheist community as either "Atheism+" or as "Strong Atheism". There are groups who call themselves Christians but whose claim would be denied by most mainstream believers.

I, and all the atheists I know, consider the concept of God(s) provable but unproven whilst the proof of a negative (there is no god) is rationally impossible.

It is conceivable that something which, were it detectable, would be considered to be a God (rather as a disinterested prime mover might be called a/the "God") could exist without there being any way of either proving or disproving it.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that statement by Luther (pluck out the eye of reason), can be applied to many things. For example, could I find love via reason, or trust, or hope? In fact, I'm not sure that I can find reality via reason.

It may be that love, trust, hope etc. are found through our unconscious mind and it may not - AIUI we just don't know enough (yet?). There is evidence of a chemical change in the brains of those who fall in love (which usually lasts about 6 years when requited and, if we're fortunate may continue as a deep, caring relationship). That the changes exist seems certain - ascribing cause and effect may be premature.

Or possibly Luther just lucked out!

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that statement by Luther (pluck out the eye of reason), can be applied to many things. For example, could I find love via reason, or trust, or hope? In fact, I'm not sure that I can find reality via reason.
It may be that love, trust, hope etc. are found through our unconscious mind and it may not - AIUI we just don't know enough (yet?). There is evidence of a chemical change in the brains of those who fall in love (which usually lasts about 6 years when requited and, if we're fortunate may continue as a deep, caring relationship). That the changes exist seems certain - ascribing cause and effect may be premature.

Or possibly Luther just lucked out!

Regarding the experience of falling and being 'in love" -- As it is written (and has been sung), "Fools rush where wise persons never go, but wise ones never fall in love, so who are they to know … ???"

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I am not aware that anyone has proposed or embraced a claim about the reality if a three inch high purple unicorn dressed in an orange jumpsuit … So, who cares about that … ???

You might do if his followers banded together to tell you that you could not be married to the person you love, if those who believed in his unicorn-ness were to be privileged in their access to power and to have their own internal legal system which they used to trump the laws that apply to you.

What if his followers fought to prevent you having affordable healthcare, insisted that you were liable for repairing their temples, gained massive financial subsidies from your involuntary state taxes or set out to convert you by offering inducements and/or promising eternal torment to you, your children or your vulnerable elderly relatives who didn't agree with them.

How would you feel sending your children to state-funded schools run by Unicornians, or being told that it was OK for Unicornian priests to perform marriages but that your marriage could only be validated by an official of the state and your priest was unacceptable?

Think you might care then?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that statement by Luther (pluck out the eye of reason), can be applied to many things. For example, could I find love via reason, or trust, or hope? In fact, I'm not sure that I can find reality via reason.
It may be that love, trust, hope etc. are found through our unconscious mind and it may not - AIUI we just don't know enough (yet?). There is evidence of a chemical change in the brains of those who fall in love (which usually lasts about 6 years when requited and, if we're fortunate may continue as a deep, caring relationship). That the changes exist seems certain - ascribing cause and effect may be premature.

Or possibly Luther just lucked out!

Well, I've found his comments useful in working with people. For example, I've worked a lot with people who didn't believe in love, (partly because they hadn't had much), (I mean in therapy).

Anyway, it was apparent to me that I could not use rational arguments against this, as their skepticism was existential. Nonetheless, it is possible to help people discover love, or rediscover it, but not via the power of reason.

I'm not saying that finding God is exactly analogous, but I can see a connection.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
I am not aware that anyone has proposed or embraced a claim about the reality if a three inch high purple unicorn dressed in an orange jumpsuit … So, who cares about that … ???
You might do if his followers banded together to tell you that you could not be married to the person you love, if those who believed in his unicorn-ness were to be privileged in their access to power and to have their own internal legal system which they used to trump the laws that apply to you.

What if his followers fought to prevent you having affordable healthcare, insisted that you were liable for repairing their temples, gained massive financial subsidies from your involuntary state taxes or set out to convert you by offering inducements and/or promising eternal torment to you, your children or your vulnerable elderly relatives who didn't agree with them.

How would you feel sending your children to state-funded schools run by Unicornians, or being told that it was OK for Unicornian priests to perform marriages but that your marriage could only be validated by an official of the state and your priest was unacceptable?

Think you might care then?

Facts not in evidence ...

I care about what IS happening and what may happen in the future … So, no, I'm not concerned about the social misbehavior of a hypothetical Purple Unicorn Sect ...

I would of course care very much if some group of people -- for any reason or none at all -- advocated and passed laws requiring that my firstborn child must be ground up into sausage and fed to dogs … But it's not happening, so I'm not really too worried about it …

Setting up a "what if ???" straw man doesn't constitute a valid point in a discussion ...

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Regarding the experience of falling and being 'in love" -- As it is written (and has been sung), "Fools rush where wise persons never go, but wise ones never fall in love, so who are they to know … ???"

I'm struggling again - the only relevance that I can conjure is the assumption that those who have not been religious can't know......??whatever?? If that's the case I might suggest that rationality could be enhanced by a lack of exposure to religion - I wouldn't know though, both the t-shirt and the (non-physical) scars are still fading.

As to falling/being in love - in my few but exhilarating experiences I was never aware of it being optional.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Think you might care then?
Facts not in evidence ...

I care about what IS happening and what may happen in the future … So, no, I'm not concerned about the social misbehavior of a hypothetical Purple Unicorn Sect ...

I would of course care very much if some group of people -- for any reason or none at all -- advocated and passed laws requiring that my firstborn child must be ground up into sausage and fed to dogs … But it's not happening, so I'm not really too worried about it …

Setting up a "what if ???" straw man doesn't constitute a valid point in a discussion ...

1 - The facts are in evidence - it's the justification that's absent, whether it be a purple unicorn or a biblical deity.

2 - and you shouldn't be too worried about it, Christians, AFAIK, aren't doing that. Oooops there I go ...responding to an invalid discussion point.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Think you might care then?
Facts not in evidence ...

I care about what IS happening and what may happen in the future … So, no, I'm not concerned about the social misbehavior of a hypothetical Purple Unicorn Sect ...

I would of course care very much if some group of people -- for any reason or none at all -- advocated and passed laws requiring that my firstborn child must be ground up into sausage and fed to dogs … But it's not happening, so I'm not really too worried about it …

Setting up a "what if ???" straw man doesn't constitute a valid point in a discussion ...
1 - The facts are in evidence - it's the justification that's absent, whether it be a purple unicorn or a biblical deity.

2 - and you shouldn't be too worried about it, Christians, AFAIK, aren't doing that. Oooops there I go ...responding to an invalid discussion point.

Human beings throughout history and across cultures are prone to sinful selfish actions and often make use of whatever ideology or excuse -- even religion -- is handy …

Are "science" and "technology" a bad deal because they have been used to invent and use poison gas and nuclear weapons … ??? Are architects evil because some of them designed the Nazi death camps … ???

"'Abuse' does not negate 'use' … "

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Regarding the experience of falling and being 'in love" -- As it is written (and has been sung), "Fools rush where wise persons never go, but wise ones never fall in love, so who are they to know … ???"
I'm struggling again - the only relevance that I can conjure is the assumption that those who have not been religious can't know......??whatever?? If that's the case I might suggest that rationality could be enhanced by a lack of exposure to religion - I wouldn't know though, both the t-shirt and the (non-physical) scars are still fading.

As to falling/being in love - in my few but exhilarating experiences I was never aware of it being optional.

So how far do you take the logic there me ol' son? Someone leaves their spouse and kids and runs off with someone else and say "Couldn't help it guv, it's the chemicals in me brain.' That alright with you?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The rule is simple - when a disputed claim is made it is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate the validity of the claim (not the responsibility of the doubter to disprove it) and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Who says that is the rule? And is it in their own argumentative interests to say that's the rule? Why should we believe them?

If one person claims that there is a real external world and the other that there is not, which one is the claimant? Who has to demonstrate the validity of their claim? How extraordinary is the claim that there is a real external world? Does the fact that lots of people believe it make it less extraordinary?

It's a stupid and arbitrary rule that falls apart if you ask what counts as a 'claim' and how you quantify 'extraordinary'.

A more convincing maxim is that the person who wants the other person to change their mind needs to offer reasons to do so. (This deals with both your examples.)

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The rule is simple - when a disputed claim is made it is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate the validity of the claim (not the responsibility of the doubter to disprove it) and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Who says that is the rule? And is it in their own argumentative interests to say that's the rule? Why should we believe them?

If one person claims that there is a real external world and the other that there is not, which one is the claimant? Who has to demonstrate the validity of their claim? How extraordinary is the claim that there is a real external world? Does the fact that lots of people believe it make it less extraordinary?

It's a stupid and arbitrary rule that falls apart if you ask what counts as a 'claim' and how you quantify 'extraordinary'.

A more convincing maxim is that the person who wants the other person to change their mind needs to offer reasons to do so. (This deals with both your examples.)

Very well said. I believe I agree.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

HughWillRidmee, as well as humble in this toothless lion's den you are of course right. Rationally strong atheism wins hands down. And not just in logos but ethos up against mainstream theism. But God still is. He's in our pathos.

Oh and Teilhard - there are no mistakes.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Ah yes. Job. That would be the one where God allows someone to be tortured over a bet. "Rewards" Job by not lifing a finger to stop his wife and children being murdered and then replacing them with new ones (because I guess women and children are expendable and easily replaced?) and refuses to answer Jobs perfectly reasonable questions but instead rather childishly chants a playground level mantra of "where were you then".

If this story is meant to be an insight into the nature of God, if this God exists and I meet him upon my death I will take great pleasure in spitting in his eye.

Worship that? Never.

[ 29. March 2015, 09:51: Message edited by: George Spigot ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

A more convincing maxim is that the person who wants the other person to change their mind needs to offer reasons to do so. (This deals with both your examples.)

That works

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

As woodenly literal as any modern YECist or IngoBist.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
HughWillRidmee, as well as humble in this toothless lion's den you are of course right. Rationally strong atheism wins hands down. And not just in logos but ethos up against mainstream theism. But God still is. He's in our pathos.

Oh and Teilhard - there are no mistakes.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, there are.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Yes it does.

No there aren't.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I can't see how love can be found via a rational argument, so Luther's point about reason is correct here. I've been faced with utter skeptics about love, and rational argumentation would actually be counter-productive.

But love can be found in other ways - like God.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes it does.

No there aren't.

Does not

Are too

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Bugger, made me snort out loud and smile. But I'm not telling you that. I maintain my slitty eyed slitty-eyedness.

Strong atheism wins all the arguments by not losing. It's still wrong. And sweet like George: atheistic on the basis of a four thousand year old story. Bless. At least be atheistic like Dr. Fry. Which no apologetics touch.

Mistakes in creation? God could have done it better? By changing what dimensionless constants how?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes it does.

No there aren't.
Does not

Are too

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I, and all the atheists I know, consider the concept of God(s) provable but unproven whilst the proof of a negative (there is no god) is rationally impossible.

What would you consider proof?

Moo

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Only endless shared reality, surely?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It seems odd to me, if an atheist is assuming naturalism, empiricism and rationalism, and is then asking to be shown something outside those domains. How would that work?

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems odd to me, if an atheist is assuming naturalism, empiricism and rationalism, and is then asking to be shown something outside those domains. How would that work?

Yes …
Think of an utterly devoted baseball fan, "who lives, eats and breathes" the history and rules of baseball, and then complains that, say, "lacrosse" is illegitimate because it isn't baseball ...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems odd to me, if an atheist is assuming naturalism, empiricism and rationalism, and is then asking to be shown something outside those domains. How would that work?
Yes …
Think of an utterly devoted baseball fan, "who lives, eats and breathes" the history and rules of baseball, and then complains that, say, "lacrosse" is illegitimate because it isn't baseball ...

Well, I meant it as a genuine question. I don't really understand what atheists mean when they ask for proof or evidence, since scientific evidence is couched in naturalistic terms. So they are asking for naturalistic evidence for something non-natural?

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I, and all the atheists I know, consider the concept of God(s) provable but unproven whilst the proof of a negative (there is no god) is rationally impossible.
What would you consider proof?

Moo

Undergoing a little theological training a couple of decades back (I know, I know, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!) we were taken through all the standard "proofs" of the existence of GOd - each one accepted in its time as incontrovertible. And each one honestly subverted by our liberal teacher. He wasn't looking for slam-dunk arguments in any age.

Sadly, there are still many Christians of the "mad, bad, or God" school who can offer you half a dozen proofs for the existence of God before breakfast. The guy you just questioned is probably much more intelligent than I am, but if you asked me the same question, this would be my reply:

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I'm still waiting for the one being argued on this thread to be refuted by the atheists. Anybody can refute a weakened version of those arguments. I don't expect anything different. Attacking straw men with circular arguments is the only tool in the new atheist toolbox.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm still waiting for the one being argued on this thread to be refuted by the atheists. Anybody can refute a weakened version of those arguments. I don't expect anything different. Attacking straw men with circular arguments is the only tool in the new atheist toolbox.

But, by God, it makes them feel good.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm still waiting for the one being argued on this thread to be refuted by the atheists. Anybody can refute a weakened version of those arguments. I don't expect anything different. Attacking straw men with circular arguments is the only tool in the new atheist toolbox.

I think an atheist like P. Z. Myers would say that it's not refutable, because it places God outside nature, and is incoherent, or not even wrong.

Well, this makes me puzzled that atheists ask for evidence, then, if no such thing is feasible. I'm not sure what they're looking for.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems odd to me, if an atheist is assuming naturalism, empiricism and rationalism, and is then asking to be shown something outside those domains. How would that work?
Yes …
Think of an utterly devoted baseball fan, "who lives, eats and breathes" the history and rules of baseball, and then complains that, say, "lacrosse" is illegitimate because it isn't baseball ...
Well, I meant it as a genuine question. I don't really understand what atheists mean when they ask for proof or evidence, since scientific evidence is couched in naturalistic terms. So they are asking for naturalistic evidence for something non-natural?

Exactly so …

Further, the game is *rigged* when "God" is defined in terms of "nature," i.e., as "SUPER-natural" …

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

I was reading something today by the cosmologist Alexander Valenkin who quoted favourably the dictum "An argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a proof is what it takes to convince an unreasonable man."

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Like I said...circular reasoning is the only tool in the toolbox.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I was reading something today by the cosmologist Alexander Valenkin who quoted favourably the dictum "An argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a proof is what it takes to convince an unreasonable man."

He is wrong. I have seen plenty unconvinced by a proof. The normal tactic is to say it does not address the premis in some way.

Jengie

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm still waiting for the one being argued on this thread to be refuted by the atheists. Anybody can refute a weakened version of those arguments. I don't expect anything different. Attacking straw men with circular arguments is the only tool in the new atheist toolbox.
I think an atheist like P. Z. Myers would say that it's not refutable, because it places God outside nature, and is incoherent, or not even wrong.

Well, this makes me puzzled that atheists ask for evidence, then, if no such thing is feasible. I'm not sure what they're looking for.

I can only tell you what this atheist is looking for: not evidence at all. What I'd really like is a little ordinary honesty from folks on all sides of the question, viz.:

1. The notion that there's some boss skydaddymommy running the whole show is utterly ludicrous.

2. The notion that the whole show is one enormous intricately interconnected oopsie is every bit as ludicrous as # 1.

3. So are all the other notions.

4. We humans know diddly-squat about anything, and that, friends, goes for apparently material as well as apparently non-material realities, assuming we'd recognize either when it fell in our root beer.

5. We've had eons of fun arguing these questions.

6. Except when we've slaughtered each other over them (note: this slaughter is entirely the fault of the humans, not of either the material or non-material realities which may or may not comprise or partly comprise said humans).

7. Meanwhile, who do we think we're kidding? If we put this much energy into some practical need, we'd probably be in serious danger of solving it.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Like I said...circular reasoning is the only tool in the toolbox.

IOW, "God" is DEFINED out*of*Reality ...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
The crucial difference between what you are talking about and modern science is the latter includes means to evaluate success or lack of it. A common objection to the metaphysical proof you speak of is simply that it is unwise to draw conclusions from extrapolations about causality way beyond our experience.

First, much of modern science is not simply "well tested and true", but rather what I would call "coherent story making". 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". It connects various theories and results to each other in a consistent way, and kind of "borrows" believability by being consistent with experimental evidence and its corresponding theory elsewhere. A lot of science is actually done in this integrative mode, where the hope is that the sum is greater than the parts - so that from fairly weak and disparate data a coherent understanding can be formed. Unsurprisingly, such constructs often can be adjusted rather flexibly to the failure of any constituent part. This raises questions about the falsifiability of actual (rather than idealised) scientific work. Witness the slow death of supersymmetry in our days.

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...

Third, the question what counts as "sufficient evidence" for some scientific theory, and why, is far from simple. One could argue that the success of modern science is one of social engineering. Instead of trying to specify objective criteria for success, one devolves this into a majority consensus of experts. The results of this are not clean cut just because they are written in a "mathematical" way. I've long thought that one of the most honest figures in physics was Figure 2 in the Introduction here (page 17, warning: 53 MB PDF file). The figure has been around in various versions for a long time. Consider the error bars, what they are supposed to mean and what a few decades of scientific history show that they do mean.

Fourth, a lot is made out of our technological success. But the relationship of science and engineering (and other applied fields, like medicine) is complicated and generally not just a simple matter of "applying science". A lot of engineering is heuristic, based on its own "trial and error" data gathering. Engineers have their own kind of mathematics, unsurprisingly more concerned with working with real system (like say a Kalman filter). Where they use science directly, it is often in a "good enough" manner. A fluid might not really be incompressible and inviscid, but for calculating flows in this tech problem it will do. Etc. I think it's a often a bit like the Wild West. First, you have the trappers and other trail blazers. Those are the scientists. Then you have the first settler treks, that's adventurous R&D engineering. And then you have the proper settlements establishing towns and roads etc. That's everyday engineering. It is true in a sense that it all started with those trappers, but it is not really true that they build the cities. It would actually be interesting to think about what it means that the world is not just understandable (science) but also useable (engineering). It's not quite the same thing.

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.

Interestingly, metaphysical proof is in a sense more secure than (modern natural) science. Because it attempts to extract that which is foundational to all observations of nature, rather than looking at the content of some specific observation. You can consider this simply in terms of amassed data. If you are looking at a specific effect, then the only data that establishes your knowledge is the data collected for this effect. But if you look at what underlies all effects, then in some sense any data you collect about any effect contributes to your knowledge.

Consequentially, metaphysical proof is more "mathematical" in nature than "(modern) physical". Because one is operating on those things that underlie all observations of nature, one can attempt true demonstrations. That's not simply a matter of confirming some hypothesis statistically with a certain amount of data. It is making conclusions that must necessarily hold true because they are based on principles underlying all data. For example: "a contingent entity must have a cause." This is saying something about nature, but not something specific to some experiment or observation. It is rather almost a kind of summary of why we are doing experiments and collecting observations. It is the success of the data gathering enterprise as a whole, rather than of any particular data, which motivates us to believe this to be true. Given such a proposition, we can then deduce other truths. They must be truths in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy sense. In a sense we have no choice but to believe our own minds. Not that we cannot err, but cognition cannot declare itself to be in principle erroneous. That would be like: "This statement is a lie."

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
For instance our observations of natural reality at this moment in time means that in the Standard Model of particle physics we have a fairly good account of around 4% of the Universe. So the best understanding we have of the fundamental nature of our universe is restricted to 4% of it. The other 96% that we think is made of dark energy and dark matter is a pretty much a closed book. And if we are wrong about the existence of the 96% then we possibly know a lot less about the 4% than we think we do. This is hardly a rich seam of data to draw conclusions about universals, especially when you consider our - ahem - universe may well be only a small part of reality as a whole.

What a strange argument, perhaps we could call it "atheism of the gaps". First, this is fairly ignorant as far as the physics and cosmology goes. We are assuming that there could be "dark content" out there, precisely because we see deviations between our measurements (e.g., galaxy rotation curves) and the contribution we expect theoretically from visible matter. Fixing this with dark content says nothing else than that such dark content obeys the relevant, known laws of physics but happens to be unobserved (for some reason). For example, this dark content will have typical gravitational effects. The whole dark content idea is one massive show of confidence in existing physical law! We are so confident in what we already know that we simply go ahead and predict a majority of unobserved stuff when our observations fail to match up with our theoretical prediction. The alternative would be to assume that our physical laws are simply wrong, but we don't do that...

Second, while all this is really a bit of a bummer for physics, it is almost meaningless for metaphysics. 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. This brings us exactly back to the point I made above. If you are worrying about specific observations, like in physical theory, then relevant data can easily sway you this way or that. It is physics that gets shaken by such stuff. If however you think about the fundamentals of all observations, then the particular content of one observation means very little. 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.

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
I'm interested in where you stand on this. You seem to believe that there's a map existing now, heavily influenced by the work of Aquinas, that, regardless of what we might discover in the uncharted areas of the actual territory, is accurate enough to tell us about any territory that exists. If I have that right, how do you justify that belief? If not, what have I got wrong about it?

No, what I believe in - in terms of your analogy - is that all sorts of people make all sorts of maps, and that one can say general things about mapmaking! Let's call this study of what is going on in mapmaking "meta-mapmaking". In the field of "meta-mapmaking" one can then for example say things like "a good map is always less complex than reality, losing information to increase clarity, and has less spatial extent than reality, losing spatial detail to achieve a manageable size." These are statements not about any specific map, but about all maps in general. From this one can deduce other "meta-mapmaking" truths. For example: "it follows that however good a map is, we can always find something in reality that is not represented in the map, even though the map is of that part of reality." This truth can be demonstrated quite apart from drawing any specific kind off map, because it is a logical consequence of something we have gleaned from the general mapmaking process.

Aquinas et al. are not somehow the giants of mapmaking who by some magical devilry created a super-map that beats the combined efforts of hundreds of thousands of modern mapmakers armed with satellites and lasers and whatnot. Rather, they were doing meta-mapmaking. 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. Because they thought about what goes into mapmaking, and what we can say based on that, rather than thinking about any specific map. Meta-mapmaking is not mapmaking. Metaphysics is not physics. There is no competition here. Indeed, to some extent the ancients can be scolded for trying to bootstrap physics from metaphysics (and mostly failing). But in the same way moderns can be accused of rejecting metaphysics over physics (and mostly being silly). But metaphysics operates on the principles behind all physics, behind all human investigations of nature. If we can say something there, then it will hold as much true as the human mind can grasp nature in the first place. We are looking at the act of grasping nature in metaphysics, but at what we have grasped from nature in physics.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

<philosophy OCD to follow, please ignore if not so afflicted>

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We are looking at the act of grasping nature in metaphysics, but at what we have grasped from nature in physics.

Hmm, the way I have written that it sounds more like epistemology. I guess you could say "graspability" has two parts, one is about how things are (metaphysics), the other is about how we hence grasp them (epistemology), neither of which is however particularly concerned with the specific thing grasped (physics). Something like that... Anyway, as you were. [Biased]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think an atheist like P. Z. Myers would say that it's not refutable, because it places God outside nature, and is incoherent, or not even wrong.

Well, this makes me puzzled that atheists ask for evidence, then, if no such thing is feasible. I'm not sure what they're looking for.

Are atheists asking for evidence? - some may be but that's irrelevant isn't it? The point is that we are told the stories but are offered nothing that we can interpret as satisfactory evidence. Doesn't mean we want evidence (we don't want the story either but people keep trying to sell it to us), just that we expect a decent reason before changing the direction of our lives. Should people accept whatever they're told without some indication that it's valid? With so many versions of religion out there it is surely incumbent, as with a car or a house, upon each option to offer a justification for choosing it, isn't it? Perhaps it means that we are content enough not to want change?

The emperor's new clothes is a valid comparison if one is not viewing from inside the distorting cell wall of the soap-bubble of religion. Then some of us look at religion's effects on humanity (both as individuals and en masse) and come to the conclusion that the net harm caused by religious belief is too high a price to pay to settle for a quiet life. The miniscule possibility of a kernel of truth buried in the detritus is not worth, to us, the aggro that the detritus delivers. That, unsurprisingly, upsets some people who have a conviction that their version of religion is important enough to justify ignoring the detritus.

What am I looking for? I think what I'm looking for is neutrality - which I suspect we all think would lead to the eventual demise of religion- hence I'm not holding my breath..
I would like religious people to desist from making false claims and immorally (in my view) applying pressure to the vulnerable. Loose the fancy dress, the gold leaf, the bells and smells, the pomp and ceremony designed to create an impression of unquestionable authority. Stop claiming that god is a mystery, but he has told an elite few exactly how he wants me to lead my life - as though he would be incapable of making his wishes, and his reality, apparent to each and every one of us if he wanted us so informed. People should believe what they will, religious or otherwise but thy shouldn't use the word "know" when they don't. Convinced, certain, sure, without doubt, all may be true but no-one knows god(s) - the sheer diversity and irrationality of the inconsistent and incompatible qualities people attribute to their god(s) bears irrefutable testimony to that. And no-one should accept blame (the god good, people bad con) as if it is their fault that their understanding of their god(s) is imperfect. It ain't their fault that their god(s) can't communicate clearly enough for humanity to understand the content.

It's my experience that religion thrives in a heads I win, tails you lose environment. (over)simply - if it's good, praise god; if it's bad, blame yourself. Well, if some people are content to be a serial loser (original sin etc.) that's OK. Any attempt to infect other people with the guilt/absolution story I consider abhorrent, but, if people are misled into thinking it must be done, it should be done morally. I've heard too many attempts at conversion by glib falsehoods (you have faith every time you turn a tap on etc.); I know, from experience, that that means that the seller is getting desperate. State the case truthfully and appropriately to those able to decide, not the mentally frail, school children and those who are in despair (all popular targets for evangelisation) - that's both cowardly and immoral.

False guilt destroys people as readily as deserved guilt and religion (not uniquely) actively promotes false guilt. Religion denigrates the scientific method because it can't survive in its presence, yet science has provided food, fresh water, immunisation, medicines, semi-conductors, access to knowledge etc. etc. to the benefit of mankind (and also weapons and synthetic mind altering drugs etc.) whilst religion provides .............what? an unlikely and undemonstrable hope of a better future in return for an acquiescent present? I know about creating a need in order to satisfy it by selling something - I was good at recognising genuine need and developing it, I never stooped to falsifying need. (re-reading, that sounds pious, so be it, it just happens that it's also true).

How many Christians, particularly their leaders, have no savings, no investments, no property and no pension plan? How many have sold all they have and given it to the poor without negotiating a future supply that meets at least their basic needs. Yes, of course it's impractical to the point of being silly, no I didn't do it, but it's their book and their god's clear instruction - not mine. If they talk the talk without walking the walk they should be exposed to justified ridicule shouldn't they?

You asked didn't you!

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Metaphysics is one removed from the hustle and bustle of physics, it is about the general principles behind that busyness.

Ooooh I like that. Philosophy and Hermeneutics 101.

[ 30. March 2015, 02:00: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
What am I looking for? I think what I'm looking for is neutrality - which I suspect we all think would lead to the eventual demise of religion- hence I'm not holding my breath..

What do you mean by "neutrality" -- that we stop pretending we believe what we believe? In what twisted version of reality is that reasonable?

quote:
I would like religious people to desist from making false claims and immorally (in my view) applying pressure to the vulnerable.

I agree about applying pressure to the vulnerable. But what "false claims"? We don't believe that we are making "false claims" -- so you're basically saying you believe religious people should stop being religious people. Then the world would become atheist. Um, yeah, sure, almost by definition, right? This is absurd.

quote:
Loose the fancy dress, the gold leaf, the bells and smells, the pomp and ceremony designed to create an impression of unquestionable authority.

Two things: (1) churches without any of these things are going strong, and making converts all the time; (2) why should I care what some disaffected atheist wants from MY church? You want religion without bells and smells? Start your own. Don't DARE presume to tell me how to conduct my religious affairs.

quote:
Stop claiming that god is a mystery,

Yeah, and you stop saying what you think is true in public, too. Why not start today? Then we'll know that you are being sincere in this wish.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Metaphysics is one removed from the hustle and bustle of physics, it is about the general principles behind that busyness.

Ooooh I like that. Philosophy and Hermeneutics 101.

The central vital bit is: Epistemology ... If that isn't well in order, "metaphysics" is just so much mumbo and jumbo ...

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The central vital bit is: Epistemology ... If that isn't well in order, "metaphysics" is just so much mumbo and jumbo ...

Arguably you need to have a few examples of knowledge about in order to be able to ask what knowledge is.

There's a line of argument, with which I agree, that the problem with modern epistemology is that it works from the first person - 'how can I be sure that I do know anything' - rather than from the question 'what is knowledge and how do people get it'? The third person perspective allows for the possibility that knowledge is acquired in the course of social interaction and education, rather than by philosophers sitting on their own in rooms. But then there's no reason to make the third-person question foundational to the whole philosophical enterprise.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The central vital bit is: Epistemology ... If that isn't well in order, "metaphysics" is just so much mumbo and jumbo ...

Or perhaps it is exactly the other way around. Quoting the ever useful Ed Feser once more:

quote:
Ancient and medieval philosophy in general, and Thomism in particular, emphasized metaphysics over epistemology, and objective reality over our subjective awareness of it. The right order of inquiry, from this point of view, is first to determine the nature of the world and the place of human beings within it, and then on that basis to investigate how human beings come to acquire knowledge of the world. Modern philosophy, beginning with Rene Descartes (1596-1650), reverses this approach, tending as it does to start with questions about how we can come to have knowledge of the world and only then going on to consider what the world must be like, based on an account of our knowledge of it. In particular, both Descartes’ rationalism and the empiricism of writers like Locke, Berkeley, and Hume begin with the individual conscious subject or self, develop a theory about how that self can know anything, and then determine what reality in general must be like in line with their respective theories of knowledge.

One result of this subjectivist method was to make objective reality and common sense problematic in a way they had not been for Aristotle and Aquinas; skepticism thus came to seem a serious threat, and idealism (the view that the material world is an illusion and that mind alone is real) came to seem a serious option. Another consequence was that even when some sort of objective reality was acknowledged, doubts were raised about the possibility of knowing much about it beyond what the senses could tell us directly. Accordingly, grand metaphysical systems of the sort presented by Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas were called into question. The philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was an especially influential expression of hostility to traditional metaphysics, distinguishing as it does between “phenomena” (the world as it appears to us, of which we can have knowledge) and “noumena” (the world as it exists in itself, which we cannot know).

I think the basic problem here is that human knowing is pulling yourself out of the mud by your own hair. If you look too closely, it all starts to look rather circular and impossible.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Hugh. You're a lad aren't you? You complain about religious people putting pressure on the vulnerable, having ignored completely upthread the militant atheism in the educational system of Soviet Russia, reinforced by a police state that brooked no dissent. Not much "neutrality" there then.

Quick reminder of what we were saying a page or two ago:

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Regarding the experience of falling and being 'in love" -- As it is written (and has been sung), "Fools rush where wise persons never go, but wise ones never fall in love, so who are they to know … ???"
I'm struggling again - the only relevance that I can conjure is the assumption that those who have not been religious can't know......??whatever?? If that's the case I might suggest that rationality could be enhanced by a lack of exposure to religion - I wouldn't know though, both the t-shirt and the (non-physical) scars are still fading.

As to falling/being in love - in my few but exhilarating experiences I was never aware of it being optional.
So how far do you take the logic there me ol' son? Someone leaves their spouse and kids and runs off with someone else and say "Couldn't help it guv, it's the chemicals in me brain.' That alright with you?

Serious point here mate - how much of what we do, do you reckon is down to neural processes over which we have no control?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Hugh. You're a lad aren't you? You complain about religious people putting pressure on the vulnerable, having ignored completely upthread the militant atheism in the educational system of Soviet Russia, reinforced by a police state that brooked no dissent. Not much "neutrality" there then.

Right......because atheism = communism? Ok then.

And I guess Christians are currently burning heretics at the steak?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

It seems like this effort to persuade atheists that unbelief in a creator God is irrational is as fruitless as an atheist attempting to prove that belief is irrational.

We all know it is irrational, that is the nature of faith. Clearly there are persuading arguments - which cause people who were atheists to become theists and the other way around. But also clearly neither side has a knock-out blow which is undeniable proof to the other. It isn't that either side is avoiding evidence, it is that it is a different worldview and that the evidence is interpreted and understood in different ways.

The whole debate is rather tired, and the conclusions any one person gets to are dependent either upon their pre-existing worldview or a different one they are prepared to accept because it makes more sense of the world.

Unilaterally declaring that one "knows" that there are no gods or supernatural is as ridiculous as stating that one "knows" a deity must exist to have created everything.

And the old chestnut of declaring atheism a faith like a religion is also pretty tired. In some respects some people may indeed own the philosophy like a religion, but a lot (maybe a majority) of actual atheists are such because they see nothing to attract them in religion, it does not seem to be answering the questions they're asking or they just are not thinking about it.

In the same way, I might not support Liverpool football club. This might be hatred due to my support of a rival football club - I have taken on an alternative view which is a rival to the Liverpool-supporting meme.

But it might as easily be because I have no interest in football. Not supporting Liverpool does not automatically mean that I have equal and opposite fanatical support for another football team.

That's madness.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Chicken and egg philosophy is so much fun. Perhaps because it seems to underlie absolutely everything.! [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

We all know it is irrational, that is the nature of faith.

You have an odd definition of rationality here. I don't think faith is irrational. As you yourself said, there are reasons for faith.

[ 30. March 2015, 11:15: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Hugh. You're a lad aren't you? You complain about religious people putting pressure on the vulnerable, having ignored completely upthread the militant atheism in the educational system of Soviet Russia, reinforced by a police state that brooked no dissent. Not much "neutrality" there then.
Right......because atheism = communism? Ok then.

And I guess Christians are currently burning heretics at the steak?

Atheism and Marxism are not the same thing. That's pretty clear.

However, all the founders of communism (Marx, Lenin, Engels) regarded atheism as foundational to their project. The whole thing is built on atheism. It was only later forms, which have had little traction outside their areas of origin, that rejected that foundational link.

( The Fount of All Knowledge on Marxist-Leninist ("Scientific") atheism.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You have an odd definition of rationality here. I don't think faith is irrational. As you yourself said, there are reasons for faith.

Well y'know, read the philosophers who have a better handle on this than me: Socrates, Plato, Kierkegaard, Kant etc.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Hugh. You're a lad aren't you? You complain about religious people putting pressure on the vulnerable, having ignored completely upthread the militant atheism in the educational system of Soviet Russia, reinforced by a police state that brooked no dissent. Not much "neutrality" there then.
Right......because atheism = communism? Ok then.

And I guess Christians are currently burning heretics at the steak?
Atheism and Marxism are not the same thing. That's pretty clear.

However, all the founders of communism (Marx, Lenin, Engels) regarded atheism as foundational to their project. The whole thing is built on atheism. It was only later forms, which have had little traction outside their areas of origin, that rejected that foundational link.

( The Fount of All Knowledge on Marxist-Leninist ("Scientific") atheism.

Wow...all these years and I never once realised I was a power hungry communist. Thank you for this. Time for me to go out and murder some people I guess.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
However, all the founders of communism (Marx, Lenin, Engels) regarded atheism as foundational to their project. The whole thing is built on atheism.

What do you mean by 'foundational' here?

It is true that Marx thought that rejection of religion followed from his political economic analysis. It is true also that they thought religion was one of the phenomena that prevented people from realising that their political economic analysis was true. That doesn't mean that there is a thing called atheism that Marx took one step further. Marx wouldn't have been terribly surprised at atheist capitalists, and he didn't justify communism on the grounds that it was better at eliminating religion.

While 'some atheists persecute and indoctrinate people' is sufficient to reject 'only religious people persecute or indoctrinate people', it is irrelevant to the claim 'all religious people indoctrinate people'. The latter statement is pretty stupid in its own right, but not for anything to do with communism.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well y'know, read the philosophers who have a better handle on this than me: Socrates, Plato, Kierkegaard, Kant etc.

In so far as we can map modern categories onto Plato, Plato thinks faith is rational (at least in the Republic). We can't read Socrates, because he probably didn't write anything, and certainly didn't leave us any. Kant is ambiguous. He thinks reason cannot justify faith, but he does think reason can make room for faith. If we distinguish between two positions: a) faith is irrational in that rationality believes it goes beyond what is justified by the evidence; and b) faith is a-rational in that rationality leaves the option open either way, Kant is clearly b) with regards to pure reason. (And he notoriously thinks faith is required by practical reason.)
So really of your examples Kierkegaard is the only one who really thinks faith necessarily goes beyond the evidence, and even there it's not clear to me that he thinks it's irrational as opposed to a-rational. (And even that's complicated by Kierkegaard's irony.)

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The whole debate is rather tired, and the conclusions any one person gets to are dependent either upon their pre-existing worldview or a different one they are prepared to accept because it makes more sense of the world.

Believing that a worldview makes more sense of the world certainly looks like a use of reason to me. Just because reason isn't sufficient to prove conclusions either way doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

quote:
And the old chestnut of declaring atheism a faith like a religion is also pretty tired. In some respects some people may indeed own the philosophy like a religion, but a lot (maybe a majority) of actual atheists are such because they see nothing to attract them in religion, it does not seem to be answering the questions they're asking or they just are not thinking about it.

You move rather quickly from 'atheism' to 'the philosophy'. In so far as atheism cannot be said to be a faith, it cannot be said to be a philosophy either.
Also, I think the people who just don't care are in general not the people participating in discussions of religion on the internet.
One might also argue that people who don't think about these questions aren't so much without a philosophy as using hand-me-down scraps without thinking. Just because someone doesn't think about economics doesn't mean they don't make judgements about whether they'll get a better price and quality from the supermarket or from the local corner shop. I at least think that a lot of philosophy is about trying to make explicit and open to question the embedded and sometimes contradictory worldviews and social rationalities of the philosopher's society.

We can distinguish between things people mean when they say 'atheism'.
a) a mere negative definition, that lumps together everything that isn't either monotheistic or polytheistic.
In this sense, atheism implies nothing about acceptance of science, rejection of belief in fairies or astrology, liberal ethics, or so on.

b) the sort of Whiggish liberal democratic scientific rationalism espoused by Richard Dawkins, and by most people who argue against religion on internet discussion groups.
This is not a mere absence of belief. The scientific rationalist position could be described as a faith position for two reasons:
i) it is believed that certain features of any broadly sane philosophical position e.g. the general reliability of knowledge about the external world cannot be justified by any rational standards, and therefore should be considered a matter of 'faith'. If I distinguish between irrationality (contrary to the rationally justifiable position) and a-rationality, this line of argument takes it that scientific humanism relies upon a-rational commitments.
ii) it is believed that the reasons alleged to support scientific humanism as opposed to any other philosophical worldview are not sufficient to establish it. That is, someone might think that scientific humanism is at best less rationally compelling than other positions and at worst actively irrational, and therefore deserves to be considered a 'faith' position.

c) either secular humanism or any one of the other general worldviews that reject religion, such as post-Nietzschean postmodernism. About which each such position much the same could be said as under b.

I'm not entirely sure that I think either use of 'faith' (i or ii above) can be used without distorting the theological meaning of 'faith'. Nevertheless, there are open questions here that cannot be dismissed either by talk of absence of belief or by analogies with football teams.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
The central vital bit is: Epistemology ... If that isn't well in order, "metaphysics" is just so much mumbo and jumbo ...
Arguably you need to have a few examples of knowledge about in order to be able to ask what knowledge is.

There's a line of argument, with which I agree, that the problem with modern epistemology is that it works from the first person - 'how can I be sure that I do know anything' - rather than from the question 'what is knowledge and how do people get it'? The third person perspective allows for the possibility that knowledge is acquired in the course of social interaction and education, rather than by philosophers sitting on their own in rooms. But then there's no reason to make the third-person question foundational to the whole philosophical enterprise.

Yes ... In some respects, in fact Epistemology, while the central bit, is also one of the easiest ...

On the face of it, obviously empirical knowledge, i.e., that which derives from experience, is preferred ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Believing that a worldview makes more sense of the world certainly looks like a use of reason to me. Just because reason isn't sufficient to prove conclusions either way doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

Oh no, I don't think it is irrelevant, I just don't think it is really possible to argue outwith of the worldview within which you operate.

So the idea that it is possible to prove something (and I'm talking about philosophical rather than scientific proof) in a way that every right-thinking Greek would agree with is wrong.

Well, at least it is both right and wrong. Right in the sense that it is possible to prove something to someone that is internally consistent if they accept the basis of your worldview - so if all Greeks had essentially the same worldview, then it it is possible to be rational within that framework and prove things to the satisfaction of others who also hold that framework.

But clearly also wrong because the ideal breaks down because not everyone is a Greek and not all Greeks hold the same fundamentals And if you are in an environment where Greek philosophy cuts no dice at all, it seems pretty meaningless guff.

Personally, I think Kierkegaard captured the contrast of different kinds of knowledge really well, and of course he was living in the light of the Greek philosophers before him.

So, I think, he was able to elegantly show the flaws in being totally logical with the bounds of ones worldview - but dismissing the possibility of the prophetic. So living in Nazi Germany and following all the rules needed a dose of the prophetic breaking through the bounds of what was generally accepted to be right and wrong.

But at the same time he shows that the one who claims to be following only the divine prophetic 'God told me' ethic is pretty dangerous because you can't argue with him using logical argument (because, at the final analysis, he'll argue you are arguing with the will of God, and there is no way to persuade him any different).

Kant took this a stage further, as you mention.

Logical, rational knowledge is a different thing to prophetic divine knowledge. It is not possible to interrogate the one with the other and mixing the two things is a wrong way to think, in my opinion. But, I also think both things should be held in tension with each other. Allowing either to argue that the other does not exist is a dangerous thing.

quote:
You move rather quickly from 'atheism' to 'the philosophy'. In so far as atheism cannot be said to be a faith, it cannot be said to be a philosophy either.

Agree. Not believing in Liverpool football club is not necessarily a philosophy. But, maybe, if you are an enthusiastic supporter of Everton, it might be.

quote:
Also, I think the people who just don't care are in general not the people participating in discussions of religion on the internet.
One might also argue that people who don't think about these questions aren't so much without a philosophy as using hand-me-down scraps without thinking. Just because someone doesn't think about economics doesn't mean they don't make judgements about whether they'll get a better price and quality from the supermarket or from the local corner shop. I at least think that a lot of philosophy is about trying to make explicit and open to question the embedded and sometimes contradictory worldviews and social rationalities of the philosopher's society.

I'm not sure about this. The person who is saying 'I think there is a bit too much Liverpool FC on TV' is not necessarily taking a view against Liverpool and for Everton (although they might be). They might just disapprove of football. Similarly, the one who says there is too much religion in society is not necessarily advocating a particular alternative form of secularism. Or atheism. Or anything else.

Nobody anywhere who is expressing dislike about something in public life is automatically advocating for something else nor necessarily agreeing with the thing that others who are also expressing dislike are saying.

quote:
We can distinguish between things people mean when they say 'atheism'.
a) a mere negative definition, that lumps together everything that isn't either monotheistic or polytheistic.
In this sense, atheism implies nothing about acceptance of science, rejection of belief in fairies or astrology, liberal ethics, or so on.

b) the sort of Whiggish liberal democratic scientific rationalism espoused by Richard Dawkins, and by most people who argue against religion on internet discussion groups.
This is not a mere absence of belief. The scientific rationalist position could be described as a faith position for two reasons:
i) it is believed that certain features of any broadly sane philosophical position e.g. the general reliability of knowledge about the external world cannot be justified by any rational standards, and therefore should be considered a matter of 'faith'. If I distinguish between irrationality (contrary to the rationally justifiable position) and a-rationality, this line of argument takes it that scientific humanism relies upon a-rational commitments.
ii) it is believed that the reasons alleged to support scientific humanism as opposed to any other philosophical worldview are not sufficient to establish it. That is, someone might think that scientific humanism is at best less rationally compelling than other positions and at worst actively irrational, and therefore deserves to be considered a 'faith' position.

c) either secular humanism or any one of the other general worldviews that reject religion, such as post-Nietzschean postmodernism. About which each such position much the same could be said as under b.

I'm not entirely sure that I think either use of 'faith' (i or ii above) can be used without distorting the theological meaning of 'faith'. Nevertheless, there are open questions here that cannot be dismissed either by talk of absence of belief or by analogies with football teams.

Yes, that's quite well explained. Personally, I think Dawkins does no favours to most atheists and is not particularly representative of anyone other than himself.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
However, all the founders of communism (Marx, Lenin, Engels) regarded atheism as foundational to their project. The whole thing is built on atheism.
What do you mean by 'foundational' here?

It is true that Marx thought that rejection of religion followed from his political economic analysis. It is true also that they thought religion was one of the phenomena that prevented people from realising that their political economic analysis was true. That doesn't mean that there is a thing called atheism that Marx took one step further. Marx wouldn't have been terribly surprised at atheist capitalists, and he didn't justify communism on the grounds that it was better at eliminating religion.

While 'some atheists persecute and indoctrinate people' is sufficient to reject 'only religious people persecute or indoctrinate people', it is irrelevant to the claim 'all religious people indoctrinate people'. The latter statement is pretty stupid in its own right, but not for anything to do with communism.

By foundational, I mean simply that it was one of the building blocks on which Marx developed his theories.

Following Feuerbach, he considered that any concept of god was "anthropotheistic", and that religion was a symptom of self-alienation. He disagreed with Feuerbach's stronger form of atheism however, which he regarded as a "thing out there". Self-alienation is in contradistinction to the unalienated state which he regarded as was the condition in primitive societies, where actions are more directed to communal ends.

Yes, he thought religion would wither away if his project was followed. But that's a separate issue.

Lenin wrote:-

quote:
Our Program is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Program, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.

(from On Socialism & Religion (1905))

I certainly do not mean to imply that Marx took atheism and turned into a new product. And I entirely agree with your last para. - I have no interest in silly tit-for-tat arguments. I just wanted to outline where the linkage lies. IMHO naturally.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

I understand that "rationality" to Greeks included a strong element of somatic empathy - what we might call gut feeling. Translating Greek philosophy and logic into a post-Descartian post-modernist world view (even Descartes was not totally rational in the modern sense of the word, and "think" included "feel") creates something of a cold cerebral fish that to the Greeks would have been utterly irrational. And probably stupid.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

If metaphysics can prove God so can physics.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Believing that a worldview makes more sense of the world certainly looks like a use of reason to me. Just because reason isn't sufficient to prove conclusions either way doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
Oh no, I don't think it is irrelevant, I just don't think it is really possible to argue outwith of the worldview within which you operate.

To some extent, I'd agree, but I don't think any worldview can be so self-consistent and therefore impermeable to other worldviews that it is impossible for there to be rational discussion between them. It might take work to find the footholds in each worldview but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

Personally, I think Kierkegaard captured the contrast of different kinds of knowledge really well, and of course he was living in the light of the Greek philosophers before him.

So, I think, he was able to elegantly show the flaws in being totally logical with the bounds of ones worldview - but dismissing the possibility of the prophetic. So living in Nazi Germany and following all the rules needed a dose of the prophetic breaking through the bounds of what was generally accepted to be right and wrong.

quote:
But at the same time he shows that the one who claims to be following only the divine prophetic 'God told me' ethic is pretty dangerous because you can't argue with him using logical argument (because, at the final analysis, he'll argue you are arguing with the will of God, and there is no way to persuade him any different).

I am not convinced that Kierkegaard, as opposed to Johannes de Silentio, is directly committed to the idea that the teleological directly overrides the ethical, and I'm especially not sure that Kierkegaard thinks it directly overrides the ethical in any non-Hegelian sense.
In any case, you can at least argue that if God commands something then he doesn't also command the contrary. As Kierkegaard (or de Silentio) remarks, to speak is to be in the realm of the ethical-logical.

quote:

quote:
Also, I think the people who just don't care are in general not the people participating in discussions of religion on the internet.
One might also argue that people who don't think about these questions aren't so much without a philosophy as using hand-me-down scraps without thinking.
I'm not sure about this. The person who is saying 'I think there is a bit too much Liverpool FC on TV' is not necessarily taking a view against Liverpool and for Everton (although they might be). They might just disapprove of football. Similarly, the one who says there is too much religion in society is not necessarily advocating a particular alternative form of secularism. Or atheism. Or anything else.

I don't think that analogy makes your point. If someone feels strongly enough about football to disapprove of it that's not a mere negative.
And while arguing against football clubs does not itself make use of any particular football club, arguing against worldviews does look like it makes use of worldviews.

quote:
Nobody anywhere who is expressing dislike about something in public life is automatically advocating for something else nor necessarily agreeing with the thing that others who are also expressing dislike are saying.

Yes, if they're simply expressing negative emotions and no more; but that's not a rational position that other people need take note of. It's not an argument. I find it difficult to see how someone can offer an argument expressing dislike without appealing to something one considers a good that is threatened by what one dislikes.

quote:
Personally, I think Dawkins does no favours to most atheists and is not particularly representative of anyone other than himself.

I think of Dawkins as the George Carey of scientific rationalism myself.

Some things Carey says are representative of Christianity as a whole, some things he says are representative of a subgroup within Christianity, and some things Carey says are representative of Carey's ego.

[ 30. March 2015, 21:20: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
To some extent, I'd agree, but I don't think any worldview can be so self-consistent and therefore impermeable to other worldviews that it is impossible for there to be rational discussion between them. It might take work to find the footholds in each worldview but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

I think the idea that it is possible to have a rational discussion between worldviews is itself an assumption based on a particular worldview.

In this case at least, there can be little way to bridge the gap between the worldviews of the deist and the atheist (and I know that this is a broadbrush characterisation of worldviews when they are a lot more convoluted and complicated) when both sides repeatedly make arguments and prevent evidence which only works to one accepting that worldview. The strange thing is when they insist that they are the only ones being logical, when all they're doing is displaying internal consistency.

quote:
I am not convinced that Kierkegaard, as opposed to Johannes de Silentio, is directly committed to the idea that the teleological directly overrides the ethical, and I'm especially not sure that Kierkegaard thinks it directly overrides the ethical in any non-Hegelian sense.
In any case, you can at least argue that if God commands something then he doesn't also command the contrary. As Kierkegaard (or de Silentio) remarks, to speak is to be in the realm of the ethical-logical.

Hahahaha, this is why Kierkegaard is so maddening but so rewarding in a way I find much more invigorating than Kant or most other theologians.

I think Fear and Trembling both illustrates the beauty and the tragedy of Abraham's teleological suspension of the ethical. I think there is a contrast to his other writings where he illustrates the tyranny of the ethical and the need for the gadfly like Socrates.

But this seems to be the nature of Kierkegaard, the more you read the more contradictory it becomes. So I think it is better not to even try to get to what he thought and try to see the images as reflections of excesses in various different directions.

quote:
I don't think that analogy makes your point. If someone feels strongly enough about football to disapprove of it that's not a mere negative.
And while arguing against football clubs does not itself make use of any particular football club, arguing against worldviews does look like it makes use of worldviews.

I am not sure what you mean here. I very occasionally make a comment about football, usually I don't even think about it. I do not consider my dislike of football to be an overwhelming passion nor even a particularly big part of me. If someone asked, I'd say what I thought, but mostly I don't care.

quote:
Yes, if they're simply expressing negative emotions and no more; but that's not a rational position that other people need take note of. It's not an argument. I find it difficult to see how someone can offer an argument expressing dislike without appealing to something one considers a good that is threatened by what one dislikes.

Wait.. so someone expressing emotion is not a rational position? Even if I agreed with that, I'm not forced to accept that someone expressing a general dislike of something is not rational nor only operating from emotion.

I find it easy to understand people expressing dislike on a spectrum of rationality, from an idle fleeting thought all the way through to a fully developed alternative philosophy or religion. The idea that everyone who makes this position is either just expressing a fleeting emotion or supporting a particular worldview is much too broad.

quote:

Some things Carey says are representative of Christianity as a whole, some things he says are representative of a subgroup within Christianity, and some things Carey says are representative of Carey's ego.

There is very little that Carey says that is representative of anyone other than himself either. The trouble with both these characters is that they've run away with the idea that 'if I can think it, it must be true..' and they then take a rather large leap of faith to suggest that everyone else actually agrees with them.

Neither should really be given airtime, in my opinion.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The point is that we are told the stories but are offered nothing that we can interpret as satisfactory evidence. Doesn't mean we want evidence (we don't want the story either but people keep trying to sell it to us), just that we expect a decent reason before changing the direction of our lives. Should people accept whatever they're told without some indication that it's valid?

The problem here are the qualifiers: satisfactory evidence, decent reason, valid indication, ... You are imposing a value judgement. It is not as if theists do not offer evidence, reason and indication; you simply judge it all as no good on principle. The real discussion is then whether the principles you use to reject all that evidence, reason and indication are reasonable. I don't think that they are. That does not mean that every theist argument becomes nothing but the truth. But it does mean that your blanket rejection of theist argument is no good itself.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
With so many versions of religion out there it is surely incumbent, as with a car or a house, upon each option to offer a justification for choosing it, isn't it?

You can hardly claim that the various religions are not producing a sales pitch. Or at least the various "market leaders" can hardly be said to be lacking in advertisement. Perhaps a Zoroastrian could take this critique to heart, but a Christian? You could probably bury a small city under the advertisement material pumped out by Christianity every year...

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Then some of us look at religion's effects on humanity (both as individuals and en masse) and come to the conclusion that the net harm caused by religious belief is too high a price to pay to settle for a quiet life.

The "quiet life" in our secular societies is hardly that of a religious person, the new normal is apathetic. Although if you live in the USA, then perhaps that has to be qualified depending on where exactly you live...

The net effect of religion on humanity is really difficult to quantify. What is fair to say is that the net effect on humanity is not so overwhelmingly positive as to be undeniable in spite of these difficulties. However, much of the social critique of religion ends up blaming religion for people being assholes, which to me - as cynical misanthropist - misses the key point that people are assholes first, and religious second.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Loose the fancy dress, the gold leaf, the bells and smells, the pomp and ceremony designed to create an impression of unquestionable authority.

You are clearly a Protestant atheist. [Smile]

It seems to me though that your request contradicts itself. If the "pomp and ceremony" give to you the impression of unquestionable authority, then clearly this "pomp and ceremony" is working as intended. Why should we change what works? Now, we can make fine points about who has what kind of authority, and then perhaps reasonably critique some of the "pomp and ceremony" in detail. But as long as you are painting in broad brushstrokes, I will simply answer that I think one of the worst developments in the RCC in the last fifty years has been their tendency to drop the "pomp and ceremony" due to God and His Church, and have their Church life decay to Protestant drabness sprinkled with hippy triteness. And no, I'm not a liturgy fanatic. But I'm all for religious strutting...

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Stop claiming that god is a mystery, but he has told an elite few exactly how he wants me to lead my life - as though he would be incapable of making his wishes, and his reality, apparent to each and every one of us if he wanted us so informed.

Why precisely should God not choose the Church as His means to become known to you? You may wish that God would choose instead to perform fantastic miracles of undeniably supernatural kind that directly confirm His presence for every single human being. Well, He doesn't. So what, exactly? Are you saying that it is unimaginable that God choses otherwise? I don't think so. In fact, given that I think this world is basically a kind of exam, a test, for mankind, it seems entirely reasonable to me that God has chosen a more roundabout way. This world is made such that you can fail to find God in it.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
People should believe what they will, religious or otherwise but thy shouldn't use the word "know" when they don't. Convinced, certain, sure, without doubt, all may be true but no-one knows god(s) - the sheer diversity and irrationality of the inconsistent and incompatible qualities people attribute to their god(s) bears irrefutable testimony to that.

If it all were as varied as you pretend here, then you would find it much harder to reject it all in one fell swoop. But you don't find that particularly difficult, and the reason for that is that you are speaking a falsehood here. In fact, the diversity does not obscure a common core, and it is this common core you have a problem with. Obviously you can find all sorts of differences between say the Aztec religion and the Christian one, indeed, they might find each other religiously repugnant! Still, the Aztecs, the Christians, you and me would have no trouble recognising these as two religions, in spite of these differences.

"Religion" is a word like "sport". And your argument here is the equivalent of saying "I hate sport because playing tennis is nothing like synchronised swimming." That's just not particularly believable.

(And yes, there is a difference between sport and religion, insofar as variants of the latter commonly claim to be the "only true" one. But there is also a difference between rejecting religion, and rejecting the specific claim of ultimate truth of a religion. As long as you do the former over "religious diversity", my analogy holds.)

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Well, if some people are content to be a serial loser (original sin etc.) that's OK.

Original sin does not mean that people are "serial losers", certainly not by the standards of the world. Original sin can be seen to be mightily at work among the "winners" of this world, probably more so than among its "losers". Original sin is SNAFU. I don't think that there is a single adult person in the world who does not believe in original sin somehow; but the concept goes by many names, or rather curses...

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
False guilt destroys people as readily as deserved guilt and religion (not uniquely) actively promotes false guilt.

Or so you say. And therein lies the problem: how to tell what is deserved and what is false?

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Religion denigrates the scientific method because it can't survive in its presence, yet science has provided food, fresh water, immunisation, medicines, semi-conductors, access to knowledge etc. etc. to the benefit of mankind (and also weapons and synthetic mind altering drugs etc.) whilst religion provides .............what?

First, it is a blatant falsehood to claim that religion is threatened by the scientific method. I'm a professional scientist and a convert to Christianity. I feel very little strain between these two aspects of my life. Indeed, as far as theology goes I feel that my prior scientific training has been quite helpful. Second, religion offers salvation. That is indeed something different to physical wellbeing, and you are correct that to experience it as an explicit need requires a bit of an education. However, without that education this needs is not really absent, just unformed and diffuse, a dull idiosyncratic ache... Religion arises from a very real need of humanity, whatever you may think of the solutions it offers. It shapes and expresses consistently this need, but it does not create it. Rather, it is created by it. It may well be that you have no experienced this need personally. There is a bell curve for anything human, and the world is full with distractions. But religion is something very human, and the idea that humanity will prosper without it may very well be one of those shiny utopian ideals that when put into practice turn out to be destructive and inhumane.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
How many Christians, particularly their leaders, have no savings, no investments, no property and no pension plan? How many have sold all they have and given it to the poor without negotiating a future supply that meets at least their basic needs. Yes, of course it's impractical to the point of being silly, no I didn't do it, but it's their book and their god's clear instruction - not mine. If they talk the talk without walking the walk they should be exposed to justified ridicule shouldn't they?

We call the people who attempt to practice the full ideal of Christian life in this world the "religious", or depending on gender "monks / friars" or "nuns", respectively. If you feel called to such a heroic life of sanctity, then I think you will find that many of them are looking for youngish people to join their ranks.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If I claim that there is a three inch high, purple unicorn wearing an orange jumpsuit and sitting on your left shoulder whilst reciting unpublished Shakespearian sonnets in your ear you have to prove that I'm wrong? You can't see or hear it, well neither can I, that simply proves that our brains, via our eyes and ears, are incapable of detecting said unicorn; but I still believe it so it's true until you produce evidence proving that my belief is wrong.

The problems are that, ISTM, every argument you use against purple unicorns in orange jumpsuits

a) could be applied equally to the existence of god(s) and

b) none of them would disprove the existence of the unicorn.

In the context of this thread, that argument is demonstrably untrue.

The Christian God is a plausible candidate for 'necessary being'. The unicorn isn't.

The Christian God accounts for the existence of phenomena that matter to us - morality, reason, existence itself ... . The unicorn doesn't.

There are millions who attest to having experience of the Christian God. No one is a witness for the unicorn.

There are numerous reports of miracles attributed to the Christian God - many, it must be conceded, on very dubious grounds, but some on grounds which do bear examination. No such testimony exists for the unicorn.

Those who are widely considered the best and closest followers of the Christian God are often (though not universally) distinguished by better than average moral insights and conduct. The unicorn has no followers, but there's no particular reason to suppose that if it had any, they would find belief in it much of a help to greater virtue.

The unicorn simply does not occupy a conceptual space remotely analogous to God. There are no metaphysical, moral, experiential arguments for the unicorn, but there are for God. Even if your think the reasons given for believing in God are inadequate, there is no remotely sensible analysis by which we do not have far more for you to argue is inadequate in support of God's existence than we do for any trivial and obviously invented fictional creature you want to compare him to.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If I claim that there is a three inch high, purple unicorn wearing an orange jumpsuit and sitting on your left shoulder whilst reciting unpublished Shakespearian sonnets in your ear you have to prove that I'm wrong? You can't see or hear it, well neither can I, that simply proves that our brains, via our eyes and ears, are incapable of detecting said unicorn; but I still believe it so it's true until you produce evidence proving that my belief is wrong.

The problems are that, ISTM, every argument you use against purple unicorns in orange jumpsuits

a) could be applied equally to the existence of god(s) and

b) none of them would disprove the existence of the unicorn.
In the context of this thread, that argument is demonstrably untrue.

The Christian God is a plausible candidate for 'necessary being'. The unicorn isn't.

The Christian God accounts for the existence of phenomena that matter to us - morality, reason, existence itself ... . The unicorn doesn't.

There are millions who attest to having experience of the Christian God. No one is a witness for the unicorn.

There are numerous reports of miracles attributed to the Christian God - many, it must be conceded, on very dubious grounds, but some on grounds which do bear examination. No such testimony exists for the unicorn.

Those who are widely considered the best and closest followers of the Christian God are often (though not universally) distinguished by better than average moral insights and conduct. The unicorn has no followers, but there's no particular reason to suppose that if it had any, they would find belief in it much of a help to greater virtue.

The unicorn simply does not occupy a conceptual space remotely analogous to God. There are no metaphysical, moral, experiential arguments for the unicorn, but there are for God. Even if your think the reasons given for believing in God are inadequate, there is no remotely sensible analysis by which we do not have far more for you to argue is inadequate in support of God's existence than we do for any trivial and obviously invented fictional creature you want to compare him to.

Re: the proposed invisible Purple Unicorn … The teapot in orbit around the Sun is equally silly …

"God" is "God" -- not a teapot or a unicorn or an hypothesis nor "of the gaps" nor an imaginary friend/being nor a "delusion" nor the omni*everything cosmic sugar daddy errand boy nor a cruel tyrant …

"God" is "God" … (much to the eternal annoyance of the scoffers and skeptics) ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
In the context of this thread, that argument is demonstrably untrue.

None of this is actually demonstrated. Thus:

quote:
The Christian God is a plausible candidate for 'necessary being'. The unicorn isn't.

How do you know? There are human communities which believe the universe was defecated out of some mythical being (IIRC), so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone somewhere believes that the unicorn is the necessary being.

Asserting your belief on this does not make it a fact.

quote:
The Christian God accounts for the existence of phenomena that matter to us - morality, reason, existence itself ... . The unicorn doesn't.

Again, that is a simple matter of opinion. Both that the Christian God accounts for those things and that nobody anywhere believes that the unicorn does.

quote:
There are millions who attest to having experience of the Christian God. No one is a witness for the unicorn.

You might be on slightly stronger ground here, although for many years mariners (apparently) really believed in the existence of mermaids and other mythical creatures, so again it is not beyond the bounds that there are people who believe that they have experienced unicorns.

quote:
There are numerous reports of miracles attributed to the Christian God - many, it must be conceded, on very dubious grounds, but some on grounds which do bear examination. No such testimony exists for the unicorn.

Again, this is just an opinion. Given that there are long-standing folk stories about the miracles attributed to the unicorn, this is also demonstrably untrue, to use your words.

quote:
Those who are widely considered the best and closest followers of the Christian God are often (though not universally) distinguished by better than average moral insights and conduct. The unicorn has no followers, but there's no particular reason to suppose that if it had any, they would find belief in it much of a help to greater virtue.

Again, this is just an opinion. Given that you don't know of any unicorn believers you have a tiny sample approaching zero. On the general point, there is very little evidence that Christians exhibit overall better and more moral behaviours than any other group of society.

quote:
The unicorn simply does not occupy a conceptual space remotely analogous to God. There are no metaphysical, moral, experiential arguments for the unicorn, but there are for God. Even if your think the reasons given for believing in God are inadequate, there is no remotely sensible analysis by which we do not have far more for you to argue is inadequate in support of God's existence than we do for any trivial and obviously invented fictional creature you want to compare him to.

Now we are nearing the nub of the issue: the unicorn does not, in your mind, occupy the same space as the deity, therefore they cannot possibly be considered the same thing.

Funnily enough, things that happen in your mind are not a particularly good way to measure objective truth.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There are human communities which believe the universe was defecated out of some mythical being (IIRC), so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone somewhere believes that the unicorn is the necessary being.

I feel a possible response could go along the lines:
Funnily enough, that this someone somewhere happens to be a possibility in your mind is not a particularly good way to measure objective truth.

Or something like that.

I don't really see why your objections to Eliab have any more force than an argument to the effect that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone somewhere has incontrovertible evidence of the existence of God would.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

I feel a possible response could go along the lines:
Funnily enough, that this someone somewhere happens to be a possibility in your mind is not a particularly good way to measure objective truth.

Or something like that.

I don't really see why your objections to Eliab have any more force than an argument to the effect that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone somewhere has incontrovertible evidence of the existence of God would.

How could anyone have incontroversial proof of God? What does that mean?

The problem is that Eliab is simply using the old "I can't imagine it, therefore it isn't" argument.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The problem is that Eliab is simply using the old "I can't imagine it, therefore it isn't" argument.

No. Not even remotely. I can imagine someone believing in Hugh's unicorn (and I point out for avoidance of doubt that I'm responding to claims about that specific ridiculous entity, not a belief in unicorns in general). It's just that, as a matter of simple fact, there aren't any people who actually do. 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.

Hugh's point would have been different (and better) if he'd used an actual living religion that most Christians can be expected to find incredible (Mormonism, for example) and different again (and better still) if he'd picked a religion with philosophical, ethical and experiential claims that might present a serious alternative (such as Islam). But he didn't. He picked an intentionally ludicrous analogy.

My point is that there are actually reasons for believing in Christianity which are capable of being discussed that distinguish it from that ludicrous comparator. You might not accept that those reasons are sufficient to compel assent - that's a separate issue entirely. It is quite possible to disagree with Christianity and not hold to anything as silly as thinking that an actual religion followed by millions is exactly on a par with some transparent nonsense made up as a illustration of a stupid belief with no support whatsoever.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
No. Not even remotely. I can imagine someone believing in Hugh's unicorn (and I point out for avoidance of doubt that I'm responding to claims about that specific ridiculous entity, not a belief in unicorns in general). It's just that, as a matter of simple fact, there aren't any people who actually do.

Nope, a simple fact is that searching on google shows this is not actually a fact.

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?

quote:
Hugh's point would have been different (and better) if he'd used an actual living religion that most Christians can be expected to find incredible (Mormonism, for example) and different again (and better still) if he'd picked a religion with philosophical, ethical and experiential claims that might present a serious alternative (such as Islam). But he didn't. He picked an intentionally ludicrous analogy.

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.

And the best part is you think you are making a serious objective point. Classic.

quote:
My point is that there are actually reasons for believing in Christianity which are capable of being discussed that distinguish it from that ludicrous comparator. You might not accept that those reasons are sufficient to compel assent - that's a separate issue entirely. It is quite possible to disagree with Christianity and not hold to anything as silly as thinking that an actual religion followed by millions is exactly on a par with some transparent nonsense made up as a illustration of a stupid belief with no support whatsoever.

It is perfectly possible to think that Christianity is an absurd belief on a par with believing in unicorns. Whether or not it is a long-held belief and whether or not it is internally consistent and whether or not it is a real religion according to your definition does not give you some kind of special dibs over the examples that your opponents choose to use.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nope, a simple fact is that searching on google shows this is not actually a fact.

Really?
When I search for 'three inch high purple unicorn orange jumpsuit' I get women's jumpsuits and toy unicorns.
What sites do you get?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's an interesting point about unicorns and so on, as the psychiatric definition of delusion excludes enculturated beliefs. The classic example is ancestor worship, common in some cultures; thus, taking your granny to the shrink because she addresses her ancestors would fall flat in such cultures. Religious beliefs are similar, although if you think that you're Jesus, you might raise eyebrows.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The OP was about a basis for a belief in the supernatural. IngoB's presentation of the Uncaused Cause argument doesn't confirm the existence of the Christian God (a point he made in one of his posts), but it points to a Cause not Caused by the natural world.

Christian faith argues that the nature of this Uncaused Cause has been made known. I suppose the classic scripture for that is this one (Heb 1).

quote:
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

And then there is this one (John 1)

quote:
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

These aren't presented as proof texts, simply to illustrate the nature of the revelation, grasped by faith. It distinguishes the Christian understanding of God from, say, belief that the Uncaused Cause is a Divine Unicorn.

Which comes first? Before I ever saw the Uncaused Cause argument, before I came to faith, and despite the undeniable truth that the way things work in the natural universe is often strange and counter-intuitive, I was profoundly convinced that the universe was not a free lunch. Still am.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

I thiunk it's already been said before here, but there is also a basic problem with the starting point of "supernatural" - which immediately implies something that is not natural, not real. Our experience of what is around us is partly filtered by what our senses are capable of telling us and our minds capable of receiving, and partly by dint of what we choose to put our attention on and how we interpret what we perceive. That's a lot of filtering. I know people who have an intensely spiritual - you might say paranormal - experience of life. But it's only para to anyone who doesn;t have that experience - to them it is NORMAL. And no - they are not delusional or mad - there is a reality to that experience.

The belief "there is only physical" cuts out a lot of reality from the possible range of experience and perception. The interpretation of that - well - it's interesting - if it were "only imagination" (ie delusional construct) then there would not be the extraordinarily coherent qualitative description and interpretation across many cultures.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I'm way behind. I still can't comprehend how one side is allowed to argue that God must exist because all things need a cause but also that God doesn't need to be caused.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The OP was about a basis for a belief in the supernatural. IngoB's presentation of the Uncaused Cause argument doesn't confirm the existence of the Christian God (a point he made in one of his posts), but it points to a Cause not Caused by the natural world.

So what? That is a truth claim accepted by Christianity but not be anyone else.

quote:
Christian faith argues that the nature of this Uncaused Cause has been made known. I suppose the classic scripture for that is this one (Heb 1).

OK, that's nice.

quote:
These aren't presented as proof texts, simply to illustrate the nature of the revelation, grasped by faith. It distinguishes the Christian understanding of God from, say, belief that the Uncaused Cause is a Divine Unicorn.

No it doesn't. It just shows that Christians believe this. Other can, and do believe contrary things. Continually banging on about the Uncaused Cause simply reinforces that you are operating in a worldview that has to have a cause.

Plenty of other worldviews exist. Yours is nothing very special other than that you believe it, and arguing anything using self-supporting internally consistent paradigms is not objective truth.

Stating that your faith is objectively different to another - either one that exists or one that is purely imaginary - is utterly wrong when it is clearly totally subjective.

quote:
Which comes first? Before I ever saw the Uncaused Cause argument, before I came to faith, and despite the undeniable truth that the way things work in the natural universe is often strange and counter-intuitive, I was profoundly convinced that the universe was not a free lunch. Still am.

Good, lovely.

Others believe that the universe is eternal and that it doesn't have a cause. Deal.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I'm way behind. I still can't comprehend how one side is allowed to argue that God must exist because all things need a cause but also that God doesn't need to be caused.

Nobody has argued that all things have a cause. Obviously that would be self-contradictory if one then goes on to talk about an uncaused Cause. Let me emphasise that in the entire, long history of the cosmological argument, none of its many distinguished proponents (Plato, Aristotle, al-Ghazali, Maimonides, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, ...) have ever argued that all things have a cause. Yet for some strange reason this particular straw man just will not die. The key proposition is rather that

Everything that comes into existence and/or is contingent has a cause.

This statement is eminently defensible from our observations of nature (the "physics" part of "metaphysics"). This statement is all that is needed for the classical cosmological argument. This statement also rather obviously allows for a Being that is eternal and necessary to not have a cause.

Indeed, the entire structure of the cosmological argument is just this: if we use the above statement to query in depth (not temporally) for the root cause of things, then by its very nature this statement will not allow us to come to a halt in terms of things that come into being and/or are contingent. But we know for an "in depth" (rather than temporal) causal series that it must have a beginning, it has to be finite. Precisely this tells us that there must be some entity that causes things, but neither comes into existence (is eternal) nor is contingent (is necessary): there must be an uncaused Cause. And theists identify this with God (and they may validly do so, if they attribute the right things to their God).

Relentlessly and consistently following through on the above key proposition about causality forces us to declare that there must be something else that is not described by it. It is exactly our inability to come to a coherent description of the universe otherwise that is the "proof" of an uncaused Cause. It is then pointless to insist that "God" is an exception to the rule, as if that somehow invalidated the argument. Yes, we know that "God" is an exception. That does not invalidate the argument, that is the argument!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I'm way behind. I still can't comprehend how one side is allowed to argue that God must exist because all things need a cause but also that God doesn't need to be caused.

I don't understand how a cause can be supernatural; surely the notion of causation rests on space-time as an environment. There don't seem to be any constraints on non-natural causes.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Precisely this tells us that there must be some entity that causes things, but neither comes into existence (is eternal) nor is contingent (is necessary): there must be an uncaused Cause. And theists identify this with God (and they may validly do so, if they attribute the right things to their God).

And precisely there you are displaying the bias of your worldview. 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.

quote:
Relentlessly and consistently following through on the above key proposition about causality forces us to declare that there must be something else that is not described by it. It is exactly our inability to come to a coherent description of the universe otherwise that is the "proof" of an uncaused Cause. It is then pointless to insist that "God" is an exception to the rule, as if that somehow invalidated the argument. Yes, we know that "God" is an exception. That does not invalidate the argument, that is the argument!

It 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.

You can restate it any number of times you like, that doesn't change anything.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

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.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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 ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.'

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

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 ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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 ]

Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on :

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

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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 ]

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

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.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Which atheists, which materialists, empiricists, rationalists accept the cosmological argument?

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

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.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Fool (# 18359) on :

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.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The "why haven't all the other monkeys evolved into humans" objection to evolution makes perfect sense to Yecies too. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
]Nobody can show you anything, IngoB, that hasn't already originated in your head.

The irony, it burns.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

A supernatural cause strikes me as an oxymoron. Isn't causation adopted as an axiom within methodological naturalism?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.)

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

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]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

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

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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 ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@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.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

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.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

IngoB, unless intellectualism is the only way, prove to me that God exists.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

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.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

It certainly is. Thank you for that.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

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) ...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Ingo, the beat poet! We need some bongo drums.
[Cool]

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

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 … ???

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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 ]

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

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.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

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?!).

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@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.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Why does there have to be an uncaused cause?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

quote:
Well, I can't speak for you, but I do.

I'm sure you do. Ingo's another story.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@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 ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@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.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

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.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

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?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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...

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

that last analogy I particularly like

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

'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.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

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]

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.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I disagree, but mainly posted because I think y'all are getting a little precious about constructing castles in a box.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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]

Is this likely to shed a lot more light on the question?

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

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.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

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 ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

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 ?!?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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 ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

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

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

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.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Are we getting into Plato's cave territory? Archetypes/ideas are real, and things are just their shadows?

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

Just thought I'd throw this into the discussion.

www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630150.300-i-believe-your-personal-guidebook-to-reality

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Spirit/Mind/Word is primary, matter is secondary.

All our experience suggests that software needs hardware to run on...

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

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.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

Sorry, meant by that a form of idealism different from Plato's theory of forms.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Just thought I'd throw this into the discussion.

www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630150.300-i-believe-your-personal-guidebook-to-reality

Need a subscription to read this darlin'. Can you give us the gist?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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...)

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

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 ...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

God has no choice in the constants of the anthropic universe let alone the laws of physics. So why, in an infinite, eternal multiverse, without a higher uncaused cause would worlds on toast absurdities arise? : the universe (well 4% of it) works in theory quite well. Quantum mechanics is rational and it maps to reality incidentally. It's rational whether there is any reality or not (is delocalization and entanglement irrational?). The correct theory doesn't create the reality. But the reality MUST conform to the theory. There are NO exceptions to quantum theory in reality. No? Everything that could falsify it confirms it. The rationality of quantum mechanics is independent of any mechanic.

So why does the uncaused cause have to be sapient?

(That's a quantum leap that.)

And in Lascaux daubs please, what is wrong with this picture?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

as usual I'm struggling to identify which parts are intended irony, Martin

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Me too. Can only a sapient uncaused cause concretize the abstract?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Me too. Can only a sapient uncaused cause concretize the abstract?

Yes

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: Indeed, the whole multiverse idea taken as a whole has of course regular causal structure.

That's a rather bold assertion. Based on ... what exactly?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Based on it NOT being the author of confusion. Apparently only a sapient primum mobile can do this. A non-sapient one MUST come up with human surreal fantasy absurdities. On what irrefutable logic BOTH of these assumptions are so, I cannot infer.

All looks a bit Jungian doesn't it?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
That's a rather bold assertion. Based on ... what exactly?

On us having those multiverse ideas, obviously. There is no such thing as a non-causal hypothesis, and furthermore physicists proposing a hypothesis will certainly build in many regularities, usually by mathematical structure.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
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.

Are you really asserting that?

I find belief in God to be intellectually, ethically and emotionally satisfying, as well as challenging in all of those areas. It connects me to a living tradition of culture, art and philosophy, and to a community of millions who claim to have personal and life-changing experience of God. Some (numbering at the very least in the hundreds, and more likely, in the hundreds of thousands) assert experience of the miraculous, on grounds which have at least some immediate plausibility. Further, the beliefs associated with my belief in God affirm that which I acknowledge to be good and worthy, rebuke my faults, and encourage me to try to become a better person.

None of that is true, or could be true, of belief in an obviously imagined creature, avowedly conjectured to make a (weak) argumentative point.

I am not putting that forward as a “proof” of God. However if you really are saying that those are not reasons why the existence of God may sensibly be entertained in a way that belief in an obvious invention should not be, I'm not really sure how to reply other than to say that such an assertion appears to me to be self-evidently false. It is strictly and technically correct to say that I “just don't like the idea of believing in” High's unicorn, but to say it misses the (to me) obvious point that no reason whatsoever has ever been proposed for belief in Hugh's unicorn, whereas I have numerous reasons – consistent with and suggestive of truth even if they do not amount to mathematical proof – for taking God seriously. Even if you reject all of my reasons for believing in God, you surely cannot entirely to miss point that they are reasons which are in principle capable of seeming sound to an undeluded human mind, and therefore require at least some work to refute. That is not true of conjectures intended to be obvious nonsense and designed to have no plausibility.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: On us having those multiverse ideas, obviously. There is no such thing as a non-causal hypothesis

Why not? I can start a thought experiment with "Suppose there is a non-causal multiverse ...", can't I?

And in doing this, I think I've formulated a non-causal hypothesis. Of course, I can't say very much about this multiverse. My language (Dutch, German, English, any of our languages) isn't very helpful here of course. Our minds evolved in our universe, and casuality is very much baked into them. By extension, the same is true for our language: they wouldn't be very useful to describe a non-causal universe (although poetry might come slightly closer).

Our logic (which is just a specific form of language) would be even more useless in this multiverse. We've just defined that casuality (and by extension other forms of logic) don't exist there.

But just because we can't describe it, doesn't mean that it can't exist.

quote:
IngoB: and furthermore physicists proposing a hypothesis will certainly build in many regularities, usually by mathematical structure.

Yes, when physicists postulate a multiverse (for example as a solution to the Schrödinger's Cat paradox), they build in mathematical regularities. But I'm not letting myself be limited by what phycisists are doing.

Suppose there is a non-causal multiverse ... What is going to stop me?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

It gets very interesting...

unless you then propose "There is a non-causal universe, but the particular corner of it that I inhabit is causal... OR a-causality was a property of the early universe, but it isn't now" than you remove causation from the world - so, if you are willing to put up with nothing having the cause that it appears to have and all of causality to be coincidence - AND for unexpected things to pop up at with no notice whatsoever. The emergence of a purple unicorn in your living room would be truly possible, because there would be no need for there to be a cause for that to happen. Frankly, we just don;t see that level of a-causality in our daily life, so then we get back to the initial proposition - that causality doesn;t apply to us, even if it did apply to the original existence from which we emerged... Complex. I generally find Occam's razor a bit of a slasher movie, but in this case I would be happy to invoke Occam and say that too much complexity is required in the initial case.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

As good a false dichotomy as ever I did see.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.

If the Big Bang is the uncaused Cause of the universe, then yes there is no prior or external agency that causes it to produce order rather than chaos. Or matter rather than antimatter.

So any causal reason is intrinsic; that's what the argument says.

But why assume that there is a causal reason ? And then anthroporphize it as something analogous to human free-willed choice ?

Why not shrug shoulders and admit at that point that we just don't know why anything exists at all, & why there is order rather than chaos ? Maybe if we were the sort of beings who could observe multiple universes, we'd know by experience that that's what Big Bangs do...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@Itsarumdo

quote:
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?

Of course all this is valid. We do the best we can with what we have, we have no choice. The cause and effect lens has worked very well in pretty much all of the endeavours that are of any use to clever social apes. That doesn't mean it shows us what is actually there.
@ Barnabas62

quote:
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?

You raise a a valid point, but I was thinking about the reality that metaphysics traditionally tries to understand. You could call it ultimate reality, or frame it as the question, "What is there and what is it like?"
@Ingo

quote:
There is no direct measure of success of an extrapolation,

But in your original comment you said:

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.

So, what is your criteria for the success? What justifies the belief you have that human reason can do this? Extrapolation relies on the prior knowledge it is based upon. In this case, the universals that you have abstractly analysed from observing natural reality. You have said that the evidence is all around us, at the same time telling us that any evidence we will find in the future is going to be irrelevant.

quote:
And since the means in this case was rational deduction from observations of nature.

Observations we know are incomplete.

quote:
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.

Pot. Kettle. According to your argument they hold just far enough to deduce a specially pleaded necessary being. And, the consequences of the argument are neither here nor there for me. I am thoroughly relaxed about the existence of a deist god. Relaxed, but unconvinced.

quote:
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.

And we are back to the beginning again, along with this:

quote:
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.

Yeah, and so what? The key thing at question is not the theory building, important as it is, but the prediction testing, something you consistently play down to the point of vanishing it off the agenda. You say it is more than just the data that drives scientists, but the logic of your argument requires the data to be completely irrelevant. It's as if you want us to believe that the LHC, the space telescopes, all the paraphernalia of experimentation and observation are not integral to the practice of modern science at all.

quote:
First, this was my analogy, and your use of it here has little to do with how I used the analogy.

The original analogy was mine here. It got mangled by the meta-ness, but I thought we were still on the same page. Obviously not, but I don't see how that is my problem.

quote:
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.

An "over there" that is off the edge of the map, in territory we know nothing about other than that there's a river in it. And to make this analogy closer to actuality, we would have good reason to believe the state of our knowledge of all possible river sources was incomplete. Maybe all the rivers we've come across in our analogy came from springs or glaciers and we didn't know about lakes and feeder rivers, but we knew there were many rivers whose source we hadn't yet mapped. This atheist is saying we might conclude that it would be better to admit to ourselves that we don't know enough to say just now and actually toddle off to Africa and have a look. You're saying, nah, fuck that shit, it's a spring. An all knowing, all loving, all powerful spring, let's prostrate ourselves before it.

@Truman you old bastard.

quote:
Nice sound bite, but you need to do a tad more to show how you get to that conclusion.

No I don't. Ingo's argument depends on the causal principle being true and that it will hold no matter what new data is thrown at it in the future. For that to be the case, the onus is on him, as the proposer of the argument, to show that the principle of causation is more than a practical, methodological principle, that it has ontological justification. His question about the consequence undercutting science is neither here nor there. So far all his answers are just one huge argument from adverse consequences. "We can't get our heads around the consequences of this, therefore that."

As for quantum physics, as I said before, I believe most philosophers think that as of now, the causal principle is intact, but in the words of the Stanford article, on the quantum level, the connection between cause and effect, if not entirely broken, is to some extent loosened, and as you say, the full philosophical effects of quantum physics are a long way from being settled. I only brought it up to show that when the data suggests something, even something startling like cause and effect not operating how we think it does, the philosophers need to do some work. Ingo thinks all the work we ever need was done around 800 years ago.

And finally for now @Ingo again:

quote:
Indeed, this proposition is simply unstable.

Well, I doubt if universes get created by stable, serene noble gases mooching about the place. If I were a betting man and could get anyone to take the bet, I'd put my money on a very high degree of instability being a prerequisite. And if the multiverse is just infinite chaos spewing out infinite universes, and as LeRoc says, it doesn't have to play by the rules of our universe, it wouldn't matter that nearly all of them are absolute chaos as well, some wouldn't be. Or maybe just the one.

All this and we haven't got onto necessity and contingency and where the territory to that part of the map is.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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 ?

All Aquinas is saying is that the non-existence of a thing is logically prior. Because an existing cheese sandwich is a "step up" from a non-existing cheese sandwich. It is "more" to also exist, in a logical sense. A point that will not be lost on you if you have ever tried to eat a non-existing cheese sandwich. If you think that therefore the ontological argument holds, then it holds. Because that sure is true. But Aquinas thinks that just because you think of something does not mean that it exists, other than in your mind:

quote:
Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

And that seems fair enough to me.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If the Big Bang is the uncaused Cause of the universe

The Big Bang is not, and cannot possibly be, an uncaused Cause. It comes into existence, and is contingent, hence requires a cause.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

There's no such thing as a non-existing cheese sandwich. All the cheese sandwiches in the world exist. You may have the idea of a cheese sandwich, and your idea may not correspond to any existing cheese sandwich. But your idea is not a non-existing cheese sandwich, it's an idea. There simply are no non-existing cheese sandwiches.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There are 2.7 and one is not half not toasted.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

However, Plato Restaurant does serve cheese toast, so it must be some kind of archetype.

And, Neil DeGrasse Tyson said in the reboot of "Cosmos":

quote:
“We hunger for significance, for signs that our personal existence is special and look for it in a grilled cheese sandwich or comet.”

[ 07. April 2015, 07:50: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's no such thing as a non-existing cheese sandwich. All the cheese sandwiches in the world exist. You may have the idea of a cheese sandwich, and your idea may not correspond to any existing cheese sandwich. But your idea is not a non-existing cheese sandwich, it's an idea. There simply are no non-existing cheese sandwiches.

That's just an elaborate way of saying that non-existing cheese sandwiches do not exist. We knew that...

The point however is not about what happens in our mind, i.e., that we can imagine cheese sandwiches. The point is that a cheese sandwich before me on a plate could not be there. There is indeed, at least for an Aristotelian, no sense in which that cheese sandwich has a kind of ghostly pre-existence if it does not exist. If it does not exist, it simply does not exist, there is nothing physically or temporally prior (ignoring the process of making a cheese sandwich, this is a philosophical not a culinary point...). However, because that cheese sandwich in front of me could not exist, that contingency of existence is logically prior. As sad as that may be, cheese sandwiches do not have to exist. Hence that I find a cheese sandwich existing on the plate before me is logically an "addition" to the actual state of the world.

[ 07. April 2015, 08:48: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, because that cheese sandwich in front of me could not exist, that contingency of existence is logically prior.

Why? How does that make it logically prior?

quote:
As sad as that may be, cheese sandwiches do not have to exist. Hence that I find a cheese sandwich existing on the plate before me is logically an "addition" to the actual state of the world.

Which is to say a world with a cheese sandwich in front of you has one more cheese sandwich with some world in which there is not a cheese sandwich in front of you. (Assuming, one assumes, that somebody didn't just grab your cheese sandwich and put it in front of somebody else.) But so what? YOU brought up non-existing cheese sandwiches. What role do they play, given that you admit they do not exist? And in what way is a non-existing cheese sandwich (whatever the hell that is) different from the idea of a cheese sandwich?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, because that cheese sandwich in front of me could not exist, that contingency of existence is logically prior.
Why? How does that make it logically prior?

If I understand correctly, right now, there may or may not be a cheese sandwich in front of IngoB. I'm not typing this anywhere near him, so I don't know whether there is one or not, but (assuming that IngoB likes cheese sandwiches) sometimes there will be one, and other times, not. All I can say from here is that any such cheese sandwich that there might be is contingent: it doesn't have to exist - it may not be there at all.

And because I can affirm that to be the case at all times - the times where there's an actual cheese sandwich in front of IngoB, and the times when there isn't, the contingent nature of the particular cheese sandwich that he had for lunch today is logically prior to there having been a cheese sandwich for lunch at all: I can say that it's contingent even if I can't yet say whether it exists.

At least I think that's the point.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, because that cheese sandwich in front of me could not exist, that contingency of existence is logically prior.
Why? How does that make it logically prior?

Before we find out whether IngoB has a cheese sandwich in front of him we have to know that this is a situation in which there might or might not be a cheese sandwich. We cannot work it out from pure mathematics nor is it written in the stars. We need to know that we have to go and look.
Now, if we think that these epistemological considerations track reality or the ontological considerations, then I think one way of expressing the ontological considerations would be to say that the fact that the cheese sandwich is contingent is logically prior to the fact that it's a cheese sandwich.

quote:
YOU brought up non-existing cheese sandwiches. What role do they play, given that you admit they do not exist? And in what way is a non-existing cheese sandwich (whatever the hell that is) different from the idea of a cheese sandwich?

I don't think he did, except perhaps linguistically.
It is really rather hard to talk about this without throwing up linguistic ghosts of incoherent entities. I think it's a version of the question of whether existence is logically prior to essence or not. I can't remember what the Aristotelian or Thomist answer is in the case of created entities. But the line here is I think that existence precedes essence: in order for something to be a cheese sandwich it has to logically be something at all, and as cheese sandwiches are not logically necessary, it has to first be contingent. There aren't a flock of non-existent cheese sandwiches hanging about waiting to become existent.

It is difficult in this area to avoid darkening counsel with words, and I am not sure I have succeeded.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Alright Grokesx? Join me

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:

@Truman you old bastard.

quote:
Nice sound bite, but you need to do a tad more to show how you get to that conclusion.
No I don't. Ingo's argument depends on the causal principle being true and that it will hold no matter what new data is thrown at it in the future. For that to be the case, the onus is on him, as the proposer of the argument, to show that the principle of causation is more than a practical, methodological principle, that it has ontological justification. His question about the consequence undercutting science is neither here nor there. So far all his answers are just one huge argument from adverse consequences. "We can't get our heads around the consequences of this, therefore that."

Nearly. Ingo's argument depends on the causal principle being true for the origin of the universe (which is what we're on about). Even saying there are questions about the universality of the causal principle, you still need to show why it doesn't hold true for some stuff whilst holding true for others. I'm assuming, for instance, you didn't fluctuate into existence out of the quantum vacuum.

So you still need to show why it doesn't hold true for universal causation, and come up with something more plausible.

On t'other hand we can get to pretty much the same place by starting with another premise. Turning one of Dafyd's bits of Latin into English we can start with "Everything that exists has a reason for its existence." Arguing the toss over causation doesn't get you away from that.

When you're back from your hols (or trips to other boards) come back with something on that one.

And have one on me in the meantime [Biased]

[code]

[ 07. April 2015, 15:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

The point about the cheese sandwich is that for ANY cheese sandwich to exist, someone has to have conceived of it, and then through that conception, followed by an act of will, created the cheese sandwich. One could say that the IDEA has to exist before the material can exist.

That is a very good analogy for everything positively created. Obviously it is the case for anything humanly made, but also is the case for everything else. Whether it is human consciousness that "collapses the wave function" (i.e. we perceive what we expect) or whether the wave function is (also) collapsed by other means (i.e. what we perceive has a certain physical reality of its own regardless of human consciousness or expactation) - here we have two alternate versions of the Idealist Universe.

[ 07. April 2015, 16:29: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

While I really like the comments of Eliab and Dafyd above, I checked the original quote from Aquinas that I was discussing with Russ. And as far as dealing with that quote goes, I should really be saying that non-existence is logically prior (rather than contingency). It's probably sort of the same statement here, but maybe not quite, so let me re-state what Aquinas' said with more cheese sandwiches, as is right and just:

If I query a cheese sandwich lying before me why it is a cheese sandwich by virtue of being a cheese sandwich, then it can answer (or rather, I will answer for it): it has cheese in the middle, it has two slices of bread, one on top the other on the bottom, it is yummy (accidentally), etc.

But if I query a cheese sandwich lying before me why it exists by virtue of being a cheese sandwich, then I can find no answer. There is nothing in that cheese sandwich that says it must exist because it is a cheese sandwich. Of course, it does exist - it is right there - and does so as a cheese sandwich. But nothing in the cheese sandwich itself says "let there be a cheese sandwich", and nothing in the cheese sandwich itself warrants the consequence "and therefore it was". In fact, I know that the only reason why there is a cheese sandwich now is because I just made it.

So the cheese sandwich, by virtue of being a cheese sandwich, owns being cheesy, and owns being bready, and hopefully owns being yummy. But it does not own actual being. For example, *nom* *nom*, now there is no more actual cheese sandwich here. Clearly, that cheese sandwich did not own existence as part of being a cheese sandwich, or it would still be there. Its existence was given to it (by me making it) and its existence was taken from it (by me eating it). It only had existence because of me, for a while, not because it is a cheese sandwich. There is nothing in a cheese sandwich that says that it has to exist, even if it currently happens to exist.

So non-existence is logically prior in a cheese sandwich, because unless someone makes a cheese sandwich, there sadly is none. In a manner of speaking, a cheese sandwich as cheese sandwich owns non-existence. Because if we just sit there, cheese sandwiches just continue to not exist, no matter how long we wait. Non-existing cheese sandwiches are really good at not existing.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And in what way is a non-existing cheese sandwich (whatever the hell that is) different from the idea of a cheese sandwich?

Do you mean "idea" as in Plato, or "idea" as in my head? Anyway, a non-existent cheese sandwich is a cheese sandwich I have not made yet, or one that I have just eaten, or like entities. Clearly, what we can say about that depends on me having that concept in my head. And that makes sense, because that concept exists. But that does not mean that the concept is the non-existing cheese sandwich itself, rather the concept is about it. And it's specific in that sense, for example a non-existing gorilla differs from a non-existing cheese sandwich, even though both are non-existing. Now you can protest that all this is just so much ado about nothing in my mind. And I agree with that. The justification for the conceptual ghost game is the logical analysis: we are using mental placeholders here to make a point concerning real and existing entities. We are analysing a real cheese sandwich by mentally removing its existence and showing that we can do so without destroying what we think of that cheese sandwich. Not in order to fill the world with non-existing cheese sandwiches, but rather to show the logical separation between what something is and that something is, and to show that logically existence is added to things to make them be.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So the cheese sandwich that isn't there has to be there before it's there, is there in fact, i.e. the cheese sandwich that isn't there is there as opposed to the cheese sandwich that isn't there that isn't, for existence to be added to it?

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So the cheese sandwich that isn't there has to be there before it's there, is there in fact, i.e. the cheese sandwich that isn't there is there as opposed to the cheese sandwich that isn't there that isn't, for existence to be added to it?

More amazingly still, the eternal and eternally uncaused cheese sandwich never goes stale or gets moldy ...

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

It is in fact a Buddhist cheese sandwich (made with vegetarian cheese obviously) this must be the case as it has no unchanging, inherent sandwichy self, but is instead a collection of the 3 aggregates; bread, cheese and butter. Its existence is caused by the desires and attachments for cheesy, sandwhichy goodness. If it collects enough positive karma then it can be reborn as a triple decker and possibly appear in an episode of 'Scooby-Doo'. All these truths are taught to us by the Deli Lama.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But if I query a cheese sandwich lying before me why it exists by virtue of being a cheese sandwich, then I can find no answer. There is nothing in that cheese sandwich that says it must exist because it is a cheese sandwich.

It wouldn't be a cheese sandwich if it didn't exist, and it wouldn't exist if it weren't a cheese sandwich. Its existence and its cheese sandwichness temporally and logically coincide. There is nothing in the IDEA of a cheese sandwich that says it exists. But this cheese sandwich isn't the idea of a cheese sandwich, it's a cheese sandwich. And there has never in the history of the world been a cheese sandwich that didn't exist, as you yourself have admitted.

quote:
Clearly, that cheese sandwich did not own existence as part of being a cheese sandwich, or it would still be there.

That's nonsensical. It came to be at the same time as it became a cheese sandwich, and it ceased to exist at the exact same time as it ceased to be a cheese sandwich. The only reason that cheese sandwich existed was that it was a cheese sandwich.

quote:
We are analysing a real cheese sandwich by mentally removing its existence and showing that we can do so without destroying what we think of that cheese sandwich.

But we cannot, because once we remove its existence, it is no longer a cheese sandwich. It doesn't destroy our ideas about cheese sandwiches, but we cannot have ideas about THIS cheese sandwich if there is no THIS cheese sandwich to have ideas about.

You're playing with markers, it's a fun game, Wittgenstein would no doubt approve. But it's nonsense in the end. There are cheese sandwiches, and there are people thinking about the concept of cheese sandwiches, perhaps thinking about a real sandwich they ate, or perhaps thinking about making a sandwich in the future. There are recipes for making cheese sandwiches. But that's all. There are no non-existent cheese sandwiches. It's a linguistic con-game to save appearances of somebody's philosophy of language, which shows by the need of such con-games that it's bankrupt as a philosophy of language.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I want a cheese sandwich in an existence in which I can eat it (one very close to this me in this universe). Gruyere on sourdough grilled in butter would be very nice.

You two have got me hungry. [Smile]

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
It is in fact a Buddhist cheese sandwich (made with vegetarian cheese obviously) this must be the case as it has no unchanging, inherent sandwichy self, but is instead a collection of the 3 aggregates; bread, cheese and butter. Its existence is caused by the desires and attachments for cheesy, sandwhichy goodness. If it collects enough positive karma then it can be reborn as a triple decker and possibly appear in an episode of 'Scooby-Doo'. All these truths are taught to us by the Deli Lama.

Such a (Buddhist) (vegan) "cheese" sandwich would not experience either suffering or desire … It would not be re-in-cheese-ated … but would be released from the illusion of existence ...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Jack o' the Green--

[Overused]

(deep gassho bow)

And you gave a very insightful explication of the aggregates.

And please tell the Lama, "Hello, Dali!"

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

mousethief: 'we cannot have ideas about THIS cheese sandwich if there is no THIS cheese sandwich to have ideas about', isn't an idea then?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

what about welsh rarebit?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I've quite enjoyed the Wittgensteinian/Aquinas exploration of cheese sandwiches, the prior idea of cheese sandwiches, etc.

Pace, mousethief, it's not quite nonsense. At least I don't think so. Before there was ever a sandwich, there was the Earl of Sandwich. Britain's greatest contributor to gastronomy?

[But prior to him, there was certainly bread and cheese.]

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Thanks for the discussion - many valuable contributions. Even the cheese sandwich bit was entertaining.

Back to the central dispute between Grokesx and Ingo. Ingo you lay out your position with an incredibly high level of confidence. Almost as if anyone who has enough intelligence to understand your arguments would agree with them.

The problem is that many of the great minds of science are also clearly interested in epistelmology and philosophy (Eistein, Hawking etc) and yet across all the national science academies we don't have polymath after polymath just coming out and saying that the cosmological argument proves there is a God.

My guess is that it is not over the whole 'there must be an uncaused cause' bit. Many would probably agree there. So my question is where is the greatest weakness in your argument in your view?

And why do you think so many aren't presuaded by such a simple (near) water-tight argment? (I include Christian scientists here - many of whom, I'd guess from the few I know, would not be convinced by your confidence).

[ 08. April 2015, 08:34: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Presented for your ontological sandwichery consideration:

Ham Sandwich Theorem--Math Fun Facts. And, since the sandwich contains cheese, it can just as easily be the Cheese Sandwich Theorem.

Whereas, at the Halfbakery, they've considered the logical, scientific, mathematical, and pundiferous aspects of sandwiches.
[Biased]

NOTE: at Halfbakery, there's one comment that might be verbally NSFW.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It wouldn't be a cheese sandwich if it didn't exist, and it wouldn't exist if it weren't a cheese sandwich.

You think of a cheese sandwich that does not exist every time you make one. It is true that such a cheese sandwich exists only as an idea in your mind. The question is however to what extent your mind can correctly grasp what the essence of cheese sandwiches is - by looking at many of them - and hence can have a true idea of a cheese sandwich. Given that you can make one successfully, your idea obviously is true enough. Just as clearly though, however good your idea of a cheese sandwich may become, it never reaches a threshold were it also starts to exist as a real cheese sandwich. There is no limit to how accurate your idea of the cheese sandwich may be. You may know all there is to know about cheese sandwiches, and you may know every single detail about a particular cheese sandwich, down to the atomic composition. But the cheese sandwich does not therefore exist in reality. This shows that reality to the mind falls apart into two distinct things: what something is, and that something is.

Now, you could say "so what? that's just in the mind." True, but so is our entire discussion of reason, causality, etc. You can always say "so what? that's just in the mind." We have to say just how optimistic we are about the powers of the mind. It seems clear that one cannot be too pessimistic, or it would be inexplicable that we stay alive. But I'm admittedly very optimistic about the mind. I think the mind can find truth, I think the concepts that the mind builds accurately reflect the realities of the world.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Its existence and its cheese sandwichness temporally and logically coincide. There is nothing in the IDEA of a cheese sandwich that says it exists. But this cheese sandwich isn't the idea of a cheese sandwich, it's a cheese sandwich. And there has never in the history of the world been a cheese sandwich that didn't exist, as you yourself have admitted.

No, in an actual cheese sandwich, existence and "cheese sandwichness" temporally coincide, but precisely not logically. Exactly because nothing in the idea of a cheese sandwich says that it also exists, these two do not logically coincide. Logically - and logic does happen in the mind - it is a separate issue whether there is a real object on the plate that corresponds to my idea of a cheese sandwich, or not. And the whole point of saying that "non-existence" of a cheese sandwich is logically prior is simply to say that thinking of cheese sandwiches, no matter how perfectly, does not make cheese sandwiches.

Let me put it this way: say we make an exhaustive list of properties of some particular cheese sandwich. So you have pictures of the cheese sandwich, details on the cheese and it consistency, etc. Now, among those descriptors we find one that says "Existed at 2 pm, at this address, on a plate on a table." Now, if we strike out this descriptor, does the rest remain comprehensible? Do we still know that we are talking about a cheese sandwich? We certainly do. We have a very accurate idea there of a cheese sandwich, a cheese sandwich specifically, not say a rubber ball or a tax bill. Now do it the other way around. Strike out everything but the existence descriptor. Do we know what we are talking about? No, we don't. Something existed at a particular time and place, but we do not know what. It could be a cheese sandwich, sure, but it could also be a rubber ball or a tax bill. We have no idea. Hence logically the first case, where we have all the information that makes us say "cheese sandwich" but no indication whether there is one or not, is prior. That is already an idea of a cheese sandwich, even though we do not know whether there actually is one. The other way around that does not work. The existence descriptor gives us no clue about cheese sandwiches.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It came to be at the same time as it became a cheese sandwich, and it ceased to exist at the exact same time as it ceased to be a cheese sandwich. The only reason that cheese sandwich existed was that it was a cheese sandwich.

The last sentence is obviously false. Being a cheese sandwich is no reason for existing as cheese sandwich. The reason why a cheese sandwich exists might rather be that you made it, for example. It is trivially true that a cheese sandwich only exists as a cheese sandwich - but that's a data point, it isn't an explanation. And this really is important. No matter how extensively and accurately we describe some thing, it does not therefore come into being. The whatness of things is no reason for the thatness of things. I cannot explain existence by listing the properties of what exists.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But we cannot, because once we remove its existence, it is no longer a cheese sandwich. It doesn't destroy our ideas about cheese sandwiches, but we cannot have ideas about THIS cheese sandwich if there is no THIS cheese sandwich to have ideas about.

Yes, precisely. Once more you demonstrate yourself that the issue of what is (namely a cheese sandwich) and that it is (namely this cheese sandwich here) are logically separate. Any actual cheese sandwich necessarily has both the features and the existence, of course. Actual existence is defined by the temporal and spatial concurrence of whatness and thatness. But logically, they are distinct.

And if one is optimistic about the mind, and I am, then this means that this difference correspond to reality. Real things really have aspects of whatness and thatness. Now, I don't mean this simplistically, as if there is some kind of "existence button" attached to every thing, that needs to be pressed in order for a thing to be. What I mean is that if the mind now starts to work on conclusions from this, then these deductions in turn correspond to reality somehow. So if I say that since the "whatness" of a cheese sandwich does not explain its "thatness", and then conclude that something or someone must be the reason for "thatness", I'm making a true conclusion. I have successfully reasoned that somebody must have made that cheese sandwich, if it is actual.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There are no non-existent cheese sandwiches. It's a linguistic con-game to save appearances of somebody's philosophy of language, which shows by the need of such con-games that it's bankrupt as a philosophy of language.

That is basically just trash talk.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Thanks for the discussion - many valuable contributions. Even the cheese sandwich bit was entertaining.

Back to the central dispute between Grokesx and Ingo. Ingo you lay out your position with an incredibly high level of confidence. Almost as if anyone who has enough intelligence to understand your arguments would agree with them.

The problem is that many of the great minds of science are also clearly interested in epistelmology and philosophy (Eistein, Hawking etc) and yet across all the national science academies we don't have polymath after polymath just coming out and saying that the cosmological argument proves there is a God.

My guess is that it is not over the whole 'there must be an uncaused cause' bit. Many would probably agree there. So my question is where is the greatest weakness in your argument in your view?

And why do you think so many aren't presuaded by such a simple (near) water-tight argment? (I include Christian scientists here - many of whom, I'd guess from the few I know, would not be convinced by your confidence).

Buongiorno il mio vecchio amico,

Be interested in what Ingo reckons to this. As a logical argument it's pretty watertight. The boy Hawking didn't like it because he prefers not to have God in the equation. To that end he came up with this nonsense (quoted from the Guardian)

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

He doesn't seem to know what "nothing" is. If there is a "law" that's not nothing. Nothingness has no creative properties - in fact it ain't got any properties since it's the antithesis of thingness, so is defined entirely by it's absence of properties. To make his theory of the origin of the universe work he made up some figures to get his equations to balance "imaginary time."

Don't know if his problem is an intellectual one or an emotional one. Belief in God has consequences.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Why not? I can start a thought experiment with "Suppose there is a non-causal multiverse ...", can't I?

Well, yes, you can. But then you also have to finish it with "... therefore we can say nothing about it." And really, that's not even a thought experiment. Because you are not actually thinking about that multiverse. You are simply looking at the word "non-causal", and then you give up. The multiverse is accidental to that.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Suppose there is a non-causal multiverse ... What is going to stop me?

I think one may be able to demonstrate that this is incoherent, i.e., that you can say the words but that you cannot actually mean anything by them. At any rate, the universe I find myself in is decidedly causal, so these speculations seem rather idle?

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

So Truman, Hawking reads your second to last paragraph and he goes "ahh I hadn't noticed what nothing really means." As do all the other members of the national academies who don't buy the cosmological argument who all immediately become theists. I think you may be underestimating them.

My guess is that they would just counter it with: no you have failed to understand our position. Your view is that what operates for this universe at this point in time (sic) must operate even pre-big bang (sic again) etc.

They would carry on with: you have built a fair number of suppositions into your thinking that we don't know are true across all universes etc.

You see although Ingo seems pretty confident he seems to acknowledge at other times how easily destroyed the Christian faith is. He talks of the importance not to question the Christian faith and not drilling down into the pearl of faith to see what is beneath the surface. This ironically suggests that maybe an argument can appear pretty water-tight and logical (there are a number - some of which no doubt you would reject) and yet it can be actually pretty flimsy, because it always has to be approached from the same direction!

All these arguments tell us about is the wriggle room that language and the amount that we still don't know - invariably give us.

[ 08. April 2015, 12:24: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And again, why does the uncaused cause have to be sapient?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
My guess is that they would just counter it with: no you have failed to understand our position. Your view is that what operates for this universe at this point in time (sic) must operate even pre-big bang (sic again) etc.

The cosmological argument as it's being made here is not an answer to any particular alternative position. It's a self supporting one, built from first principles. If valid, it's valid whichever physical theory of origins is on the table. It works, for example, as well for an eternal universal with no temporal beginning as it does for one with a definite starting point.

The argument does not suppose any "pre-big bang" events at all. Asserting that there was a pre-big bang as an answer to the cosmological argument takes you in one of two directions: either the big bang is an event which happened for some reason that could in principle be known by a sufficiently capable mind, even if we don't yet know it (in which case its an event with a cause that we could enquire into, like any other); or it happened for no reason that any mind could ever comprehend, even in principle. The first of these still leaves us looking for explanations - we haven't hit metaphysical bedrock yet - so it doesn't refute an argument that there is an ultimate explanation. Only the second alternative actually answers the cosmological argument, by asserting "no-reason" as the last word on existence.

I doubt that it's possible to refute the "no-reason" assertion. Some might find it a more plausible and satisfying an account of existence than "God". I don't - and I don't think that it's yet been demonstrated that I ought to.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
My guess is that it is not over the whole 'there must be an uncaused cause' bit. Many would probably agree there. So my question is where is the greatest weakness in your argument in your view?

Hmm. If many of them would agree with that, then I don't see how my argument can be weak? For the most part I have simply argued here that there must be an uncaused Cause. Full stop. I think that gets you "God", if only in the sense that no normal thing can fill that spot and you might as well call what does "God". It certainly does not get you the Christian God though. I think the most defensible "intellectual default position" is some kind of deism. We can know that a coherent description of reality is not possible with materialism / naturalism alone. But we cannot know much more than that.

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
And why do you think so many aren't presuaded by such a simple (near) water-tight argment? (I include Christian scientists here - many of whom, I'd guess from the few I know, would not be convinced by your confidence).

Frankly, I think most scientists these days are uncomfortable with proofs of God, and religion in general, for exactly the same reason that most scientists used to be comfortably (and often enthusiastically) religious in the past. People go with the cultural flow to a much greater extent than they realise, and massive brain power cannot only be used to find the truth, but also to rationalise whatever convictions one happens to have. I think Newton spending much of his time on religious speculations tells me about as much as Dawkins spending much of his time on atheistic speculations: not a whole lot.

A more interesting question is why the surrounding culture has detached itself so much from religion. I can speculate, but I'm not much of a historian / sociologist. The only thing I would say is that I would be wary of "over-intellectualising" such an analysis. Yes, maybe Ockham's nominalism paved the way for this or that in the realm of ideas. Yes, maybe technological progress made it easier to imagine that mankind could control its own destiny. Etc. But personally I would look at things like the Thirty Years War. Religion brought people misery and death, in spades. People don't like misery and death. I think a lot of cultural change is worked at that kind of visceral level.

As for other Christians, whether scientists or not, I think they are often uncomfortable with these metaphysical analyses because they don't paint a picture of the kind of God they do (and would like to) believe in. It's a bit like proving that a crystal exists, when they believe in a lion. Now, Aquinas et al. do a decent job of creating a crystal lion. It's very difficult to fault them intellectually. But that doesn't mean that people emotionally connect to the crystal lion. Personally, I come from the other end. I can believe in the crystal, I find the lion questionable. So for me Aquinas et al. provide a kind of bridge into all that lion stuff, they make it possible for me to intellectually move from a "default position" of deism to a Christian God. And this in turn allows me to relax on the experiential / emotional side of things.

But that's me, that's perhaps not most people. I think one reason why we don't see much of the cosmological argument in practice is that those who ought to be proposing it, the Christians, do not really like it themselves. It's really only the occasional apologist who drags it out for some philosophical fisticuffs. Is the uncaused Cause the living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Well, one cannot show that He isn't, but that's perhaps not the ringing endorsement followers of that living God are looking for...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And again, why does the uncaused cause have to be sapient?

We have reason to believe that given how the universe exists, there must be an uncaused Cause. We have no reason to believe though that this uncaused Cause had to cause, that does not follow from the observable universe. So the uncaused Cause is really an uncaused Entity, which happens to cause (and we see the result thereof). Why does this uncaused Entity cause? We can find no reason for that external to the uncaused Entity. Because if someone or something told the uncaused Entity to make the universes, then it would be a caused Entity, a contradiction in terms. So we have here an Entity, which does something it does not have to do, and does so for internal reasons, not due to external reasons imposed on it. This kind of motion into action we know from ourselves as "free will".

Furthermore, we notice that the universe is shot through with order and regularity. Far from being "chaotic" in a fundamental sense (not in a deterministic chaos sense), the universe appears to have a comprehensive and detailed structure that undergirds all it is. Both finding such underlying structure in nature, and imposing structure on nature (as in technology, craft, art, ...) are in us functions of the intellect. We understand the world. While in us the intellect is "passive" when dealing with the structure of nature (recognising), and "active" only when creating artefacts (inventing), we know from experience that these are two sides of the same coin. Now, the uncaused Entity has somehow imposed all the structure of nature on the entire universe. This then corresponds in us to a massive exercise of "active intellect".

So we find that the uncaused Cause can be described - in analogy to us - as having free will and an (active) intellect. But that is just what we would call "sapient". So the uncaused Cause is analogically sapient.

It is quite true that this analogy is highly stretched. For example, we experience our intellect as changeable, given to ratiocination, plodding through sequential thoughts. There is nothing of that sort in the uncaused Cause. So if we say that God is sapient, we do not say that God is a kind of super-human. We are merely saying that God has in some sense chosen to create (He did not have to), and what He has chosen to create is ordered in a specific way He has "thought up" (for the want of a better word), since we cannot see other reason why it had to be ordered that way.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: Well, yes, you can. But then you also have to finish it with "... therefore we can say nothing about it." And really, that's not even a thought experiment. Because you are not actually thinking about that multiverse.

Yes I am. Just because I can't say much about a non-casual multiverse (because of the restrictions of language), it doesn't necessarily mean that I can't think it. Obviously, language is an important part of our thinking. But it isn't all there is to it.

One thing I can do, is take a universe that is a little bit different from ours, then take another universe that is a little more different still ... and see where it gets me. Of course, I won't be able to follow this through until the end, because language will break down at some point, but at an intuitive level I can still grasp the idea that this sequence will go on, asymptotically so to speak.

Science fiction does this often of course. It speaks a lot about parallel universes, in fact there is a thread in Heaven at this moment about this.

There is a Dutch science fiction book series for children, it is called Euro·5. It is about a space ship, operated by the European Economic Community — we're talking the eighties here. (In fact, there is one character in this series who is German, speaks impeccable English and has an exagerrated sense of logic. Sometimes he reminds me of someone [Smile]

)

One of the books in this series is called Stuurloos in een vreemd heelal ('Adrift in a strange universe'). In this book, the Euro·5 space ship enters a black hole and ends up in another universe where all laws of nature and logic are different.

The writer of this book, Bert Benson, can't portray this very well, so he says that in this universe, darkness is orange, whereas the stars shine black. This is rather silly of course, although I suppose it is enough to give a sense of awe to pre-adolescent boys. The writer just changed two colours, and that's it.

Most serious science fiction writers go further than that. They make changes to the laws of physics. They introduce a universe where magic works. Or they do strange things with causality, especially in stories that involve time travel. I read one science fiction where wherever a character enters a parallel universe, the writing changes to poetic semi-gibberish.

There is a line here, towards ever-stranger universes. And even if I can't follow this line to the end (because language will break down at a certain point) I can imagine this line going on and on, including towards non-casual universes. And sometimes, omewhere at the edge of my mind I even fool myself into thinking I can have a vague idea about them.

You can't look inside my head. You can't say that I can't imagine something like this, just because you can't.

And another thing, just because I can't say much about it, it doesn't mean that I can't say anything about it.

For example I can try to look at it epistemologically. Suppose there exists a universe H (I hope the reason why I chose this letter will become clear to you). It isn't entirely non-casual, but it comes close. In fact, it obeys two rules:

We cannot make definite logical statements about this universe (except these two rules). Anyhing logical we say about H (or the 'things' 'inside' it) might be valid, or it might not be.
Our language doesn't work very well to describe things 'inside' H. However, for 'some' 'things' 'inside' universe H, there are things in English that are a nearest equivalent. I will try to express this by putting the words between scare quotes.

This is enough for my thought experiment. My reasoning goes like this:

In our universe, everything needs to have a cause.
Our universe doesn't have a cause, but it 'exists' 'inside' H.
We cannot say "everything in H needs to have a cause", because that would break rule number 1.

Our universe might have a 'cause' though. However, I'm not allowed to apply logic to this 'cause'. I'm not allowed to say "This 'cause' needs to fulfill certain properties". Buzz! Rule 1 breach.

But I might want to call this 'cause' God.

quote:
IngoB: I think one may be able to demonstrate that this is incoherent, i.e., that you can say the words but that you cannot actually mean anything by them.

Bring it on.

quote:
IngoB: At any rate, the universe I find myself in is decidedly causal, so these speculations seem rather idle?

I don't think they are. In fact, they break down your argument.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
So Truman, Hawking reads your second to last paragraph and he goes "ahh I hadn't noticed what nothing really means." As do all the other members of the national academies who don't buy the cosmological argument who all immediately become theists. I think you may be underestimating them.

Infatti me ol' china, I reckon you might be over-estimating them. My criticism of Stevie boy is the same one made not only by philosophers, but also other scientists. Have a gander at this.

What you've got here is a scientist straying into philosophy without knowing he's doing it and looking a bit of a burke in the process. Hawking's not that bothered about trying Le Roc's trick of making up alternative realities to avoid God - he reckons all the answers he needs are in this universe with its current laws.

Le Roc - you're whole (sorry to be blunt mate) slightly dippy argument comes to a dead end when you replace "cause" with "explanation." Our universe has an explanation of its existence - even if your own multiverse theory has any milage and we're within a bigger universe, you still need to explain how we got there.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And again, why does the uncaused cause have to be sapient?

Fair question that one. Think of the relationships between causes and effects. When air gets to a certain temperature, water freezes. When the cause applies the effect follows automatically. The universe began at a finite point in the past. If by the universe we mean all matter and all energy, then your uncaused cause has be something which is neither of those. Since this cause exists in some sense prior to the universe the effect of causation that it produces can't be automatic or the universe would exist as long as the cause exists. That suggests that our cause makes some kind of decision as to when the effect of its causal power is actualised. If you fancied putting it like this, the cause exists timelessly with an eternal intention to create the universe.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
That suggests that our cause makes some kind of decision as to when the effect of its causal power is actualised.

No it doesn't. Time doesn't exist before the universe exists; therefore, the cause or explanation of the universe cannot be temporally prior to the universe (since there is no time prior to the universe), nor can it decide when to create the universe since until there's a universe there is no time for there to be a when in.
I refer you to IngoB's answer to Martin's question, which avoids the trap of thinking that time has anything to do with the matter. (Also to my answer several pages back.)

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
However, I'm not allowed to apply logic to this 'cause'.

In which case you may apply logic to it.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So time has nothing to do with the multiverse?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Dafyd: In which case you may apply logic to it.

I'm not exactly following what you're saying here (in fact I'd appreciate it if your reply were a bit longer), but I could have formulated that sentence better. Instead of "However, I'm not allowed to apply logic to this 'cause'" it should have read "We cannot make definite logical statements about this 'cause'. Anyhing logical we say about it might be valid, or it might not be."

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And if metaphysical analysis must (let's assume) lead to a non-ratiocinating sapience, why does it have to be a Deus that most modern scientist Christians don't like that leads them to deny the truth?

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It came to be at the same time as it became a cheese sandwich, and it ceased to exist at the exact same time as it ceased to be a cheese sandwich. The only reason that cheese sandwich existed was that it was a cheese sandwich...

... There are no non-existent cheese sandwiches. It's a linguistic con-game to save appearances of somebody's philosophy of language, which shows by the need of such con-games that it's bankrupt as a philosophy of language.

Seems to me that the philosophical question here is what properties we attribute to non-existent things.

At the one extreme, non-existent things have every property except existence. A cheese sandwich that doesn't at this present time exist is just as cheesy as one that does. There is in this scheme of things an infinite array of non-existent cheese sandwiches waiting to be actualised, to be given that one last property they lack in order to be real cheese sandwiches - the property of existence.

The opposite assumption is that existence is the first property, not the last. That something has to exist in order to have any other properties at all. That may sound like common sense, but it could make it difficult to talk in anything other than the present tense.

I can see an intermediate position that goes something like this. Observe that in general, language allows us two modes of reference. You may have learned the word "sandwich" by someone pointing at a sandwich and saying "sandwich". Or by reading a definition "snack food consisting of a layer of something else between two layers of bread".

Now if a cheese sandwich exists, you can observe its properties - type of bread, type of cheese, thickness of each, freshness/staleness of each, etc etc. if it doesn't exist, you can't point at it, but only define it. On this reading, a non-existent cheese sandwich has those properties implied by the definition of the words "cheese sandwich" but not all the other properties that a real existing observable cheese sandwich has.

The tighter the definition - Lyda Rose wants a fresh Gruyere sandwich on sourdough bread - the more properties the non-existent item has. If the waiter brings her smoked cheddar on wholemeal instead, she says "that's not what I ordered". What she ordered - the cheese sandwich that doesn't exist because the kitchen hasn't yet made it for her - has properties from the words she used to define it. It doesn't have other properties - such as size or freshness for example. If they bring her a tiny nouvelle cuisine sandwich sitting limply in the middle of a large plate, she has no comeback...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Its existence and its cheese sandwichness temporally and logically coincide. There is nothing in the IDEA of a cheese sandwich that says it exists. But this cheese sandwich isn't the idea of a cheese sandwich, it's a cheese sandwich. And there has never in the history of the world been a cheese sandwich that didn't exist, as you yourself have admitted.
No, in an actual cheese sandwich, existence and "cheese sandwichness" temporally coincide, but precisely not logically. Exactly because nothing in the idea of a cheese sandwich says that it also exists, these two do not logically coincide.

In other words the idea of a cheese sandwich is not a cheese sandwich. No shit, Sherlock. Existence does not adhere to the idea of a cheese sandwich, it adheres to real cheese sandwiches. ALL of them. There is no cheese sandwich that does not exist. The idea of a cheese sandwich is not a non-existing cheese sandwich. It's an idea.

quote:
Logically - and logic does happen in the mind - it is a separate issue whether there is a real object on the plate that corresponds to my idea of a cheese sandwich, or not.

I don't deny this. Nor do I see why you said it.

quote:
And the whole point of saying that "non-existence" of a cheese sandwich is logically prior is simply to say that thinking of cheese sandwiches, no matter how perfectly, does not make cheese sandwiches.

There is no cheese sandwich in the world that has non-existence. There is no "non-existence of a cheese sandwich" anywhere. It's not a thing. It's not a property of a thing. It's just words strung together that make no sense, unless you mean "the idea of a cheese sandwich, coupled with the idea that no cheese sandwich corresponding to this idea exists." But you haven't shown why that concept is necessary, or indeed if it is necessary, for what. To think about cheese sandwiches? Hardly. To make cheese sandwiches? Not at all. There is no reason that you have demonstrated that we need an idea that might be put into words as "the non-existence of a cheese sandwich." It doesn't clarify anything. Quite the opposite. It's either meaningless or obfuscatory at best.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that the philosophical question here is what properties we attribute to non-existent things.

Before we can answer that we have to determine what "non-existent things" means (if anything), and whether or not we allow that there are any such.

As I pointed out above (but was dismissed as being "trash talk," a handy way to not have to deal with someone's argument), "non-existent things" are necessary as place-holders in some philosophies of language. But the very idea is inherently self-contradictory. So a philosophy of language that uses them is irreparably damaged. Any philosophy that requires a self-contradiction is fatally flawed. And something that both exists (as all things do) and doesn't exist (which is what "non-existent" means) is a contradiction.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Now if a cheese sandwich exists, you can observe its properties - type of bread, type of cheese, thickness of each, freshness/staleness of each, etc etc. if it doesn't exist, you can't point at it, but only define it.

What "it"? When you say if "it" doesn't exist, what are you referring to? Not the cheese sandwich, because there's no cheese sandwich there to refer to. You're arguing in a circle; you're assuming the existence of non-existent cheese sandwiches to explain the existence of non-existent cheese sandwiches.

[ 09. April 2015, 05:31: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
"We cannot make definite logical statements about this 'cause'. Anyhing logical we say about it might be valid, or it might not be."

If something logical is valid, then something logical is valid - that's a logical tautology.
If something logical is not valid, then something logical is valid - that's an illogical deduction.

Either way, something logical is valid.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So how in an eternity of multiverses is time irrelevant? And why is meta-sapience needed by the assumed uncaused cause of material eternity? And whether pigs have wings?

[ 09. April 2015, 07:13: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

That's a really important point about the True/False system that is often the default position. To take one current example - we reproduce by sexual means - so therefore someone is either male or female. Full stop. In fact, there are ambiguities. Women experience themselves as men. Men experience themselves as women. Babies are born with ambiguous or ambivalent genitalia. To say that someone is either male or female is logical but it's certainly not necessarily valid.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
That suggests that our cause makes some kind of decision as to when the effect of its causal power is actualised.
No it doesn't. Time doesn't exist before the universe exists; therefore, the cause or explanation of the universe cannot be temporally prior to the universe (since there is no time prior to the universe), nor can it decide when to create the universe since until there's a universe there is no time for there to be a when in.
I refer you to IngoB's answer to Martin's question, which avoids the trap of thinking that time has anything to do with the matter. (Also to my answer several pages back.)

Cheers Dafyd. It's OK - I get that the priority is logical not temporal. Might have been better to say God exists eternally with a timeless intention to create.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

mousethief

I appreciate that you are a lot better at this than me, but I'm still not sure I get your point. Doesn't the concept of something new come before the something new can be brought into being? And isn't that how we see the beginning of the creative process?

Of course this stuff is very slippery, and the inter-related issues of language, truth and logic have been perplexing the human mind for long enough. So I may be being circular here. But I can't see that I am.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

{Reformed version of previous post, which exceeded the edit window. Sorry. If a kindly, passing H/A has nothing better to do, please delete the shorter version, just above. Thanks.}

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
It's OK - I get that the priority is logical not temporal. Might have been better to say God exists eternally with a timeless intention to create.

What if God is a verb? (Per Buckminster Fuller, in his book No More Secondhand God. Also in the Whole Earth Catalog.)

(And I still love the original WEC after all these many, many years!)
[Cool]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
One thing I can do, is take a universe that is a little bit different from ours, then take another universe that is a little more different still ... and see where it gets me. Of course, I won't be able to follow this through until the end, because language will break down at some point, but at an intuitive level I can still grasp the idea that this sequence will go on, asymptotically so to speak.

Indeed, you can do that. And lo and behold, that's basically what I did when introducing the concept, see here, 1st paragraph. Though I sensibly started some way down the line, rather than at a single non-causal change. What one grasps with that asymptotic behaviour is however exactly that one loses all grasp.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In this book, the Euro·5 space ship enters a black hole and ends up in another universe where all laws of nature and logic are different. The writer of this book, Bert Benson, can't portray this very well, so he says that in this universe, darkness is orange, whereas the stars shine black.

That's not "non-causal". That's simply different. "The darkness is orange" tells us how something called 'darkness' impacts on what presumably still are eyes and the visual system. "The stars shine black" tells us that the stars cause blackness around them. Presumably we can put these two together and conclude that an observer would see an orange universe with black dots in them. We can operate logically on these causal descriptions.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Most serious science fiction writers go further than that. They make changes to the laws of physics. They introduce a universe where magic works. Or they do strange things with causality, especially in stories that involve time travel. I read one science fiction where wherever a character enters a parallel universe, the writing changes to poetic semi-gibberish.

None of which has anything to do with a non-causal universe. Changed laws of physics are still laws. Time travel is a fun thing to write about precisely because it creates causal loops. If it was non-causal, then there would be no particular meaning to traveling "back in time". There would be no time (an ordered sequence of changes). Poetic semi-gibberish is clearly meaningful to you, otherwise you would not call it "poetic", and anyway, it indicates here entry into a parallel universe, which is a causal link.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You can't look inside my head. You can't say that I can't imagine something like this, just because you can't.

I don't think that this is a matter of individual skill. The pictures we can make of a non-causal universe involve basically a failure of the mind (as I've said, LSD hallucinations might be a nice start). The asymptotic end point of that is a complete failure of the mind, and it is basically a contradiction in terms to imagine that.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
For example I can try to look at it epistemologically. Suppose there exists a universe H (I hope the reason why I chose this letter will become clear to you). It isn't entirely non-casual, but it comes close. In fact, it obeys two rules:
We cannot make definite logical statements about this universe (except these two rules). Anyhing logical we say about H (or the 'things' 'inside' it) might be valid, or it might not be.
Our language doesn't work very well to describe things 'inside' H. However, for 'some' 'things' 'inside' universe H, there are things in English that are a nearest equivalent. I will try to express this by putting the words between scare quotes.
This is enough for my thought experiment. My reasoning goes like this:
In our universe, everything needs to have a cause.
Our universe doesn't have a cause, but it 'exists' 'inside' H.
We cannot say "everything in H needs to have a cause", because that would break rule number 1.
Our universe might have a 'cause' though. However, I'm not allowed to apply logic to this 'cause'. I'm not allowed to say "This 'cause' needs to fulfill certain properties". Buzz! Rule 1 breach. But I might want to call this 'cause' God.

First, I don't think that there is such a thing as a "partly non-causal" universe. How would that work? In order to designate a "part" of the universe that can be non-causal, I need causal delimiters. If I can successfully contain a non-causal part, then in fact I have turned it causal. For I can now describe the part causally. But if it remains non-causal, then I cannot contain it. For by what reason should it remain constrained? I cannot say "you have to do this or that" to a non-causal entity, I do not have the grip to control it. Why should for example a non-causal entity not have the effect to turn the entire universe non-causal instantly? There are no temporal, energetic, local constraints on a non-causal entity that could stop it from doing that. An imagined mixture of causal and non-causal entities is inherently unstable and will decay towards non-causality.

Second, your H-theory contradicts itself. For first you say that for anything 'inside' H we cannot make proper logical / causal statements. But then you say that our logical / causal universe is 'inside' of H. That clearly contradicts itself. If you want to save your H-theory, then you have to imagine a non-causal "surrounding" H with a causal 'inside' our universe, like a fruit with a pit. But then you run into the problem I have just described generally. For what protects the causal 'inside' from the surrounding non-causality? If you now make some rules, like say "up to this spatiotemporal position we have non-causality, from then on we have causality", then you are de facto adding causal constraints to you non-causal H. But this stands against your claim that there are only two rules. And if this is successful, then in what sense is there even an H from the perspective of the causal 'inside'? For if you causally isolate the causal inside perfectly, then clearly a purported non-causal surround is irrelevant. But if you do not perfectly isolate the causal 'inside', then there is no reason why it would remain untouched. The non-causal surround can at any time reach 'inside' and do whatever it will. There is no rule that we can apply to it.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Bring it on.

For now I think I will stick with shooting down your attempts at proposing something non-causal.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't think they are. In fact, they break down your argument.

Hmm? I have an argument that relies on the observable properties of the universe. The way you try to break down that argument is basically to say "well, but maybe logic does not apply to the final step". You have no reason for saying that, other than imagining some non-causal embedding of our universe without any evidence (and as noted above, such an embedding is probably incoherent itself). This is really no different to how materialists like to break down the argument, by declaring that logic does not apply to the final step because things just exist as "brute fact". Yes, you can say that, and yes, pure assertions like that cannot be defeated by argument. But assertions can fairly be dealt with by counter-assertions (I say there is no non-causal embedding, prove me wrong). And clearly the "optimistic about reason" take on things is that logic does apply to the final step. And that has always been my point, my argument is the "most rational" one.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As I pointed out above (but was dismissed as being "trash talk," a handy way to not have to deal with someone's argument), "non-existent things" are necessary as place-holders in some philosophies of language. But the very idea is inherently self-contradictory. So a philosophy of language that uses them is irreparably damaged. Any philosophy that requires a self-contradiction is fatally flawed. And something that both exists (as all things do) and doesn't exist (which is what "non-existent" means) is a contradiction.

I think you're being a bit unfair. Languages usually require a subject-object-verb structure (not necessarily in that order), and so have to use place holders when they're talking about subject matters that don't naturally fit into that structure. So just because a philosophy of language needs to talk about non-existent things doesn't mean it's fatally flawed so long as it is using them as place holders. It's only when it supposes them to have ontological weight that it goes wrong. (Similar things go wrong if you assume that 'running' is ontologically a substance rather than a place holder for a verb.)

It gets trickier if you're doing what we're doing here which is arguing about the nature of contingent existence. Because saying that something might not have existed does seem to flirt with non-existent things. I think the same problem applies to things that didn't happen - asking what would have happened if Al Gore had won the presidency in AD2000 makes similar reference to non-events.
(And talking about fictional people and mythological entities similarly.)
I think in some sense what we are trying to do here is to say what is the ontological structure of the world on the supposition that a) there are contingent entities that might not have existed; b) there are no non-existent entities.

Aquinas' answer to whether God has ideas of non-existent entities is to distinguish between theoretical or observational knowledge and practical or craft knowledge: knowing that and knowing how. God doesn't know-that anything about things that don't exist because there is no that to know, but God does know how to bring them about should God choose.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: What one grasps with that asymptotic behaviour is however exactly that one loses all grasp.

Yes of course, that's what I said. As one does with the concept of infinity. Or God. But that doesn't mean that they aren't useful concepts.

quote:
IngoB: That's not "non-causal". That's simply different.

Yes of course, that's what I said. I was just giving a starting point of a universe that was different from ours, and I deliberately chose a rather silly one. (I still like the book though.)

quote:
IngoB: None of which has anything to do with a non-causal universe.

The examples had to do with non-causality. Read them again.

quote:
IngoB: First, I don't think that there is such a thing as a "partly non-causal" universe. How would that work?

I didn't say that I was talking about a 'partly non-causal' universe. In fact, I didn't use the words 'part' or 'causal' in my definition of H.

quote:
IngoB: In order to designate a "part" of the universe that can be non-causal, I need causal delimiters.

I didn't designate part of the universe as non-causal. And anyway, saying that I'd need delimiters is a Rule 1 breach.

quote:
IngoB: Second, your H-theory contradicts itself. For first you say that for anything 'inside' H we cannot make proper logical / causal statements. But then you say that our logical / causal universe is 'inside' of H. That clearly contradicts itself.

Like I said, logical statements about things 'inside' of H might be valid or they might not. They happen to be valid in the case of our universe.

quote:
IngoB: Hmm? I have an argument that relies on the observable properties of the universe. The way you try to break down that argument is basically to say "well, but maybe logic does not apply to the final step". You have no reason for saying that

No, the onus is on you here to show that it applies.

When I was a scientist, I worked on theoretical nuclear physics, and specifically the mathematical side of this. As you undoubtedly know, this is all about operators that work on infinite-dimensional spaces.

As you also know, each operator has a domain. It is only valid if I feed it stuff that is inside of its domain. Otherwise, my mathematics break down and my conclusions are invalid.

Before I do any calculations, it is up to me to show that I'm working within the domain of the operator. Physicists often skip this step, but it is mathematically vital. The onus isn't on other people to prove that I've worked outside of the domain, it is on me to prove that I'm inside of it.

I think the analogy works rather well. Experience shows us that logic works inside of our universe. In mathematical terms: our universe is a subset of the domain of the 'logic' operator.

In a sense, logic is very much connected to this universe. Logic is our way of understanding the universe (as you've already said, it works remarkably well, even if there is no intrinsic reason why it should). Logic seems to be built into this universe (as you've said: no time, no causality. But time is woven into the structure of the universe). And as you've already admitted, theoretically universes are possible where our logic doesn't apply.

So, our universe seems a rather natural domain for the operator of logic. What you are doing constantly in your argument, is to apply logic to entities outside of our universe. But then it is up to you to show that this is still inside of its domain. It might be, it might not be. But it is up to you to show that. I see no reason why it should be applicable there.

What you need to do is show me that logic applies outside of our universe. And you can't use logic to show that, or you would simply be bootstrapping yourself. I'm looking forward to reading your poem.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: But if you do not perfectly isolate the causal 'inside', then there is no reason why it would remain untouched. The non-causal surround can at any time reach 'inside' and do whatever it will. There is no rule that we can apply to it.

I think you've just described God.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
As one does with the concept of infinity. Or God. But that doesn't mean that they aren't useful concepts.

These are not comparable. The asymptotic sequence leading to infinity keeps the concept of "big" alive, it just makes things "big" beyond measure. The asymptotic sequence leading to non-causality keeps no concept alive, it precisely destroys all thinkable content. The result is not something one can operate with. I can say "infinity > 8" and that is meaningful and true. I can say nothing meaningful and true about or with non-causality. I can only talk about it in the negative.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The examples had to do with non-causality. Read them again.

I've read them. They didn't. And I've shown so, by demonstrating their causal content.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I didn't say that I was talking about a 'partly non-causal' universe. In fact, I didn't use the words 'part' or 'causal' in my definition of H.

You said about H: "It isn't entirely non-casual, but it comes close." If something is not entirely X, then obviously it is in part X. And you then went on to make this explicit, by attempting (albeit incoherently) to state rules about what parts are non-causal and what parts are not: namely all is non-causal but for your two rules (and possibly a causal universe kernel, you were inconsistent concerning that).

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I didn't designate part of the universe as non-causal. And anyway, saying that I'd need delimiters is a Rule 1 breach.

You did. And if you didn't, then we have nothing to talk about. For if your H-world is entirely causal, then obviously it says nothing about the non-causal case. Whereas your H-world cannot be entirely non-causal, since in describing it you clearly retain causal elements, like rules that apply to it. And you seem to think that a "Rule 1 breach" is a problem for me. It isn't. It is a problem for you. For if in following your rules I breach your rules, then that's a "reductio ad absurdum" of your rules. You seem to think that you can arbitrarily propose "axioms" to construct your case. That is not so. Even in mathematics, you cannot do that. If you add an axiom that is false in itself, or contradicts the other axioms, then you do not get new maths. You get nonsense.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Like I said, logical statements about things 'inside' of H might be valid or they might not. They happen to be valid in the case of our universe.

Or not. Unless you would like to make a rule out of this?

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
No, the onus is on you here to show that it applies.

You have not doubted that it applies, other than for the final step. I have not claimed that it applies to the final step, other than under the assumption that reason (logic, causality) apply to it. I'm entirely happy with you declaring "but we cannot be sure that there is a God, because instead it could be an unthinkable, incoherent, nonsensical non-causality". Whatever floats your boat, as long as I keep reason firmly on my side.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And as you've already admitted, theoretically universes are possible where our logic doesn't apply.

Other logic is not the same as no logic. I'm not sure that a non-causal universe is possible, even theoretically. Obviously you can say the words, but I'm not sure that they indicate meaningful content. It is just really difficult to argue about this sort of thing, because argument requires logic.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, our universe seems a rather natural domain for the operator of logic. What you are doing constantly in your argument, is to apply logic to entities outside of our universe. But then it is up to you to show that this is still inside of its domain. It might be, it might not be. But it is up to you to show that. I see no reason why it should be applicable there.

And I see no reason to believe that there are any non-causal entities outside the universe. I have no duty whatsoever to pander to your wild speculations about entirely unobserved entities which have properties that we find unimaginable. I suspect they are too incoherent to exist, full stop. But be that as it may, I certainly have no reason whatsoever to assume that they do exist and hence no need to say anything about them. And in case you haven't noticed: you are applying "logic" to your non-causal imaginations as much as I do. For anything you can actually say about them is written in terms of "logic".

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What you need to do is show me that logic applies outside of our universe.

Not exactly. The cosmological argument operates basically within this universe. It just shows that the universe is not "causally closed", i.e., it cannot explain itself entirely. It steps "outside" of the universe merely by saying that then there must be an explanation for it apart from itself. The "brute fact" theory instead says that indeed, the universe is ultimately inexplicable. Your alternative is now to say that no, green grizzlies cheesecake beep beep 1+1=rooster fri fra fruddle. That has a certain charm, in particular after a few beers, but really is not worth thinking about much...

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think you've just described God.

See here, paragraph starting with "By the way."

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
mousethief

I appreciate that you are a lot better at this than me, but I'm still not sure I get your point. Doesn't the concept of something new come before the something new can be brought into being? And isn't that how we see the beginning of the creative process?

Of course the concept of something new (except things created/invented by accident) comes before the something new. But that's what it is -- a concept. Not a cheese sandwich that just doesn't happen to exist yet. A concept or idea is not a non-existing thing-it's-a-concept-of.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you're being a bit unfair. Languages usually require a subject-object-verb structure (not necessarily in that order), and so have to use place holders when they're talking about subject matters that don't naturally fit into that structure. So just because a philosophy of language needs to talk about non-existent things doesn't mean it's fatally flawed so long as it is using them as place holders. It's only when it supposes them to have ontological weight that it goes wrong. (Similar things go wrong if you assume that 'running' is ontologically a substance rather than a place holder for a verb.)

A place-holder, I can see. But it's a linguistic entity, not an ontological entity. Maybe what I should have been saying all along is that talking about the priority of the non-existence of non-existent cheese sandwiches is a gigantic category error.

quote:
I think in some sense what we are trying to do here is to say what is the ontological structure of the world on the supposition that a) there are contingent entities that might not have existed; b) there are no non-existent entities.

It is definitely true that with the exception of God, all entities are contingent. But non-existent entities have no ontological reality; they are a linguistic place-holder (thank you for that distinction). Otherwise we find ourselves talking about all those potential Mormon babies just waiting to be conceived. For if the cheese sandwich I'm going to make for lunch has some kind of pre-existence non-existence, then so do all those babies not yet conceived. (Which could explain RCC attitudes toward birth control, at least.)

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: The asymptotic sequence leading to non-causality keeps no concept alive, it precisely destroys all thinkable content.

So what? As I keep saying: even if it's not thinkable, it doesn't mean that it can't exist. And you haven't shown to me that it is not thinkable.

quote:
IngoB: I can say nothing meaningful and true about or with non-causality. I can only talk about it in the negative.

So you can say something about it.

quote:
IngoB: I've read them. They didn't. And I've shown so, by demonstrating their causal content.

Time travel has directly to do with causality. There are different ways in which science fiction writers make time travel work logically, all by altering the rules of causality of our universe.

quote:
IngoB: You have not doubted that it applies, other than for the final step. I have not claimed that it applies to the final step, other than under the assumption that reason (logic, causality) apply to it. I'm entirely happy with you declaring "but we cannot be sure that there is a God, because instead it could be an unthinkable, incoherent, nonsensical non-causality". Whatever floats your boat, as long as I keep reason firmly on my side.

Now we're getting somewhere. The Uncaused Cause doesn't need to have the properties you say it has. It is outside of our universe, and logic and causality don't need to apply to it. As you said, that's just your assumption.

quote:
IngoB: Other logic is not the same as no logic.

Exactly. Theoretically, there exist universes with other kinds of logic than ours. And I think you'll agree with me that if they exist, God created them too. So why should God be described by our logic?

quote:
IngoB: And I see no reason to believe that there are any non-causal entities outside the universe. I have no duty whatsoever to pander to your wild speculations about entirely unobserved entities which have properties that we find unimaginable.

What you believe to exist or what you find imaginable isn't a measure of things outside of the universe. What you believe to exist or what you find imaginable isn't a measure of God.

You applied logic outside of the domain where it has been proven (by experience) to be valid. It's up to you to show that you can.

quote:
IngoB: Your alternative is now to say that no, green grizzlies cheesecake beep beep 1+1=rooster fri fra fruddle.

I guess that's a perfectly good name for God.

I don't entirely disagree with your argument. Everything in the universe seems to have a cause (or an explanation). Science cannot say that it has completely explained the universe unless it has given a cause (or explanation) of the universe itself.

It may say "the universe just is", but as you rightly say, it cannot do that and claim to have fully explained the universe. If it gives this answer, it cannot chide religion for using non-scientific explanations.

So, one possibility is that there is something outside of the universe that caused it. I'm with you so far. But then you apply logic to this entity outside of the universe. It is there that we part ways.

I'm a Christian. I believe that there is an Entity outside of the universe that created it. I just don't believe that it necessarily has the properties you say it has.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that the philosophical question here is what properties we attribute to non-existent things.
Before we can answer that we have to determine what "non-existent things" means (if anything), and whether or not we allow that there are any such.

As I pointed out above (but was dismissed as being "trash talk," a handy way to not have to deal with someone's argument), "non-existent things" are necessary as place-holders in some philosophies of language. But the very idea is inherently self-contradictory. So a philosophy of language that uses them is irreparably damaged. Any philosophy that requires a self-contradiction is fatally flawed. And something that both exists (as all things do) and doesn't exist (which is what "non-existent" means) is a contradiction.

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Now if a cheese sandwich exists, you can observe its properties - type of bread, type of cheese, thickness of each, freshness/staleness of each, etc etc. if it doesn't exist, you can't point at it, but only define it.
What "it"? When you say if "it" doesn't exist, what are you referring to? Not the cheese sandwich, because there's no cheese sandwich there to refer to. You're arguing in a circle; you're assuming the existence of non-existent cheese sandwiches to explain the existence of non-existent cheese sandwiches.

Yes … I have long been completely unimpressed by one of the definitions of "God" as "That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived" -- as if our limited ability to perceive, conceive, investigate, and understand Reality somehow decides what "Reality" IS (or can be) ... [Devil]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The Uncaused Cause doesn't need to have the properties you say it has. It is outside of our universe, and logic and causality don't need to apply to it.

If logic doesn't apply to it, then illogically logic does apply to it. If logic does apply, the logically it applies. So either way logic needs to apply to it.

quote:
You applied logic outside of the domain where it has been proven (by experience) to be valid.

You can't prove logic to be valid by experience.

The validity of logic is not a property of our universe, nor does it depend upon anything contingent.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

LeRoc wrote:

I don't entirely disagree with your argument. Everything in the universe seems to have a cause (or an explanation). Science cannot say that it has completely explained the universe unless it has given a cause (or explanation) of the universe itself.

It may say "the universe just is", but as you rightly say, it cannot do that and claim to have fully explained the universe. If it gives this answer, it cannot chide religion for using non-scientific explanations.

So, one possibility is that there is something outside of the universe that caused it. I'm with you so far. But then you apply logic to this entity outside of the universe. It is there that we part ways.

I'm a Christian. I believe that there is an Entity outside of the universe that created it. I just don't believe that it necessarily has the properties you say it has.

Isn't it also permissible, and indeed important, that science can say 'we don't know'? I would have thought that notions of causation, time, beginnings, and so on, may be revolutionized in the future by advances in physics, mathematics, and so on. In fact, the notion of a singularity already does that to an extent, since a singularity is sometimes termed lawless.

Hopefully no-one here would use the argument, that science can't explain the beginning of the universe, therefore God. That is lamentable.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The Uncaused Cause doesn't need to have the properties you say it has. It is outside of our universe, and logic and causality don't need to apply to it.
If logic doesn't apply to it, then illogically logic does apply to it. If logic does apply, the logically it applies. So either way logic needs to apply to it.

quote:
You applied logic outside of the domain where it has been proven (by experience) to be valid.
You can't prove logic to be valid by experience.

The validity of logic is not a property of our universe, nor does it depend upon anything contingent.

IOW, bare "logic," per se is only one tool -- and not the preferred tool -- in gaining understanding of real (observed; experienced) Reality as It really Is ...

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

It seems a little odd that the Cause of our existence would endow us with sufficient cognitive faculties to appreciate its existence, but insufficient to appreciate its properties.

Or is the Big Bang the product of a Big Tease?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
It seems a little odd that the Cause of our existence would endow us with sufficient cognitive faculties to appreciate its existence, but insufficient to appreciate its properties.

Or is the Big Bang the product of a Big Tease?

Any level they selected would appear a bit odd.

Jengie

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Dafyd: If logic doesn't apply to it, then illogically logic does apply to it.

"Logic doesn't apply to X" doesn't mean "Of every logical statement I can think of related to X, the converse will be true".

quote:
Dafyd: You can't prove logic to be valid by experience.

True, but you can believe it is valid by experience. Outside of the universe we have no experience, so we have no reason to believe it is valid.

quote:
Dafyd: The validity of logic is not a property of our universe, nor does it depend upon anything contingent.

Of course it is. We observe the universe and come to the conclusion that it follows certain rules. Our language and logic developped to reflect these rules.

We see that in our universe, a cause always comes before a consequence. So our language and our logic reflect that.

But there is no intrinsic reason why another universe would follow the same rules. Maybe it will have different rules, and the language and logic of its inhabitants will reflect that. Maybe it doesn't have rules, but it is organised along a principle we don't have a word for. And maybe it isn't organised at all.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
As I keep saying: even if it's not thinkable, it doesn't mean that it can't exist. And you haven't shown to me that it is not thinkable.

You have so far failed to provide any evidence or reason that it does exist. I do not have to prove the non-existence of arbitrary entities. And if an asymptotic series where every step strips off something thinkable does not lead to the unthinkable, then I don't know what sort of "proof" you are looking for.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Time travel has directly to do with causality. There are different ways in which science fiction writers make time travel work logically, all by altering the rules of causality of our universe.

Altering rules does not mean having no rules. As you say, the writers make time travel work logically even if not by the rules of our universe. We are not discussing that sort of thing.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The Uncaused Cause doesn't need to have the properties you say it has. It is outside of our universe, and logic and causality don't need to apply to it. As you said, that's just your assumption.

Nope. The uncaused Cause must have the properties I say it has, because it follows from the causality of the universe under my assumption that reason holds. You can say that reason stops, to get the "brute fact" explanation. Or you can say that somehow our well-ordered universe spawned from chaotic madness. And when I say "that makes no sense" you can say "that's fine, my 'solution' is all about making no sense". Fine, there's no arguing that. There's also no reason why one should take it seriously.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Theoretically, there exist universes with other kinds of logic than ours. And I think you'll agree with me that if they exist, God created them too. So why should God be described by our logic?

Just how variable logic can be is a good question. But anyway, the cosmological argument does not "describe God by our logic" (whatever that means). It points out that there is a fundamental gap in our causal description of the universe, which cannot be closed in this universe. And further conclusions and deductions basically specify the nature of this gap. For example, when I say that the uncaused Cause must be eternal, I'm saying that the gap I have detected cannot have the temporal properties of other things in my universe. Now, you can dream of alternate universes in which there is no such thing as time, and maybe that even makes sense. In such a universe my description of the uncaused Cause as eternal would perhaps not make sense. But that is neither here nor there. What I'm saying is that contrasted with the actual temporal universe that I observe, the uncaused Cause appears eternal. How the uncaused Cause would appear to some imagined "other rules, other logic" universe I do not know. But I know that to us it must appear eternal. And so on. I never really leave this universe with my arguments. It's like describing a hole in a wall. To a considerable extent you can do so without passing through it.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What you believe to exist or what you find imaginable isn't a measure of things outside of the universe. What you believe to exist or what you find imaginable isn't a measure of God.

So you assert. Assertions are fairly rejected by counter-assertion. Anyway, to step away from the metaphysics mode here for a second: I think we are in the image and likeness of God precisely in the sense that our intellect is sufficiently "God-like" to truthfully understand the world, and by grace, even God.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You applied logic outside of the domain where it has been proven (by experience) to be valid. It's up to you to show that you can.

Again, it's more like looking at a hole in the wall and saying "something must have caused the lack of brick here". The assumption that goes into that is some form of continuity: bricks do not just disappear as far as we can observe, thus if we see a hole, it is reasonable to assume that they didn't just disappear there either. I don't think that one can "show" that this is true, how would one do that? All one can say is that it is the most reasonable assumption. Whereas the "brute force" assumption that the hole just is and requires no explanation, seems just like a cop-out. And your assumption that the hole is just incoherent madness beyond all description that will eat the mind as it looks at the hole, seems just silly. But since there is no independent check possible here, it's up to you what you will go with.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, one possibility is that there is something outside of the universe that caused it. I'm with you so far. But then you apply logic to this entity outside of the universe. It is there that we part ways. I'm a Christian. I believe that there is an Entity outside of the universe that created it. I just don't believe that it necessarily has the properties you say it has.

We have not discussed much the properties of the uncaused Cause. But to reiterate, they are not "outside of the universe" in that sense. I can know that the uncaused Cause is eternal, not because I look outside of the universe, but because I look at the universe and notice that a temporal cause cannot fill the role of the uncaused Cause for it. That's really an argument inside this universe, not because the uncaused Cause is "inside" this universe but because its causation is. You can dream of beings in a completely different universe following completely different rules and even logic (I don't think that they can exist, but for the sake of argument let's allow it here). For them my statement that the uncaused Cause is eternal may make no sense at all. But nevertheless, it remains a true statement in terms of our universe. Viewed from this universe by us, the uncaused Cause is seen as eternal, and even though this statement is only true for beings with similar temporal make, it is true for all of them. If we find some aliens in this universe, and they are good philosophers, then they will also have concluded that there is an uncaused Cause and that it is eternal. Even if we somehow heard from beings in other temporal universes, they would report an eternal uncaused Cause. Because temporal causes cannot close the explanatory gap in temporal universes.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
My guess is that they would just counter it with: no you have failed to understand our position. Your view is that what operates for this universe at this point in time (sic) must operate even pre-big bang (sic again) etc.
The cosmological argument as it's being made here is not an answer to any particular alternative position. It's a self supporting one, built from first principles. If valid, it's valid whichever physical theory of origins is on the table. It works, for example, as well for an eternal universal with no temporal beginning as it does for one with a definite starting point.

The argument does not suppose any "pre-big bang" events at all. Asserting that there was a pre-big bang as an answer to the cosmological argument takes you in one of two directions: either the big bang is an event which happened for some reason that could in principle be known by a sufficiently capable mind, even if we don't yet know it (in which case its an event with a cause that we could enquire into, like any other); or it happened for no reason that any mind could ever comprehend, even in principle. The first of these still leaves us looking for explanations - we haven't hit metaphysical bedrock yet - so it doesn't refute an argument that there is an ultimate explanation. Only the second alternative actually answers the cosmological argument, by asserting "no-reason" as the last word on existence.

I doubt that it's possible to refute the "no-reason" assertion. Some might find it a more plausible and satisfying an account of existence than "God". I don't - and I don't think that it's yet been demonstrated that I ought to.

Been out all day. Thanks for your response Eliab - clear and gracious as ever. I hoped that I'd shown my awareness that saying 'pre-big bang' was in some ways problematic. I should have been clearer.

I agree with you that it might well come down to that choice. One (it is God) strikes me as wishful thinking, the other (no reason) strikes me as fanciful. Neither are great in terms of logic and plausibility.

I didn't expect to change your view on what the answer is. What I wanted to understand was why 'it must be God' was absolutely the only possible answer. More on that when I answer Ingo.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: You have so far failed to provide any evidence or reason that it does exist.

I don't need to prove that it exist. The theoretical existence of a non-causal universe is enough to show that logic isn't necessarily applicable outside of our universe.

quote:
IngoB: And if an asymptotic series where every step strips off something thinkable does not lead to the unthinkable, then I don't know what sort of "proof" you are looking for.

The fact that a non-causal universe is unthinkable is no obstacle for it being theoretically possible. The idea that only the things we can think are possible is absurdly preposterous.

quote:
IngoB: Altering rules does not mean having no rules.

True, but these science fiction writers show that we can alter some rules at least theoretically. If we can do that, then it's a reasonable assumption that we can go the whole hog.

But in fact, I don't even need a completely non-causal universe for my argument that logic doesn't need to be valid outside of our universe. Just one universe with different logic will do.

quote:
IngoB: The uncaused Cause must have the properties I say it has, because it follows from the causality of the universe under my assumption that reason holds.

Exactly. I don't share that assumption: reason doesn't need to hold for God. For example, I don't believe that God needs to be eternal in the way you describe Him.

quote:
IngoB: And your assumption that the hole is just incoherent madness beyond all description that will eat the mind as it looks at the hole, seems just silly.

This isn't my assumption. You keep saying that either God follows our logic or He's incoherent madness. That's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of other possibilities.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Dafyd: If logic doesn't apply to it, then illogically logic does apply to it.
"Logic doesn't apply to X" doesn't mean "Of every logical statement I can think of related to X, the converse will be true".

Of course they're not logically equivalent. Logically it's not a permissible deduction. But logic doesn't apply so the deduction's fine.

quote:

quote:
Dafyd: The validity of logic is not a property of our universe, nor does it depend upon anything contingent.
Of course it is. We observe the universe and come to the conclusion that it follows certain rules. Our language and logic developped to reflect these rules.

We can't come to the conclusion that the universe follows certain rules - the rules are the process by which we come to any conclusion whatsoever. The study of logic systematises them.

quote:
We see that in our universe, a cause always comes before a consequence. So our language and our logic reflect that.

That a cause has to come before a consequence is not actually I think a basic principle of logic. There are some temporal logics that build on basic logic.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
My guess is that it is not over the whole 'there must be an uncaused cause' bit. Many would probably agree there. So my question is where is the greatest weakness in your argument in your view?
Hmm. If many of them would agree with that, then I don't see how my argument can be weak? For the most part I have simply argued here that there must be an uncaused Cause. Full stop. I think that gets you "God", if only in the sense that no normal thing can fill that spot and you might as well call what does "God". It certainly does not get you the Christian God though. I think the most defensible "intellectual default position" is some kind of deism. We can know that a coherent description of reality is not possible with materialism / naturalism alone. But we cannot know much more than that.

Ingo - I think I am becoming clearer on why we see this differently. (I am not coming at this from the POV of an atheist). I also appreciate the tone you have adopted in this exchange.

It seems to me that you say you can prove that there is an 'uncaused cause'. This is a strong argument and difficult to counter - though I don't think it is quite axiomatic. However, you then go to say - 'so we can (should) call this entity God.' Then you go on from that to - of all the versions of God we have, the Christian God is most plausible.

The problem I have is that those two further steps feel to me like pretty large leaps (not impossible to make, but pretty speculative), whereas it comes across as if you think these further steps are pretty small - the whole hangs together very easily. The smallness of those two further steps makes everything nicely coherent / cohesive - for you. Each component step reinforcing the other steps.

For those who are not Christians and for many Christians I would suggest that it is these two further steps that are the great weaknesses.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
And why do you think so many aren't presuaded by such a simple (near) water-tight argument? (I include Christian scientists here - many of whom, I'd guess from the few I know, would not be convinced by your confidence).
Frankly, I think most scientists these days are uncomfortable with proofs of God, and religion in general, for exactly the same reason that most scientists used to be comfortably (and often enthusiastically) religious in the past. People go with the cultural flow to a much greater extent than they realise, and massive
Religion brought people misery and death, in spades. People don't like misery and death. I think a lot of cultural change is worked at that kind of visceral level.

As for other Christians, whether scientists or not, I think they are often uncomfortable with these metaphysical analyses because they don't paint a picture of the kind of God they do (and would like to) believe in. It's a bit like proving that a crystal exists, when they believe in a lion. Now, Aquinas et al. do a decent job of creating a crystal lion. It's very difficult to fault them intellectually. But that doesn't mean that people emotionally connect to the crystal lion. Personally, I come from the other end. I can believe in the crystal, I find the lion questionable. So for me Aquinas et al. provide a kind of bridge into all that lion stuff, they make it possible for me to intellectually move from a "default position" of deism to a Christian God. And this in turn allows me to relax on the experiential / emotional side of things.

But that's me, that's perhaps not most people. I think one reason why we don't see much of the cosmological argument in practice is that those who ought to be proposing it, the Christians, do not really like it themselves. It's really only the occasional apologist who drags it out for some philosophical fisticuffs. Is the uncaused Cause the living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Well, one cannot show that He isn't, but that's perhaps not the ringing endorsement followers of that living God are looking for...

Ironically I agree with a fair amount of what you write here. However, let me develop some of that thinking further. The cosmological argument is rarely used as an apologetic or to shore up one's own faith because...

The whole 'even if there was a big bang before this big bang we can constantly regress to God' - just emphasises the remoteness of God. When people are looking for reassurance that their loved one will end up in heaven where they are loved; or that God will step in to heal their son or daughter; or that God who has felt distant bordering on non-existent, will start to give them some sort of experiential reassurance, they don't want to be reminded of the alien, remoteness of God.

Indeed jumping from a position that emphasises these aspects of deism, is hardly helpful when someone explains a gospel where something went so wrong with God's creation that he had to send his Son to suffer, to make everything ok. I believe you have pointed to the problems with this yourself! My point is that the jump from the deism you describe, to the Christian faith is one hell of a leap in terms of logic and plausibility.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Dafyd: But logic doesn't apply so the deduction's fine.

No, "logic doesn't apply" doesn't mean "every deduction is fine".

quote:
Dafyd: We can't come to the conclusion that the universe follows certain rules

Of course we can. We see that the sun rises. Then it gets dark. Then the sun rises again. We deduct that the universe follows a certain rule. We encode this rule in our language by words as 'night' and 'day'. We derive logic from this: even if we're somewhere we've never been before and it gets dark, it will get light again. And God saw that it was good.

If there weren't such regularities in our universe, we wouldn't have arrived at logic.

quote:
Dafyd: That a cause has to come before a consequence is not actually I think a basic principle of logic.

It was just an example.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

If there is a creator deity, it seems most believable that that deity is the source of all love and goodness; and that he particularly bestows his favour on humanity.

This is most believable in the sense that it a) gives meaning to the universe b) elevates humanity to a special position in the universe and c) elevates individual human lives to have cosmic eternal significance.

These are all powerful claims, and the Christian God is the only religion that I know of who created all things for the companionship of humans. And, of course, it is a powerful story because it touches on the deepest needs of humans: that there is meaning in the universe, that mankind is more than just another living thing, and that an incomprehensibly massive deity delights in the existence of littl' Old me.

But there is no particular reason that any of these things are true. A deity might exist who cares nothing about the things he has made. Even if fascinated by the evolved status of humanity, he might be standing back and then observing our behaviours like a scientist studying lab rats. There may, in fact, be no meaning in the universe. All seeking after meaning may ultimately be pointless brainwaves flickering across the randomly arranged pathways of semiconscious beings who exist temporarily in time and space between existing as nutrients in the soil.

I totally accept that this latter paragraph is less believable because it offers nothing in the sense of individual purpose, cosmic or spiritual significance. Nobody seriously wants to believe that their life is a pointless accident of nature which has no long term impact on anything or anyone.

But this does not mean that the more believable God exists. Perhaps we should all believe in this God and perhaps our lives would be enriched if we were to believe that there is an eternal being who takes an interest in our lives.

But even that, in and of itself, is not evidence that such a being exists.

The Christian God cannot be proven but only experienced, as someone famous probably said.

[ 09. April 2015, 19:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If there is a creator deity, it seems most believable that that deity is the source of all love and goodness; and that he particularly bestows his favour on humanity.

This is most believable in the sense that it a) gives meaning to the universe b) elevates humanity to a special position in the universe and c) elevates individual human lives to have cosmic eternal significance.

These are all powerful claims, and the Christian God is the only religion that I know of who created all things for the companionship of humans. And, of course, it is a powerful story because it touches on the deepest needs of humans: that there is meaning in the universe, that mankind is more than just another living thing, and that an incomprehensibly massive deity delights in the existence of littl' Old me.

But there is no particular reason that any of these things are true.

On the basis of the cosmological argument alone I would have to agree with you. It most probably leaves you with some kind of deism. As you go on to say, Christian experience is a powerful indicator of God's existence. But there are several steps between the cosmological argument and Christian experience. The next step would be drawing conclusions from the way the universe has been precision tuned to allow for life - and more precisely our lives given the number of interconnecting factors that need to apply for Earth to be able to sustain life.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
So Truman, Hawking reads your second to last paragraph and he goes "ahh I hadn't noticed what nothing really means." As do all the other members of the national academies who don't buy the cosmological argument who all immediately become theists. I think you may be underestimating them.
Infatti me ol' china, I reckon you might be over-estimating them. My criticism of Stevie boy is the same one made not only by philosophers, but also other scientists. Have a gander at this.

What you've got here is a scientist straying into philosophy without knowing he's doing it and looking a bit of a burke in the process. Hawking's not that bothered about trying Le Roc's trick of making up alternative realities to avoid God - he reckons all the answers he needs are in this universe with its current laws.

Truman - I followed that link and it took me to an article was based on a John Lennox article in the Daily Mail. Gulp.

You presumably find Lennox a whole lot more convincing that I do. I have had the misfortune to sit through two debates with him making unfounded assertion after unfounded assertion. Calling Lennox a scientist is errr ...interesting.

Now I don't want to defend the Hawking quote - I don't know enough background context about it and he is infamously provocative about his philosophical assertions.

However, Lennox often uses intelligent design based arguments; (presumably) understands the difference between postdictive and predictive probability and yet doesn't apply it to his own thinking. Consequently it is unsurprising that he is not taken very seriously outside the conservative Christian audience that he seems to write for.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
That suggests that our cause makes some kind of decision as to when the effect of its causal power is actualised.
No it doesn't. Time doesn't exist before the universe exists; therefore, the cause or explanation of the universe cannot be temporally prior to the universe (since there is no time prior to the universe), nor can it decide when to create the universe since until there's a universe there is no time for there to be a when in.
.)

Well I wouldn't be quite so sure about that. Whilst Augustine would agree with you, Newton would frown and say that absolute time is, well, God's duration. And then we have fascinating views which distinguish between spatio-temporal time (time as we know it) and metaphysical time - time which God experiences which transcends the universe (time, Jim, but not as we know it).

Now on balance I would agree with you, Truman (from his later post) and Augustine. Suffice to say there are other, credible ways of resolving this issue.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
But there are several steps between the cosmological argument and Christian experience. The next step would be drawing conclusions from the way the universe has been precision tuned to allow for life - and more precisely our lives given the number of interconnecting factors that need to apply for Earth to be able to sustain life.

True.. but even this is a statement of faith. In a very large universe, it might not be so surprising that there is at least one place "precision tuned" for life.

Indeed, it is only our lack of experience of the range of other places available that suggests where we are is anything special or that other such spaces exist where life can be supported.

Making an assessment of one's uniqueness based on knowledge of a very small part of the observable universe is, by necessity, a statement of faith. Add in the concept of an infinite number of possible other universes, and the existence of life, however unlikely, might be said to have become a certainty.

So I don't think that we can say anything much about the deity based on natural theology. The nature of things unknown to us may or may not support that view.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

@Luigi. On Truman's article. Much as any reference to the Daily Mail makes me wonder whether the genetic fallacy really is a universal, I must reluctantly conclude that the place where a source is quoted neither denies nor confirms its veracity.

Whatever your views on John Lennox, Denis Alexander is a fine scientist (a reputation surely enhanced by his fine family name 😍). And he's quoted in the Times 😜).

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
But there are several steps between the cosmological argument and Christian experience. The next step would be drawing conclusions from the way the universe has been precision tuned to allow for life - and more precisely our lives given the number of interconnecting factors that need to apply for Earth to be able to sustain life.
True.. but even this is a statement of faith. In a very large universe, it might not be so surprising that there is at least one place "precision tuned" for life.

Indeed, it is only our lack of experience of the range of other places available that suggests where we are is anything special or that other such spaces exist where life can be supported.

Making an assessment of one's uniqueness based on knowledge of a very small part of the observable universe is, by necessity, a statement of faith. Add in the concept of an infinite number of possible other universes, and the existence of life, however unlikely, might be said to have become a certainty.

So I don't think that we can say anything much about the deity based on natural theology. The nature of things unknown to us may or may not support that view.

Well there's a bit more to this than my post was letting on. It's not just that our bit of the universe is precision-tuned for life (we might come back to that) but that the initial conditions in which the universe was birthed is also finely tuned in an astonishing way. To say the the universe is precision tuned for life is a scientific statement - on its own it's an observation which has no theological content. How we interpret that observation is where theology comes in.

Postulating infinite numbers of universes as a way of solving the problem of a universe with all the characteristics of design just goes to show how big a problem it is for naturalism. In addition to which, the idea that there exists any universe other than the one we observe is highly speculative.

I'll link you to an accessible article when I get a moment (from a publication I trust Luigi will find acceptable).

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The Christian God, like any other, can neither be proven nor experienced. Only invoked.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Drew - the negative for me was much more about Lennox than the Mail. And from my pov any tabloid paper (good though they may be for some things) isn't a great place to have a thorough exploration of a philosophical issue.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that the philosophical question here is what properties we attribute to non-existent things.
Before we can answer that we have to determine what "non-existent things" means (if anything), and whether or not we allow that there are any such.

We can talk about things or people that used to exist but don't exist any more (like the Roman Empire).

We can talk about things or people that could conceivably exist in the future ("but what if it has my looks and your brains ?")

We can talk about the icicles that form on the windowsill each winter, that exist regularly but don't exist right now.

We can define those things we would like to exist (like someone ordering a cheese sandwich from room service in a hotel).

We can talk about which fictional character you would most like to meet in real life (which is conceivable but not possible).

We can talk about entities whose existence is in doubt - leprechauns, the Loch Ness Monster, aliens visiting earth in UFOs, angels, God.

We can engage in reductio ad absurdam mathematical proofs where we demonstrate that a particular set is empty by reasoning from the properties of members of that set to obtain a contradiction.

We can discuss alternate histories (such as what would have happened if the Axis powers had won World War 2).

In each case, insisting that something has to exist before we allow that it can have any properties at all seems to restrict the discussion unduly.

Now if you were to say that the characteristics of a non-existent thing are latent - that they were or will be or can only be manifested when or if the thing exists or existed, I'd agree that that's part of what we mean by existence.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that the philosophical question here is what properties we attribute to non-existent things.
Before we can answer that we have to determine what "non-existent things" means (if anything), and whether or not we allow that there are any such.
We can talk about things or people that used to exist but don't exist any more (like the Roman Empire).

We can talk about things or people that could conceivably exist in the future ("but what if it has my looks and your brains ?")

We can talk about the icicles that form on the windowsill each winter, that exist regularly but don't exist right now.

We can define those things we would like to exist (like someone ordering a cheese sandwich from room service in a hotel).

We can talk about which fictional character you would most like to meet in real life (which is conceivable but not possible).

We can talk about entities whose existence is in doubt - leprechauns, the Loch Ness Monster, aliens visiting earth in UFOs, angels, God.

We can engage in reductio ad absurdam mathematical proofs where we demonstrate that a particular set is empty by reasoning from the properties of members of that set to obtain a contradiction.

We can discuss alternate histories (such as what would have happened if the Axis powers had won World War 2).

In each case, insisting that something has to exist before we allow that it can have any properties at all seems to restrict the discussion unduly.

Now if you were to say that the characteristics of a non-existent thing are latent - that they were or will be or can only be manifested when or if the thing exists or existed, I'd agree that that's part of what we mean by existence.

Best wishes,

Russ

And none of those games succeeds in reasoning "God" OUT of Reality … i.e., IOW, contrary to popular atheist literature, "God" is not going to "disappear in a puff of logic" ...

[ 10. April 2015, 03:40: Message edited by: Teilhard ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In each case, insisting that something has to exist before we allow that it can have any properties at all seems to restrict the discussion unduly.

What "it"? If it doesn't exist there's no "it" to have properties. You're talking about ideas. We can put together ideas. But ideas do not perforce create these chimerical non-existing entities.

I think the time thing is a red herring. By "existing" I think we can allow anything that has in the past existed without breaking any logic rules or making nonsensical statements. Napoleon was short. I can say that without needing any of these weird non-existing existences, the way "the cheese sandwich that I may or may not have for lunch tomorrow has tomatoes" apparently does, on IngoB's reading.

In short I don't see how your list requires us to create this bizarre class of entities that aren't entities.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That's assuming "He" is reasoned IN there.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
To say the the universe is precision tuned for life is a scientific statement - on its own it's an observation which has no theological content. How we interpret that observation is where theology comes in.

Nope, the claim that the universe is 'precision tuned for life' is not a scientific statement.

Consider the following*:

I am interested in the effects of a chemical on the growth of a microbe.

I set up petri dishes which include the chemical in a range of concentrations. It so happens in this situation that there is an optimum concentration of the chemical for the growth of the microbe.

As might be expected, across all the petri dishes, the microbes are found in a defined number corresponding to a particular range of concentrations: not found where there is too little, not found where there is too much.

Now let us imagine complicating this experiment and introducing a lot of extra factors - other chemicals, temperatures and so on. The aim is to find the optimum conditions for the microbes growth.

It turns out that there is a single petris dish where the microbe has grown. The combination of the factors means that the microbe will not grow anywhere else.

It is utterly wrong to suggest that the scientist has somehow 'precision tuned' the petri dishes to allow for the right conditions for the growth of the microbe. In fact, all the other petri dishes are in some way unable to support the growth of that microbe.

All we know about our planet, our solar system, our universe is that we happen to be in the petri dish with the right combination of conditions for life. All we can say with scientific fact is that these are the factors that are exhibited on this planet in this solar system and in this universe which allows life as we know it.

The statement that the planet, the solar system and the universe are 'fine tuned' is a religious claim. It may, in some unknown way, be just one amongst an infinite number of universes which happens to have the right combination of a large number of unlikely factors to allow life.

*ETA: of course I appreciate that this thought experiment is a great deal simpler than the one which would be happening in a real microbial lab. But the principle is solid.

[ 10. April 2015, 07:40: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The cheese sandwich discussion appears to show an equivocation in the notion of beginning to exist. The sandwich is made of already existing energy/matter, see the first law of thermodynamics. Equally, we would say the same of the universe, but now we also get the idea of creation from nothing, which in literal terms contradicts the first law. In fact, this indicates an eternal universe.

Thus, to talk of things beginning to exist hides an ambiguity, and Craig, for example, seems to exploit this. Beginning to exist should be parsed as the transformation of already existing energy/matter.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
To say the the universe is precision tuned for life is a scientific statement - on its own it's an observation which has no theological content. How we interpret that observation is where theology comes in.

Nope, the claim that the universe is 'precision tuned for life' is not a scientific statement.

Actually it is. "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." (Stephen Hawking)

And that's the point. If the values of these numbers were different, even to an infinitesimal degree, our universe would be incapable of permitting life.

You need to be clear about the distinction between "fine tuning" which is based on scientific analysis, and "design" which is a religious interpretation of that fine tuning.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Actually it is. "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." (Stephen Hawking)

Yeah, well, y'know theoretical physicists and biologists are loose with the way that they use philosophical terms. That Stephen Hawking said it does not mean that we understand it in the way that he meant it nor does it mean that it is a scientific statement of fact.

Biologists frequently, for example, talk about species choosing to behave in certain ways - as if they have sentience and the ability to choose behaviour. Of course, part of the whole point is that they lack the ability to choose - it is just easier to understand the complexity of ecology by anthropomorphising in this way.

quote:
And that's the point. If the values of these numbers were different, even to an infinitesimal degree, our universe would be incapable of permitting life.

Well, that is certainly a point. But if there are an infinite number of universes (and/or a near infinite number of planets) then maybe all of these things vary and we just happen to be in the right universe where those things coincide (see my example above).

quote:
You need to be clear about the distinction between "fine tuning" which is based on scientific analysis, and "design" which is a religious interpretation of that fine tuning.

Nope, I am quite clear what is and is not science on this point.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Christian God, like any other, can neither be proven nor experienced. Only invoked.

When I pray I am not primarily invoking God. Silent pray, when it happens, can well be discribed as an experience but it is certainly the most compelling reason I can give for my Christian belief and my feeble commitment to love God and my neighbour in the terms and imagery of Christian tradition.

This sort of discussion seems to me tautologous and unconstructive. Better to concentrate on how to love God and neighbour than waste time arguing on whether to do so.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

'Fine Tuning' and 'Design' both seem to suggest external agency. My guess is that Hawking whilst finding it a useful analogy, was not thinking of supporting the belief that an external agency is necessary. (Or, what Mr Cheesy said.)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Hawking also tends to use rather loose language in his popular publications. It would be interesting to see if he describes fine tuning in a formal scientific paper.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
And none of those games succeeds in reasoning "God" OUT of Reality … i.e., IOW, contrary to popular atheist literature, "God" is not going to "disappear in a puff of logic" ...

Hahahaha the idea that Douglas Adams is a writer of popular atheist literature is utterly ridiculous whichever way around that statement is read. Plenty of people who are not atheists read Hitchhiker - and very clearly it is not pushing an atheistic message. In fact it is very clearly a comic-satirical form of nonsense.

The formulation of this particular phrase is clearly not to be taken seriously, and nobody anywhere would attempt to use this as a proof for the non-existence of the deity.

Finally, in his "increasingly inaccurately named" Hitchhiker trilogy, Adams includes illusions to a creator God and has characters who are deities.

Of course, one could have pointed to better examples of sci-fi writers who really do have an atheistic agenda and/or beef with Christianity, such as Isaac Asimov. But an interesting feature of the latter is that his popular fiction novels and short stories were never (or, perhaps almost never) about any deity at all.

Of course, various other sci-fi writers take a wide spectrum of views on religion and philosophy.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
'Fine Tuning' and 'Design' both seem to suggest external agency. My guess is that Hawking whilst finding it a useful analogy, was not thinking of supporting the belief that an external agency is necessary. (Or, what Mr Cheesy said.)

Interesting remark, which incidentally proves the force of the argument. Let's backtrack a moment and deal with the definition of what we are describing here. From the useful wikipedia article on fine tuning we find this definition:

"The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."

OK? That's science. Now saying that this "suggests external agency" is quite right - that's why it's used to support arguments for design. However, it is not in itself an argument for design. It's not an argument for any philosophical position.

The observations about the relationships between the fundamental constants and quantities in the universe give rise to the obvious questions about how we account for them. However we account for them, the relationships between these numbers remain the same.

As with possible explanations of any fact, not all explanations of the relationships between the fundamental structures of the universe are equally plausible.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Interesting remark, which incidentally proves the force of the argument. Let's backtrack a moment and deal with the definition of what we are describing here. From the useful wikipedia article on fine tuning we find this definition:

"The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."

Wikipedia is not a gauge of accepted science. And given that is a very minor page, it is highly likely to have been written by someone with an agenda.

And anyway, this paragraph does not even contradict what I said above, go back and read my example. The petri dish within which we exist clearly meets the characteristics of life, hence we are alive. This is not any kind of proof that we are in a specially constructed universe for the reasons I've given above.

quote:
OK? That's science. Now saying that this "suggests external agency" is quite right - that's why it's used to support arguments for design. However, it is not in itself an argument for design. It's not an argument for any philosophical position.

You are fundamentally wrong about this and clearly are mistaken about what is and is not science.

quote:
The observations about the relationships between the fundamental constants and quantities in the universe give rise to the obvious questions about how we account for them. However we account for them, the relationships between these numbers remain the same.

Yes, but nobody is arguing that these constants are not fundamental for life (or at least life as we know it). The argument is about whether these are evidence of some special status of this universe and therefore whether it shows that we are in fact caused by some external agency.

In and of itself, the fact that we exist and have life is not evidence of a creator. It just isn't.

quote:
As with possible explanations of any fact, not all explanations of the relationships between the fundamental structures of the universe are equally plausible.

Quite hard to take anything you say seriously after that remark. Clearly you've not read and understood my example above.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Finally, in his "increasingly inaccurately named" Hitchhiker trilogy, Adams includes illusions to a creator God and has characters who are deities.

“God's Final Message to His Creation:
'We apologize for the inconvenience.”

―-Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE] ...nobody is arguing that these constants are not fundamental for life (or at least life as we know it). The argument is about whether these are evidence of some special status of this universe and therefore whether it shows that we are in fact caused by some external agency.

Splendid! A point of agreement. Shall we proceed from here? How might we account for these fundamental elements of the universe? I think there are four options.

Either the universe is the way it is because it has to be this way and no other way. In other words, the universe is essential. Clearly that doesn't work, since there are many more ways the universe could be configured so as not to permit life.

What else could we try? Well we could suggest that we just got lucky - this is the only universe there is and its configuration is the result of random chance. That's highly improbable. PCW Davis (Arizona State University), for instance, has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions of the universe being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not form) is one followed by at least 1,000 billion billion zeros (PCW Davies Other Worlds pp160-161, 168-169). He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity, or the weak nuclear force by one part in 10 to the power of 100 would prevent a life-permitting universe. Not impossible, just highly improbable.

The third option is the one I think you're suggesting. There are a multiplicity of universes, so many of them in fact that at least one will, on the law of averages, turn out to be life permitting. There are a variety of versions of the "multiverse" theory - perhaps you can tell us which one you favour the most and we can discuss its pros and cons.

The fourth option is that the universe is designed. The properties of this designer would be one that is all powerful (to bring all matter and energy into existence) immaterial (since matter is a product of the designer) and personal (since quite a lot of thought has gone into the design).

So we'd need to look at these and see which explanation or explanations appear the more plausible given the evidence available to us.

Is that a reasonable point to move on from?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

This discussion is clearly batshit: winning a lottery at very low odds tends towards impossible. But that doesn't mean someone fails to win.

It is not possible to talk about the likelihood of these things happening, because we have absolutely no way of knowing. We are the universe/solar system/planet which won the lottery. We know nothing about everyone else.

Stupid conversation, I'm done.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
The fourth option is that the universe is designed. The properties of this designer would be one that is all powerful (to bring all matter and energy into existence) immaterial (since matter is a product of the designer) and personal (since quite a lot of thought has gone into the design).

There are theological problems here, namely that it should be impossible to determine that the universe is created by inspecting the details of that universe (since if it were that would imply God was not free to create universes that didn't look created). Having been created can no more show up among empirical properties of the universe than existing does.

Note that cosmological arguments do not start from any specific property of the universe but from general meta-properties - contingency or change, for example.

It's impossible to argue about the probability of the universal constants, thought-provoking as they might be, since we have no idea what the range over which they could have varied was. It could be that they're as mathematically determined as e and pi.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Dafyd: But logic doesn't apply so the deduction's fine.
No, "logic doesn't apply" doesn't mean "every deduction is fine".

I agree. You are quite right that "logic doesn't apply" doesn't logically imply "every deduction is fine".
Since we're talking about somewhere logic doesn't apply, what we can and can't deduce logically doesn't matter. So I can take 'logic doesn't apply' to mean 'every deduction is fine' even if it's not logical to do so.

(I am mucking about of course since I do not believe 'logic doesn't apply' is a coherent statement. But there is a serious point underlying the mucking about, which is that if you abandon logic all you're left with is mucking about.)

quote:

quote:
Dafyd: We can't come to the conclusion that the universe follows certain rules
Of course we can. We see that the sun rises. Then it gets dark. Then the sun rises again. We deduct that the universe follows a certain rule. We encode this rule in our language by words as 'night' and 'day'. We derive logic from this: even if we're somewhere we've never been before and it gets dark, it will get light again. And God saw that it was good.

I thought the rules we were talking about were specifically logical rules as opposed to empirical rules.
That night follows day is not a logical rule: were the Earth to synchronise its spin on its axis with its orbit so that the sun remained stationary in the sky as it does on Mercury no logical rule would be violated. (ish... there might be physical constraints that mean the maths might not work out - I am not a physicist.)

A logical rule would be that if all cats are mammals and Tibbins is a cat then Tibbins is a mammal. The rule 'all cats are mammals' was reached by empirical research; the discovery that Tibbins is a cat by empirical observation.
The logical rule governing the major syllogism was not reached by empirical observation. One could perhaps envisage a discovery that some cats are in fact descended from dinosaurs and only look like mammals through convergent evolution; one can imagine that Tibbins is in fact a heavily disguised iguana or a fairy; it is not possible that we find Tibbins is a cat and that all cats are mammals and yet Tibbins is not a mammal. There is no set of empirical observations that would amount to that set of claims.

I recommend on this point (and others) Chesterton's chapter The Ethics of Elfland in his book Orthodoxy.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

The fourth option is that the universe is designed. The properties of this designer would be one that is all powerful (to bring all matter and energy into existence) immaterial (since matter is a product of the designer) and personal (since quite a lot of thought has gone into the design).

So what would account for the unkindness which comes about once animals started to evolve? 'Nature raw in tooth and claw' - animals have to eat each other, but it's a brutal natural world.

Would an all-powerful designer whose name was love not have built a better system? (Better for the creatures s/he apparently loves?)

Please don't say 'the devil did it'. An all powerful designer would not factor in such weakness.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

venbede. So what are you doing here? And when you and I brokenly, inadequately pray, that is not invoking God? We are not thinking out loud?

Drewthealexander - posit if God were not. How would an uncaused multiverse cause do universes differently? Especially this one?

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
The fourth option is that the universe is designed. The properties of this designer would be one that is all powerful (to bring all matter and energy into existence) immaterial (since matter is a product of the designer) and personal (since quite a lot of thought has gone into the design).

There are theological problems here, namely that it should be impossible to determine that the universe is created by inspecting the details of that universe (since if it were that would imply God was not free to create universes that didn't look created). Having been created can no more show up among empirical properties of the universe than existing does.

Note that cosmological arguments do not start from any specific property of the universe but from general meta-properties - contingency or change, for example.

[?QUOTE]

Cosmological arguments - fine. Fine tuning is a teleological argument.

quote:
[QB} It's impossible to argue about the probability of the universal constants, thought-provoking as they might be, since we have no idea what the range over which they could have varied was. It could be that they're as mathematically determined as e and pi. [/QB]

Happily we don't need to know that for the argument to have force. What makes this argument so troubling for materialists is that very tiny variations in either the contestants and quantities themselves, or the relationships between them (let alone the combination of both) could give rise to life prohibiting universes.

Unless you're suggesting that these numbers are as they are because they couldn't be any other way. Is that an option your putting on the table?

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

Drewthealexander - posit if God were not. How would an uncaused multiverse cause do universes differently? Especially this one?

Multiverse theories are quite diverse - coming up with theories and models is what research students do for a living after all. I think we would have to consider one view in particular to have a meaningful conversation on this question.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Would an all-powerful designer whose name was love not have built a better system? (Better for the creatures s/he apparently loves?)

Please don't say 'the devil did it'. An all powerful designer would not factor in such weakness.

I think Christianity faces up to this by saying that the universe God designed is not in the state in which he originally designed it. Hence passages in the New Testament that refer to the redemption of creation as well as to humanity. Christ's redemptive work will end in a new heaven and a new earth.

It's a deep question - worthy of its own thread perhaps. How would you answer it?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Would an all-powerful designer whose name was love not have built a better system? (Better for the creatures s/he apparently loves?)

Please don't say 'the devil did it'. An all powerful designer would not factor in such weakness.
I think Christianity faces up to this by saying that the universe God designed is not in the state in which he originally designed it. Hence passages in the New Testament that refer to the redemption of creation as well as to humanity. Christ's redemptive work will end in a new heaven and a new earth.

It's a deep question - worthy of its own thread perhaps. How would you answer it?

But why design it to fail?

My only answer is that - to give complete freedom to evolve God had to 'let go' and allow evolution to take its course for good or ill, even if it did involve creatures becoming food for each other. But this doesn't really answer it as God must be 'around' holding it all together, so how do you sit back and allow such horror? I gave my children freedom, but I also protected them (as much as I could) until they were old enough to protect themselves. I see no protection whatever coming from God.

[ 10. April 2015, 14:49: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

@ Boogie. Yes, it's a difficult one. One other suggestion is that to allow the universe to evolve/develop/mature, the principle of free agency lends itself to the possibility of producing harm as well as good. It may be that the universe we have delivers as much good as is possible with the least harm.

Let's see what insights others can bring to this.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

One traditional reply is to do with intelligibility, that is, humans could only live and flourish in an intelligible world, hence a world with no miraculous exceptions, which might produce chaos. I suppose a big problem with this approach is that it's tending towards deism, i.e. God creates an orderly world and stands back; and perhaps also it emits a smell of burning rubber.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Would an all-powerful designer whose name was love not have built a better system? (Better for the creatures s/he apparently loves?)

Please don't say 'the devil did it'. An all powerful designer would not factor in such weakness.
I think Christianity faces up to this by saying that the universe God designed is not in the state in which he originally designed it. Hence passages in the New Testament that refer to the redemption of creation as well as to humanity. Christ's redemptive work will end in a new heaven and a new earth.

It's a deep question - worthy of its own thread perhaps. How would you answer it?
But why design it to fail?

My only answer is that - to give complete freedom to evolve God had to 'let go' and allow evolution to take its course for good or ill, even if it did involve creatures becoming food for each other. But this doesn't really answer it as God must be 'around' holding it all together, so how do you sit back and allow such horror? I gave my children freedom, but I also protected them (as much as I could) until they were old enough to protect themselves. I see no protection whatever coming from God.

It's like the famous "Job" question -- "Why ME … ???" … to which the entirely reasonable answer is, "Why NOT you … ???" (as per Job 38:1ff) …

I suppose -- I know -- that for some creatures, "Life's a BITCH …" … and some human beings deliberately then choose death over life …

To be alive is to struggle, to toil, to breathe, to gnaw, to move, to seek -- not always with great success … There are good biological/existential reasons that creatures have the capacity to self-heal many wounds ...

But that's the deal ...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The multiverse I'd go for is the one we're in if the material is all there is. So in other words you can't think of any difference apart from causality that God makes? The universe looks exactly as it would if there is no non-ratiocinating uncaused universe causer (a.k.a. God) but there is an uncaused multiverse causer?

Of course there is the possibility that the multiverse is caused by God.

[ 10. April 2015, 16:03: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Boogie's points remind me of the famous line by Fulke Greville, 'created sick, and commanded to be well', taken up with relish by C. Hitchens. Actually inaccurate, of course.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The multiverse I'd go for is the one we're in if the material is all there is. So in other words you can't think of any difference apart from causality that God makes? The universe looks exactly as it would if there is no non-ratiocinating uncaused universe causer (a.k.a. God) but there is an uncaused multiverse causer?

Of course there is the possibility that the multiverse is caused by God.

And there's you're problem Martin - if the multiverse is uncaused, you are back into the same issue as we have discussed re the possibility that our universe is uncaused. The issue is just shifted back a step.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's curious that B. Russell wrote about the 'cause of the universe' as showing the fallacy of composition. I think it's called the mother argument, all men have mothers, but the human species does not. Hence, he argued, things in the universe may have causes, but not therefore the universe; hotly contested, of course.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's curious that B. Russell wrote about the 'cause of the universe' as showing the fallacy of composition. I think it's called the mother argument, all men have mothers, but the human species does not. Hence, he argued, things in the universe may have causes, but not therefore the universe; hotly contested, of course.

In the case of the universe, the suggestion is that it's a fallacy to argue that because everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe itself has a cause.

But you can have other reasons for proposing that the universe has a cause that avoid this altogether. Arguing that something can't come from nothing would be one. This is confirmed by scientific investigation (not to mention common experience). This argument is based on inductive reasoning, not reasoning by composition, so avoids the potential trap altogether.

Notwithstanding that, I'm sure it could be quite fun assessing Russell's complaint as it stands.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

To be alive is to struggle, to toil, to breathe, to gnaw, to move, to seek -- not always with great success … There are good biological/existential reasons that creatures have the capacity to self-heal many wounds ...

But that's the deal ...

Absolutely, I know that.

But I see no real reason that a 'loving' God would be behind such. (except the incomplete one that I gave, of course)

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I don't see a problem Drew. With the multiverse we have a steady state.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's curious that B. Russell wrote about the 'cause of the universe' as showing the fallacy of composition. I think it's called the mother argument, all men have mothers, but the human species does not. Hence, he argued, things in the universe may have causes, but not therefore the universe; hotly contested, of course.

the evidence appears to be heading towards life starting in interstellar ice - we are stardust

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't see a problem Drew. With the multiverse we have a steady state.

As a matter of interest, if you're in favour of steady steady you don't need the multiverse you account for the origin of our universe. Either we're just here inexplicably, or we've always been here. Theories of multiverses became popular in response to the fine-tuning discoveries.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

To be alive is to struggle, to toil, to breathe, to gnaw, to move, to seek -- not always with great success … There are good biological/existential reasons that creatures have the capacity to self-heal many wounds ...

But that's the deal ...
Absolutely, I know that.

But I see no real reason that a 'loving' God would be behind such. (except the incomplete one that I gave, of course)

And for sure, a two-year old in midst of a tantrum doesn't experience mom/dad as "loving," either when dad/mom is firmly saying, "No … !!!" ...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Who's in a tantrum?

Onchocerca volvulus.

This universe coming in to uncaused existence alone is absurd. This universe being one of infinite universes isn't. It's simplest.

I don't believe in God for any rational reason. I like the story.

[ 10. April 2015, 23:29: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

To be alive is to struggle, to toil, to breathe, to gnaw, to move, to seek -- not always with great success … There are good biological/existential reasons that creatures have the capacity to self-heal many wounds ...

But that's the deal ...
Absolutely, I know that.

But I see no real reason that a 'loving' God would be behind such. (except the incomplete one that I gave, of course)
And for sure, a two-year old in midst of a tantrum doesn't experience mom/dad as "loving," either when dad/mom is firmly saying, "No … !!!" ...

Loving parents explain why the answer is no. They don't hide from their children. Two year old tantrums are due to frustration, loving parents teach their offspring how to deal with frustration.

God doesn't say "no", God simply lets life get on with living. I accept that, but I can't see how love comes into the equation.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

To be alive is to struggle, to toil, to breathe, to gnaw, to move, to seek -- not always with great success … There are good biological/existential reasons that creatures have the capacity to self-heal many wounds ...

But that's the deal ...
Absolutely, I know that.

But I see no real reason that a 'loving' God would be behind such. (except the incomplete one that I gave, of course)
And for sure, a two-year old in midst of a tantrum doesn't experience mom/dad as "loving," either when dad/mom is firmly saying, "No … !!!" ...
Loving parents explain why the answer is no. They don't hide from their children. Two year old tantrums are due to frustration, loving parents teach their offspring how to deal with frustration.

God doesn't say "no", God simply lets life get on with living. I accept that, but I can't see how love comes into the equation.

A two-year old in a tantrum does indeed deserve and should always receive a calm loving explanation … That's what we get in The Book of Job ...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Notwithstanding that, I'm sure it could be quite fun assessing Russell's complaint as it stands.

I was told by a philosophy grad student who was into Bertrand Russell that there are two kinds of Bertrand Russell books -- books about mathematics, and everything else. He said they should publish the former all in blue, and the latter all in red. Then serious philosophers could read the blue books and not be embarrassed by having any of his red books on their shelves. Because as a philosopher he was crap.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Who's in a tantrum?

Onchocerca volvulus.

This universe coming in to uncaused existence alone is absurd. This universe being one of infinite universes isn't. It's simplest.

I don't believe in God for any rational reason. I like the story.

Now that is profound. I like it also, well, parts of it. But that doesn't seem to be enough, it has to be seen to be true also. I suppose otherwise, parts of other religions are likeable, and then you have lost the one true faith.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
A two-year old in a tantrum does indeed deserve and should always receive a calm loving explanation … That's what we get in The Book of Job ...

Trite answers like that simply don't wash imo. Job may have been having a two year old tantrum, but plenty of other perfectly calm non-frustrated people see no God (see the OP). The question hasn't been answered. And, to be fair, can't be answered.

But, we continue to ask it and always will.

Why design this universe, in which the natural world is so painful and cruel(not just to humans) if one can do absolutely anything with anything and supposedly loves those very creatures?

I think Drewthealexander comes closest -

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@ Boogie. Yes, it's a difficult one. One other suggestion is that to allow the universe to evolve/develop/mature, the principle of free agency lends itself to the possibility of producing harm as well as good. It may be that the universe we have delivers as much good as is possible with the least harm.

A bit like democracy - maybe the universe is the least worst option?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Surely also, it depends on whether God needs to be hidden? A God who was not hidden could make life easier for animals, but the hiddenness may be crucial; I am thinking of the Jewish idea of God's withdrawal, (tzimtzum), however this merits its own thread.

[ 11. April 2015, 09:08: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Who's in a tantrum?

Onchocerca volvulus.

This universe coming in to uncaused existence alone is absurd. This universe being one of infinite universes isn't. It's simplest.

I don't believe in God for any rational reason. I like the story.
Now that is profound. I like it also, well, parts of it. But that doesn't seem to be enough, it has to be seen to be true also. I suppose otherwise, parts of other religions are likeable, and then you have lost the one true faith.

Best post by Martin ever - probably.

Know what you mean quetzalcoatl!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'm surprised at you q! It's true for me. It's my one true faith and it integrates all that is good for me. It can't possibly exclude truth from other religions or none. It has incalculably benefitted from postmodernism for none.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Story is very important for me, too.

As to drawing from other faiths (also important for me}: I once read a quote to the effect that "All truth is from the Holy Spirit, no matter who says it".

FWIW, I think people approach questions of origin, the possible Other/Divine, "life, the universe, and everything", etc., in many ways. Trouble arises when we forget that. Many people need stories, and don't necessarily vivisect them--some of us (raises hand) soak them up. They're basic nutrition. Other people need formal logical proofs; or find meaning in personal relationships, or in reading and meditating on ancient texts, or through their bodies.

I don't thing most people are necessarily looking for The Ultimate Truth, especially not all spelled out. We want to know we're loved, or why Grandma died and is she ok, why do children suffer, and whether we matter; is Earth the only planet with life, where did everything come from, and when's lunch. (Nod to Douglas Adams.) And how in the world we can get through *this current moment*. Often, that last question is the most important.

Maybe there isn't necessarily one right way to go about this--except to do it (if we can and choose to), and be honest.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm surprised at you q! It's true for me. It's my one true faith and it integrates all that is good for me. It can't possibly exclude truth from other religions or none. It has incalculably benefitted from postmodernism for none.

I sometimes wonder when the fetish for truth began, I suppose it has always been there, in the sense that the adjacent tribe's god has to be disrespected.

Postmodernism is curious, often derided, yet maybe of great benefit to religion, although maybe not the one and only (Rick Astley?).

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It seems to me that you say you can prove that there is an 'uncaused cause'. This is a strong argument and difficult to counter - though I don't think it is quite axiomatic. However, you then go to say - 'so we can (should) call this entity God.' Then you go on from that to - of all the versions of God we have, the Christian God is most plausible. The problem I have is that those two further steps feel to me like pretty large leaps (not impossible to make, but pretty speculative), whereas it comes across as if you think these further steps are pretty small - the whole hangs together very easily. The smallness of those two further steps makes everything nicely coherent / cohesive - for you. Each component step reinforcing the other steps.

This is speculation on my spiritual life without evidence, which hence unsurprisingly ends up being rather wrong. As far as the naming goes, the only thing I have claimed is that calling the uncaused Cause "god" is admissible for a believer if their "god" is essentially compatible by features (true for some "gods", not true for others). That is indeed an easy and small step, but so for everybody not just me. It's basically a curtesy to the believer that sacrifices a bit of philosophical precision.

But I have rarely said much about why the Christian God is "most plausible", and I certainly have not said much here. In fact, what I have said is that some kind of deism, not Christianity, should be the intellectual default position. I would add to that that this deistic god by default must be either uncaring or evil. My own personal reasons for picking Christianity are complex, and I do not share the prevalent attitude that one should spread one's inner life across the internet. But one key feature of Christianity that attracts me is that it is "crazy" in the right sort of way. It has an "embodied Zen" kind of feel to it. As far as picking religions goes, I will quote myself from a post in Oblivion:

quote:
Assume you are with a large group of people stuck in the desert, and want to get out of there lest you die. Different people suggest different directions to head in (or indeed, to stay put), giving a variety of more or less convincing reasons and appealing to a variety of more or less convincing data. But none of them has an utterly compelling case, i.e., nobody has a working satnav that has both maps of the areas and receives the GPS signal. So what is the reasonable thing to do? Well, you weigh the options to the best of your abilities, and then you go for what seems most probable without looking back. Oscillating between various options (unless they are very close to each other) is generally not going to help, but is going to decrease your survival chances. If you think that one direction is right, then strain to reach the border of the desert that way. Maybe you are right and make it out, maybe you are wrong and will die at the end of a ruinous path, but running around like a headless chicken is going to get you killed for sure. This dedication does not mean however that one must stumble along blindly. If there is serious new information suggesting a change of direction, then one should follow it.

Likewise, I see no contradiction between being firmly committed, faithful, to Christianity and acknowledging that I cannot conclusively prove the falsity of Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. This path seems best to me, so I take it. There is no point in letting uncertainty halt your steps.

... Say you have all these people running off into different religions (different religions), and then you have some (atheists) that think staying put offers best chances. All these people have in their way dealt appropriately with the situation. Of course, it will turn out good for some and bad for others. But they realised the situation and made their decision on how to handle it. Whereas there are some (agnostics) that wander around aimlessly, without being able to commit to one direction or for that matter to staying put. They just cannot bring themselves to make a decision. And then there are some (apathetics) who are just insane and are busy playing card games or otherwise entertaining themselves, completely ignoring the situation they are in. It is these latter two groups who are really in a bad way, with the last group being the worst of them all. These two groups are not doing the necessary thing, they are not properly dealing with the situation at hand. Everybody else is, even the atheists. That is not to say that the outcomes will be the same for all of them, but at least they all gave it a shot. And so I think that this is what we have to do, we have to give religion a shot - one way or another, even by rejecting it.

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
The whole 'even if there was a big bang before this big bang we can constantly regress to God' - just emphasises the remoteness of God. When people are looking for reassurance that their loved one will end up in heaven where they are loved; or that God will step in to heal their son or daughter; or that God who has felt distant bordering on non-existent, will start to give them some sort of experiential reassurance, they don't want to be reminded of the alien, remoteness of God.

I have no problem with "simple" faith. I have no problem with "emotional" faith. I have no problem with "hopeful" faith. Where I get a problem is when people turn around and effectively say: because my simplicity / emotionality / hopefulness requires it, this or that theological or philosophical statement cannot be true. I have a problem when people step back into the intellectual domain and say "because I need X, it is given".

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
My point is that the jump from the deism you describe, to the Christian faith is one hell of a leap in terms of logic and plausibility.

Maybe so. But I think these days we have to worry that many people, or at least educated people, have swallowed the lie that all religion must be irrational simply by the fact that it is religion. I think these arguments have their value in establishing a "rational space" for religion.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by venbede:
This sort of discussion seems to me tautologous and unconstructive. Better to concentrate on how to love God and neighbour than waste time arguing on whether to do so. [/QUOTE

True. But some of us find it fun.
(It also helps if the argument can dispel the impression that God is some kind of big Nobodaddy in the sky.)

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It seems to me that you say you can prove that there is an 'uncaused cause'. This is a strong argument and difficult to counter - though I don't think it is quite axiomatic. However, you then go to say - 'so we can (should) call this entity God.' Then you go on from that to - of all the versions of God we have, the Christian God is most plausible. The problem I have is that those two further steps feel to me like pretty large leaps (not impossible to make, but pretty speculative), whereas it comes across as if you think these further steps are pretty small - the whole hangs together very easily. The smallness of those two further steps makes everything nicely coherent / cohesive - for you. Each component step reinforcing the other steps.
This is speculation on my spiritual life without evidence, which hence unsurprisingly ends up being rather wrong. As far as the naming goes, the only thing I have claimed is that calling the uncaused Cause "god" is admissible for a believer if their "god" is essentially compatible by features (true for some "gods", not true for others). That is indeed an easy and small step, but so for everybody not just me. It's basically a curtesy to the believer that sacrifices a bit of philosophical precision.

But I have rarely said much about why the Christian God is "most plausible", and I certainly have not said much here. In fact, what I have said is that some kind of deism, not Christianity, should be the intellectual default position. I would add to that that this deistic god by default must be either uncaring or evil. My own personal reasons for picking Christianity are complex, and I do not share the prevalent attitude that one should spread one's inner life across the internet. But one key feature of Christianity that attracts me is that it is "crazy" in the right sort of way. It has an "embodied Zen" kind of feel to it. As far as picking religions goes, I will quote myself from a post in Oblivion:

quote:
Assume you are with a large group of people stuck in the desert, and want to get out of there lest you die. Different people suggest different directions to head in (or indeed, to stay put), giving a variety of more or less convincing reasons and appealing to a variety of more or less convincing data. But none of them has an utterly compelling case, i.e., nobody has a working satnav that has both maps of the areas and receives the GPS signal. So what is the reasonable thing to do? Well, you weigh the options to the best of your abilities, and then you go for what seems most probable without looking back. Oscillating between various options (unless they are very close to each other) is generally not going to help, but is going to decrease your survival chances. If you think that one direction is right, then strain to reach the border of the desert that way. Maybe you are right and make it out, maybe you are wrong and will die at the end of a ruinous path, but running around like a headless chicken is going to get you killed for sure. This dedication does not mean however that one must stumble along blindly. If there is serious new information suggesting a change of direction, then one should follow it.

Likewise, I see no contradiction between being firmly committed, faithful, to Christianity and acknowledging that I cannot conclusively prove the falsity of Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. This path seems best to me, so I take it. There is no point in letting uncertainty halt your steps.

... Say you have all these people running off into different religions (different religions), and then you have some (atheists) that think staying put offers best chances. All these people have in their way dealt appropriately with the situation. Of course, it will turn out good for some and bad for others. But they realised the situation and made their decision on how to handle it. Whereas there are some (agnostics) that wander around aimlessly, without being able to commit to one direction or for that matter to staying put. They just cannot bring themselves to make a decision. And then there are some (apathetics) who are just insane and are busy playing card games or otherwise entertaining themselves, completely ignoring the situation they are in. It is these latter two groups who are really in a bad way, with the last group being the worst of them all. These two groups are not doing the necessary thing, they are not properly dealing with the situation at hand. Everybody else is, even the atheists. That is not to say that the outcomes will be the same for all of them, but at least they all gave it a shot. And so I think that this is what we have to do, we have to give religion a shot - one way or another, even by rejecting it.

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
The whole 'even if there was a big bang before this big bang we can constantly regress to God' - just emphasises the remoteness of God. When people are looking for reassurance that their loved one will end up in heaven where they are loved; or that God will step in to heal their son or daughter; or that God who has felt distant bordering on non-existent, will start to give them some sort of experiential reassurance, they don't want to be reminded of the alien, remoteness of God.
I have no problem with "simple" faith. I have no problem with "emotional" faith. I have no problem with "hopeful" faith. Where I get a problem is when people turn around and effectively say: because my simplicity / emotionality / hopefulness requires it, this or that theological or philosophical statement cannot be true. I have a problem when people step back into the intellectual domain and say "because I need X, it is given".

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
My point is that the jump from the deism you describe, to the Christian faith is one hell of a leap in terms of logic and plausibility.
Maybe so. But I think these days we have to worry that many people, or at least educated people, have swallowed the lie that all religion must be irrational simply by the fact that it is religion. I think these arguments have their value in establishing a "rational space" for religion.

Yes … Being a person of faith is not "intellectual suicide" (no matter the rantings of a bigot like Rick Dawkins) ...

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm surprised at you q! It's true for me. It's my one true faith and it integrates all that is good for me. It can't possibly exclude truth from other religions or none. It has incalculably benefitted from postmodernism for none.
I sometimes wonder when the fetish for truth began, I suppose it has always been there, in the sense that the adjacent tribe's god has to be disrespected.

Postmodernism is curious, often derided, yet maybe of great benefit to religion, although maybe not the one and only (Rick Astley?).

Interesting that the German for Trust/Faith is vertraue
...which also is reminiscent of virtue. Truth/faith/virtue as a combined concept is somewhat different from the way we currently use the word "truth".

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Ingo - the reason I wanted to explore this issue is because it kept on being argued that those who argued for an atheistic / materialist position could be shown to be wrong - or at least that was my understanding at the beginning.

I wanted to find out whether this was right or not. Or to put it more accurately, how much weight this argument really had. I am not wanting to either agree with it totally or reject it totally - that binary way of thinking is not IME very helpful.

We seem to agree to some degree that the final step from deism to your Catholicism is substantial. As you say I have no idea about why you took that step. Not sure any further exploration of this part of the debate will be productive.

The issue that most interests me, however, has become a little clearer. I know there are very intelligent logical people who are atheists / materialists. I also know there are very intelligent logical people who are Christians. The question of what separates the two groups is in my view probably not just about intelligence or logic. Both sides no doubt see the other side as being blind to their own confirmation bias.

So at which points might the two disagree? It seems to me that some materialists would disagree with you that all causal links must operate in the same way in all universes and at all points in time. Some would find your argument that the uncaused-cause must be sapient unconvincing. As you say the analogy is stretched - for me I think it is more stretched than it is for you.

quote:
Ingo said:

In fact, what I have said is that some kind of deism, not Christianity, should be the intellectual default position. I would add to that that this deistic god by default must be either uncaring or evil.

Some materialists would quite possibly regard your proof that says deism should be the intellectual default position as logically coherent. However, you call this God 'either uncaring or evil'. So it would be entirely legitimate for them to point out that this God is so different to the God that most Christians (indeed most theists) believe in, as to not really warrant the name.

My point is that, if you are saying that the materialists position is intrinsically illogical - possibly nonsensical - I don't. That doesn't mean however that your position is weak. You argue it very thoroughly.

As I understand it, you maintain greater continuity between this point in time (and this universe), and the beginning of the universe / creation / all the different multi-verses. Many materialists say why should we discount the possibility of things working somewhat differently at the very beginning? That question in my view can and should be taken seriously.

So what I have written, in my view, treats the materialist perspective seriously without resorting to talking about them as if they are idiots.

It doesn't of course, mean they are right.

That is my very tentative take on why two groups of intelligent people disagree so profoundly - perhaps they are not quite so far apart in the first place!

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just one universe with different logic will do.

What do you mean by "different logic"?

I can imagine a universe with different physical laws - I don't know whether such universes could ever exist, because I don't know how variable physical laws might be in principle, but I can conceive what different physical laws might be.

"Logic" doesn't appear to depend on any physical facts about the universe in the same way. What would a different logical principle look like? Why should a logical (or otherlogical) principle be valid in one universe but not another?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

I'm really not sure how a logical system can work in this case when words like "exists" (and "cause") are so ill-defined. In fact their definition makes for the different positions. If you believe "exists" is a purely material concept, then the conclusions drawn will be different from those that had other starting points. e.g. to a materialist, anything spiritual clearly does not "exist". End of. To non-materialists, there may be variations in the definitions which create very different outcomes when applying logic. The position is similar in the comments I've seen here on God's morality - the common assumption seeming to be that 21st century western human morality has a direct 1:1 equivalence with what must be moral on a universal and eternal scale.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think that that problem with 'exist' crops up with different terms in relation to the 'non-material', since there seem to be no limits. Thus to speak of a non-material event or experience seems either anthropomorphic or maybe guesswork.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I sometimes wonder when the fetish for truth began, I suppose it has always been there, in the sense that the adjacent tribe's god has to be disrespected.

I think the fetish for truth probably began when people wanted directions to collect honey and not to be sent into the hyena den.

The question of whether the fetish is usefully extended into religion and metaphysics, and the related question of how it applies to art and fiction are somewhat different ones; as is the also related question of how or where or under what circumstances truth differs from accurate enough for purpose. My answer being that while the ends of the line look different considered in isolation, if you start filling in the rest of the line you see no good place at which to abandon truth in the broad sense of appropriate fidelity to reality as an ideal and a virtue.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I think if you look at the OED - the big one that is, with citations etc. - you would also see that there has been a major change in how we understand what is meant by truth and how it may be apprehended. And that's just in English-speaking lands.

Not that it has become unrelated to earlier understandings, but it would be easy to overlook a change in perception.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I sometimes wonder when the fetish for truth began, I suppose it has always been there, in the sense that the adjacent tribe's god has to be disrespected.
I think the fetish for truth probably began when people wanted directions to collect honey and not to be sent into the hyena den.

The question of whether the fetish is usefully extended into religion and metaphysics, and the related question of how it applies to art and fiction are somewhat different ones; as is the also related question of how or where or under what circumstances truth differs from accurate enough for purpose. My answer being that while the ends of the line look different considered in isolation, if you start filling in the rest of the line you see no good place at which to abandon truth in the broad sense of appropriate fidelity to reality as an ideal and a virtue.

Well, for some reason you are quote-mining, as my point about 'fetish for truth' is obviously a reply to Martin, and not a general statement about truth.

I don't know if tribal religions try to establish their truth; for one thing, part of their value may stem from being counter-intuitive and costly.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, for some reason you are quote-mining, as my point about 'fetish for truth' is obviously a reply to Martin, and not a general statement about truth.

I intended my introductory statements to lead into my thoughts on truth in religion. I didn't intend quote-mining; I am sorry if they came over that way.

quote:
I don't know if tribal religions try to establish their truth; for one thing, part of their value may stem from being counter-intuitive and costly.

Anthropologists differ.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

??

Are there tribal "religions"? There are journeys and experiences converted into story an symbol. There are shared experiences. There are relationships. I am particularly thinking more an more about the Australian Aborigine culture as I write - it's not a religion - it's a lived experience. The Dreamtime is another perceptual position. It's 100% experiential. Interesting programme I saw recently showing how the Songlines relate to river systems that existed about 100,000 years ago - the landscape has changed with climate but the songs remember what was and relate it to what is.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I'm really not sure how a logical system can work in this case when words like "exists" (and "cause") are so ill-defined. In fact their definition makes for the different positions. If you believe "exists" is a purely material concept, then the conclusions drawn will be different from those that had other starting points. e.g. to a materialist, anything spiritual clearly does not "exist".

That's not a difference of logic though, simply an illustration of the importance of clearly stating one's logical premises.

If your hypothetical materialist uses "exist" to mean having a corporeal, physical, material existence, and deduces that because spiritual entities are not corporeal, physical or material, then they do not "exist", then this conclusion is either valid, if he is consistent in his definition of "exist", or invalid (because of a fallacy of equivocation) if he tries to extend that definition to include the different sense in which a theist might use the word.

The rules by which we determine whether the conclusion is a valid deduction from the premises are entirely distinct from the question of whether the materialist is using the word "exist" in a useful way. It's difficult (for me, impossible) to imagine how those rules could be different, even in a universe with different physical laws, for example, that a fallacy of equivocation is not a ground for challenging a purported deduction. It's like asking me to imagine a world where you really could rub your hand til it was sore, then use that saw to cut the table...

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
??

Are there tribal "religions"? There are journeys and experiences converted into story an symbol. There are shared experiences. There are relationships. I am particularly thinking more an more about the Australian Aborigine culture as I write - it's not a religion - it's a lived experience. The Dreamtime is another perceptual position. It's 100% experiential. Interesting programme I saw recently showing how the Songlines relate to river systems that existed about 100,000 years ago - the landscape has changed with climate but the songs remember what was and relate it to what is.

Yes … I understand all religion(s) as "Reality orientation" … which is not least of the reasons the primal religious experience -- worship -- takes precedence over "theology" ...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Both of which are trash in the face of injustice.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Both of which are trash in the face of injustice.

We human beings commonly universally mess things UP …
In classical terms, it's called, "Sin" ...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Both of which are trash in the face of injustice.
We human beings commonly universally mess things UP …
In classical terms, it's called, "Sin" ...

I said I never wanted the silver.

Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Both of which are trash in the face of injustice.
We human beings commonly universally mess things UP …
In classical terms, it's called, "Sin" ...
I said I never wanted the silver.

Okay, then we'll use pewter … If you don't the smell, we can use iron, and if you don't like the taste, we can go to wood, okay … ???

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Both of which are trash in the face of injustice.
We human beings commonly universally mess things UP …
In classical terms, it's called, "Sin" ...
I said I never wanted the silver.
Okay, then we'll use pewter … If you don't the smell, we can use iron, and if you don't like the taste, we can go to wood, okay … ???

HAH! You lose, "… If you don't the smell" would have been perfect, would have been Mornington Crescent on acid: we were playing non-sequitur.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

We are NOT playing nonsequitur.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Ma'am.

Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Forgive the double post, but I forgot to mention Unapologetic: “Why, despite everything, Christianity can still make surprising emotional sense” by Francis Spufford.

Not meaning to derail the thread, but just wanted to thank you for this book recommendation earlier. I have been reading it today and it has really had a great deal of meaning for me right now! Thank you very much! [Cool]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

I'm impressed this thread is still running. It is a pity that games like "well, what do you mean by 'exist?'" are happening. One person (or several) on the thread deny the claim that there exists anything that is supernatural. Another side claims—without a single piece of evidence—that there is a supernatural. What's left to discuss? I'm also surprised that the theists just don't come out and say: "I fully admit that there is no evidence, but the Bible tells me to believe in the supernatural in the complete absence of evidence; and I find the Bible to be a reliable guide in matters of evidence and belief." That way you skip all the malarky of trying be an apologist for your own belief in the supernatural.

K.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Forgive the double post, but I forgot to mention Unapologetic: “Why, despite everything, Christianity can still make surprising emotional sense” by Francis Spufford.
Not meaning to derail the thread, but just wanted to thank you for this book recommendation earlier. I have been reading it today and it has really had a great deal of meaning for me right now! Thank you very much!

You're very welcome. Thanks for taking the time to re-find the thread and posting.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'm also surprised that the theists just don't come out and say: "I fully admit that there is no evidence, but the Bible tells me to believe in the supernatural in the complete absence of evidence; and I find the Bible to be a reliable guide in matters of evidence and belief."

I was an atheist, or at least agnostic, when God unilaterally decided to invade my awareness; what else could I do but become a (reluctant, puzzled, but utterly convinced) theist?

Later my Mom said she became a believer because she saw the change in me. I wasn't trying to convince her of anything, I was just being me, but me had changed.

Bible? Abraham didn't have a Bible. It's nice to have as a common reference but far from essential for getting to know God.

My belief is in no way based on the Bible. It couldn't be, I was taught from early to disdain the Bible as a bunch of silly tales. (I grew up in a "liberal" church). I was shocked to see in the British Museum remains of cities mentioned in the Bible - the cities weren't all myths? How could that be? Surely everything in the Bible was ignorant myths!

With that kind of deeply trained dismissive attitude towards the Bible, no way is someone going to base a belief in God on it! But God came and got me anyway, at which point I believed in God but not in the Bible.

The opposite of what you incorrectly assume.

Yes there is evidence for God's existence. Evidence that convince me, different evidence that convinced my Mom, probably lots of kinds of evidence; just not evidence that fits within the narrow range of what you are willing to accept as evidence.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Belle Ringer, I don't at all doubt the reality of your experiences, nor would I question the value of the positive changes those experiences have brought about. I merely doubt that they were supernatural. There is no evidence at all for it—no more than saying that stepping on spiders makes it rain. I really don't think this is an argument worth having—one side will simply say "it's magic" and the other side will demand evidence. The closest it ever comes to a genuine argument is when the theists ask things like 'what is evidence?' and then attempt to dilute the meaning of the word 'evidence' in order to accommodate their own belief in the supernatural. I have friends who believe in chakras and point to genuine benefits in their lives from this 'knowledge'. It's total bollocks, of course, but no worse than your claims to the supernatural.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Belle Ringer, I don't at all doubt the reality of your experiences, nor would I question the value of the positive changes those experiences have brought about.

The former is precisely what you're doing. In any case, personal testimony is evidence. What it is not is proof.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Komenskites demand a miraculous sign from God, indeed, more than just a simple sign. For of course, they will reject any human report of a miraculous sign as unreliable - as a delusion or perhaps even as an attempt to deceive. What they want is a sign that is permanently accessible, so that it may be tested by anyone in any way they want at their leisure, while nevertheless unequivocally not being reducible to natural causes. If the burning bush was a permanent fixture, and continued burning after being bombarded by water cannons or put into a vacuum, and if it answered all sort of carefully designed questions that Turing-test it for knowledge that no human agent could possibly possess, then maybe the Komenskites would be willing to admit the existence of God. Or maybe they would speculate about super-aliens playing an elaborate prank on humanity.

However, the proof Komenskites desire is right before their eyes. Nature itself is not fully explicable in natural terms, rather its causal structure points beyond itself to the supernatural. This is not however a miraculous spectacle, but requires philosophical thinking about the natural world. And it is easy enough to dismiss by "brute fact" denials of reasonable conclusions.

And so there is not much we can do for Komenskites. We have to wait for God tapping them on the shoulder and saying "Hey, you, I'm right here." At which point the former Komenskite will join the ranks of believers and instantly lose all credibility with the remaining Komenskites. One more sad person who let wishful thinking get to their head, the remaining Komenskites will say. And so it was, is, and will be till the Second Coming. At which point the Komenskite remnant will gaze toward the Lord coming from the east and speak "Oh, come on. Those aren't even good special effects. Pull the other one."

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Belle Ringer, I don't at all doubt the reality of your experiences, nor would I question the value of the positive changes those experiences have brought about.
The former is precisely what you're doing. In any case, personal testimony is evidence. What it is not is proof.

The trouble, it seems to me, or at least one of the troubles, is that "show me" atheists aren't happy with one person having what is for them irreducible proof (or evidence, if you will) of God's existence. If the exact same evidence isn't available to everybody, then it doesn't count as evidence at all.

It seems a bit problematic, if not to say arrogant, to attempt to interpret somebody else's experience for them. Here, you gullible fool, the atheist seems to be saying, you cannot be trusted to interpret your own experience, because the conclusions you draw are unacceptable to ME. Let me tell you what it REALLY means.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The closest it ever comes to a genuine argument is when the theists ask things like 'what is evidence?' and then attempt to dilute the meaning of the word 'evidence' in order to accommodate their own belief in the supernatural.

That's your pejorative characterisation from your subjective point of view.
The OED definition of evidence is 'Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion.'
Now obviously the important word here is 'tending': you aren't so naive as to think that evidence is only evidence if it actually proves the conclusion. All you're saying is that theists accept evidence that tends less firmly to prove conclusions that you think the evidence for conclusions you accept does (in your own personal estimation). Which is scarcely part of the definition of evidence, and does nothing to show who is correct.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But God came and got me anyway, at which point I believed in God but not in the Bible.

The opposite of what you incorrectly assume.

Yes there is evidence for God's existence. Evidence that convince me, different evidence that convinced my Mom, probably lots of kinds of evidence; just not evidence that fits within the narrow range of what you are willing to accept as evidence.

May I ask, then, what you think it is that convinced you, but woulde certainly not convince atheistslike me? Can you define it?

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Er, Fool? What do you think of it so far?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

There is no philosophical trump card.

What convinces is disposition.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There is no philosophical trump card.

What convinces is disposition.

There is a philosophical trump card.

What convinces is disposition.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Then play it. Or did you just?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Then play it. Or did you just?

I have played it often, though not recently. Still, if it convinces, then by disposition. A trump card wins the trick only if you play the same game.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

If we had to wait for God to suddenly tap us on the shoulder to convince us of his existence, there would not be billions of believers in the world. Consciousness of God's existence comes through in many surprising ways, whether through nature, God's creation; through the Bible, God's words given to people; through Jesus, God's way of showing and teaching us; through the church, God's extended family through generations; through theology, God's intellectual stimulation; through the most unusual of circumstances or of characters.

What we need is an open mind: not a superstitious one, nor a gullible one, nor a closed one.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If we had to wait for God to suddenly tap us on the shoulder to convince us of his existence, there would not be billions of believers in the world.

I don't think that's a universal need (it never has happened to me), but for some people it's what it took. Like Belle Ringer here, and many others on the ship who have told similar stories.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If we had to wait for God to suddenly tap us on the shoulder to convince us of his existence, there would not be billions of believers in the world.
I don't think that's a universal need (it never has happened to me), but for some people it's what it took. Like Belle Ringer here, and many others on the ship who have told similar stories.

To quote myself with some italics added for stress: 'And so there is not much we can do for Komenskites. We have to wait for God tapping them on the shoulder and saying "Hey, you, I'm right here."'

The influence of grace in accepting God can be so subtle that it is easily overlooked. But sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is more like a hammer blow that smashes old certainties.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

A game with a mere set of rules that lead to a super/natural premiss as truth is doubly dispositional at least.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Paul suggests just take a look at nature, it reveals God. My high school science teacher said that did it for him, everywhere you look, even microscopic animals are beautiful and fascinating, he couldn't accept that random evolution would have that result.

Others find God or accidentally bump into God though social interactions, or through logic, or though philosophy, or through too many perfectly timed coincidences, one person said mathematics convinced him - there are probably hundreds ways, we each respond to different things.

Scary thought, I read that people dying for their faith in persecution lands have convinced others by that act: some observers are so awed that anyone would do that, this God must be real; they become believers. Others just scorn the fools who gave up their lives instead of giving up their God. Different people react to the same things differently.

Why doesn't God seem to find a way to get through to everyone? I don't know. Maybe it just isn't their time yet.

Some good friends are atheists because they have (rightly ) rejected the brutal God they were taught by their parents. That shows spiritual wisdom their parents lacked. I think they are missing out in not being more aware of God, but they aren't endorsing an anti-God and calling it "God" like some do! As long as in their mind the word "God" is directly connected to the word "brutality" they probably won't be able to "see" the reality of God.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Belle Ringer, I don't at all doubt the reality of your experiences, nor would I question the value of the positive changes those experiences have brought about.
The former is precisely what you're doing. In any case, personal testimony is evidence. What it is not is proof.

Agreed that is could count as 'evidence' [here we go…], but of what? It sure as hell is not evidence of God.

A woman claimed to have been abducted by Spriggans. She had no physical evidence of the experience, but ever since that abduction she has felt more anxious than usual and has had frequent dreams of being chased. According to you this is evidence of the truth claims of Spriggan abduction.

A young boy was in boat in rough waters. He prayed to the monkey god Hanuman. The boat passed safely through the rough water. According to you this is evidence for Hanuman.

In neither case should we discount the reality of the experiences, but we ought to challenge the truth claims of the supernatural.

K.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Belle Ringer wrote:

Paul suggests just take a look at nature, it reveals God. My high school science teacher said that did it for him, everywhere you look, even microscopic animals are beautiful and fascinating, he couldn't accept that random evolution would have that result.

Are you sure he was a science teacher? Evolution isn't random - have a look at camouflage and mimicry in animals. The wasp spider looks like a wasp, but not randomly. There's an old saying that animals carry their environment on their back. Ooops, is this a DH?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
A woman claimed to have been abducted by Spriggans. She had no physical evidence of the experience, but ever since that abduction she has felt more anxious than usual and has had frequent dreams of being chased. According to you this is evidence of the truth claims of Spriggan abduction.

Why isn't it evidence for spriggan abduction?

Are you saying that there is only evidence for something if that evidence is sufficient to make it unreasonable to disbelieve it?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Belle Ringer wrote:

Paul suggests just take a look at nature, it reveals God. My high school science teacher said that did it for him, everywhere you look, even microscopic animals are beautiful and fascinating, he couldn't accept that random evolution would have that result.

Are you sure he was a science teacher? Evolution isn't random - have a look at camouflage and mimicry in animals. The wasp spider looks like a wasp, but not randomly. There's an old saying that animals carry their environment on their back. Ooops, is this a DH?

I'm reporting what he said affected him in leading him to believe an amazing God exists, not discussing variations on the scientific theory of evolution.

The question was what convinces people God is real. Different things do it for different people. A song, a child's question, even a fiction play can raise the inner question and lead person to God even though it has no such effect on most people.

For many it's perhaps not one specific thing at all, but a slowly growing awareness that has no specific stating point or crossover from unbelief to belief. John the Baptist was said to recognize the reality of God from pre-birth.

One thing fun about the Ship is seeing so many ways different people relate to God. Look at discussion about worship styles or favorite songs, one person is totally turned off by another's most deeply felt.

And maybe we need some atheists to remind us it isn't all objectively obvious. (Not that the objectively obvious is the only reality!)

Of course, another possibility is: God is objectively obvious but many of us fail to "see" what's right there. We all occasionally miss an objectively obvious crossroad we were planning to turn on.

The psychology of vision is fascinating. After I was in a car wreck and had a significant concussion, I was failing to see some things that were centrally in my visual field. The brain was recognizing most things but blocking out some, filling in the space with what would have looked like if that thing didn't exist - like a bare table top instead of a table top with the stack of plates I was looking for on it. (I accidentally re-entered the room from a different side and then saw the plates on the table.) As the brain heals it does less of this blocking things out.

Maybe a lot of human brains don't see God until they are healed? Or until they approach things from a different angle? Not approach God from a different angel, but some aspect of life, and through that God becomes obvious?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Maybe a lot of human brains don't see God until they are healed? Or until they approach things from a different angle? Not approach God from a different angel, but some aspect of life, and through that God becomes obvious?

Deliberate pun or Freudian slip?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Agreed that is could count as 'evidence' [here we go…], but of what? It sure as hell is not evidence of God.

A woman claimed to have been abducted by Spriggans. She had no physical evidence of the experience, but ever since that abduction she has felt more anxious than usual and has had frequent dreams of being chased. According to you this is evidence of the truth claims of Spriggan abduction.

A young boy was in boat in rough waters. He prayed to the monkey god Hanuman. The boat passed safely through the rough water. According to you this is evidence for Hanuman.

In neither case should we discount the reality of the experiences, but we ought to challenge the truth claims of the supernatural.

K.

Of course they're evidence. On their own they're not convincing evidence, and a long way short of proof. They're the equivalent of finding a thread of fabric at a crime scene. It could come from the prime suspect, and it would be useful corroborating evidence is there are other pieces of evidence pointing in the same direction, but on its own you would discard it.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I'm currently heading into a there is no god state. I may already be there. I've been there before and come out. Not sure about this time.

This time it goes like this. If there is a god, he is outside of time, and therefore knows what will happen from various events. In particular, he would have known how people would interpret the supposedly inspired scriptures.

And yet he did nothing to make sure that they included major statements about not killing, not raping, not beheading, not doing suicide bombing, not attacking wedding parties with drones, and so on and so on and so on. Nothing to make sure that it was absolutely impossible to ignore commandments to treat every other human being as valuable to him.

He would have known about the horrific state the Middle East has fallen into and taken action to prevent it. Without, of course, interfering with the free will of the manipulators and the killers and the users of other people, which is what is usually used to argue why he can't do anything to stop it.

The free will argument always leaves the weaker brethren, and especially sistren with the only way of exercising it to be by submitting to the horrors with a good grace.

****** that for a game of soldiers.

And I won't read any answer from IngoB. I'm sure he's got one. But it won't work.

[ 21. July 2015, 17:57: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I don't want to derail your argument. Your question "is free will worth the suffering of those?" is completely valid, and I think it transcends religion. I don't have an answer for it.

But the Bible does say "thou shalt not kill".

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
A woman claimed to have been abducted by Spriggans. She had no physical evidence of the experience, but ever since that abduction she has felt more anxious than usual and has had frequent dreams of being chased. According to you this is evidence of the truth claims of Spriggan abduction.
Why isn't it evidence for spriggan abduction?

Are you saying that there is only evidence for something if that evidence is sufficient to make it unreasonable to disbelieve it?

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. Simply saying 'it happened' doesn't constitute proof of Spriggans.

K.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Shifting the goal posts back to proof again, I see.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't want to derail your argument. Your question "is free will worth the suffering of those?" is completely valid, and I think it transcends religion. I don't have an answer for it.

But the Bible does say "thou shalt not kill".

Which people often twist to "thou shalt not commit murder", thus allowing other forms of killing. And there's all those places where god commands slaughter.

There are plenty of opportunities in the Bible and the Qu'ran for people who want to weasel round that commandment, or the statement that if you kill one man you kill the world.

It's not just the free will argument. It has to stop. And it doesn't.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
A woman claimed to have been abducted by Spriggans. She had no physical evidence of the experience, but ever since that abduction she has felt more anxious than usual and has had frequent dreams of being chased. According to you this is evidence of the truth claims of Spriggan abduction.
Why isn't it evidence for spriggan abduction?

Are you saying that there is only evidence for something if that evidence is sufficient to make it unreasonable to disbelieve it?
The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. Simply saying 'it happened' doesn't constitute proof of Spriggans.

1. I asked about evidence not proof.
2. 'Burden of proof' is an internet cliche. The phrase has a meaning in a court of law. What on earth can it mean in the context of epistemology?
3. 'Extraordinary claim' is also an internet cliche. Without begging any questions, what makes a claim extraordinary?
4. You've not answered my second question at all.

[ 21. July 2015, 20:30: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm currently heading into a there is no god state. I may already be there. I've been there before and come out. Not sure about this time.

This time it goes like this. If there is a god, he is outside of time, and therefore knows what will happen from various events. In particular, he would have known how people would interpret the supposedly inspired scriptures.

And yet he did nothing to make sure that they included major statements about not killing, not raping, not beheading, not doing suicide bombing, not attacking wedding parties with drones, and so on and so on and so on. Nothing to make sure that it was absolutely impossible to ignore commandments to treat every other human being as valuable to him.

He would have known about the horrific state the Middle East has fallen into and taken action to prevent it. Without, of course, interfering with the free will of the manipulators and the killers and the users of other people, which is what is usually used to argue why he can't do anything to stop it.

The free will argument always leaves the weaker brethren, and especially sistren with the only way of exercising it to be by submitting to the horrors with a good grace.

****** that for a game of soldiers.
.

Weren't we given all of the above in the human form of Jesus? What is it about the two commandments to love God and love one another that says it is OK to harm each other? Was Jesus weak when he was arrested, mocked, tortured and killed?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm currently heading into a there is no god state. I may already be there. I've been there before and come out. Not sure about this time.

Penny S. You're being pruned of magical thinking. Of superstition. Of nonsense. This is GOOD.

quote:

This time it goes like this. If there is a god, he is outside of time, and therefore knows what will happen from various events. In particular, he would have known how people would interpret the supposedly inspired scriptures.

God is. He sustains now. That's the only time there is. There is NOTHING categorical He hasn't known for eternity. He cannot, of course, know if it's going to rain tomorrow. Not without determining it: making it so. Which He NEVER does. Since Christ and the disciples, in any way that should be entertained. EVER.

quote:

And yet he did nothing to make sure that they included major statements about not killing, not raping, not beheading, not doing suicide bombing, not attacking wedding parties with drones, and so on and so on and so on. Nothing to make sure that it was absolutely impossible to ignore commandments to treat every other human being as valuable to him.

After 200,000 years at the very least, He did ALL that in Christ. What more - which is LESS - do you want? It's ENTIRELY up to us. We are free to be kind. It will take at least another 200,000 years. Of suffering.

quote:

He would have known about the horrific state the Middle East has fallen into and taken action to prevent it. Without, of course, interfering with the free will of the manipulators and the killers and the users of other people, which is what is usually used to argue why he can't do anything to stop it.

What is special about the Middle East? Why didn't He prevent Auschwitz, Hiroshima and onchocerciasis? To create is to suffer a suffering creation. Obviously. If He could do 'better', He would. He CAN'T. It is ontologically impossible.

quote:

The free will argument always leaves the weaker brethren, and especially sistren with the only way of exercising it to be by submitting to the horrors with a good grace.

He did.

quote:

****** that for a game of soldiers.

Then hedonism is all you've got. You might as well go to it. Although a moral person would do good regardless.

quote:

And I won't read any answer from IngoB. I'm sure he's got one. But it won't work.

NOTHING works. That's how it works.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The Middle East because it's where the trouble is at the moment. And because this time it's deeply rooted in what people suppose god wants. I wasn't going to list absolutely every atrocity everywhere everywhen.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim.

I have two problems with this statement if it is meant to require believers to prove the existence of God to the satisfaction of nonbelievers.

1. It's not my job to prove the validity of my beliefs to anyone. My beliefs are mine, your beliefs are yours, that's all there is to it.

If you are trying to get me to change my beliefs, it's your job to do the proving. If no one is actively striving to get another to change beliefs or behaviors, no one has any burden of proof.

2. I'm under the impression the super-majority of humans throughout history and around the globe today are believers in one or more gods or other supernatural reality. That makes theism or at least belief in supernatural reality the ordinary and atheism the extraordinary position. If the extraordinary position has a burden of proof, atheism (not theism) has that burden.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So it's you that's changing Penny S. Good. Especially as you're becoming atheist of a false God. You're closer to the true God.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't want to derail your argument. Your question "is free will worth the suffering of those?" is completely valid, and I think it transcends religion. I don't have an answer for it.

But the Bible does say "thou shalt not kill".
Which people often twist to "thou shalt not commit murder", thus allowing other forms of killing. And there's all those places where god commands slaughter.

There are plenty of opportunities in the Bible and the Qu'ran for people who want to weasel round that commandment, or the statement that if you kill one man you kill the world.

It's not just the free will argument. It has to stop. And it doesn't.

Indeed. "Thou shalt not commit murder" is useless, unfortunately, because people find ways to say their killing isn't murder. Indeed, if you define murder as "unlawful killing" then the commandment becomes circular "Unlawful killing is unlawful".

I think the NT helps a bit with the idea that the core of murder is hatred - "he who hates his brother is a murderer". And it's correct that hatred is the problem; Jesus' remedy is love for enemies.

Ours is to blow them to bits.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

2. I'm under the impression the super-majority of humans throughout history and around the globe today are believers in one or more gods or other supernatural reality. That makes theism or at least belief in supernatural reality the ordinary and atheism the extraordinary position. If the extraordinary position has a burden of proof, atheism (not theism) has that burden.

just because a belief is older, doesn't make it less extraordinary.
But, anyway, the burden of proof is on the person attempting to convince.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
just because a belief is older, doesn't make it less extraordinary.

What then is supposed to make a belief more or less extraordinary? It's not supposedly being older nor being more widespread. And I'm sure the proponents of naturalism talking about extraordinary claims wouldn't beg the question by defining it as incompatibility with naturalism.

quote:
But, anyway, the burden of proof is on the person attempting to convince.

I think I agree with what you're trying to say, but why use the phrase 'burden of proof' to express it? If what you think it means is that I'm not justified in calling the other person irrational or saying that they hold their beliefs without evidence merely because they disagree with my claims, then I would happily agree; but that doesn't justify the stuff Komensky's been saying - rather the opposite in fact.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

How is the claim that there is an invisible deity controlling all things - who is not obvious to everyone - anything other than extraordinary?

If that doesn't fit the bill, then what does?

I do think that this whole argument is daft, because contrary to what IngoB keeps saying, at a base level being a deist is not rational. It is a worldview which you must take a leap to believe, and then enables you to view things in a different light.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

2. 'Burden of proof' is an internet cliche. The phrase has a meaning in a court of law. What on earth can it mean in the context of epistemology?
3. 'Extraordinary claim' is also an internet cliche. Without begging any questions, what makes a claim extraordinary?
4. You've not answered my second question at all.

Whether you think burden of proof is an internet cliche or not has nothing to do with it. Affirming your own belief(s) [how to you see and understand the world] to include a belief in magic and invisible super-beings is, by any stretch, an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence. Finally, getting to your final comment (the 'second question' to which you refer). Your wording is strange indeed: 'Are you saying that there is only evidence for something if that evidence is sufficient to make it unreasonable to disbelieve it?'Can you rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I certainly don't need to spend time disproving all the supernatural claims. Do you lay awake at night wondering how you are going to disprove the existence of Thor or Zeus or Hanuman?

K.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Dafyd: 2. 'Burden of proof' is an internet cliche. The phrase has a meaning in a court of law. What on earth can it mean in the context of epistemology?

Epistemological burden of proof.

If I claim that I can read auras, then it is up to me to prove that I can. It isn't up to my opponents to prove that I can't.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

The bit of Christian belief that is properly extraordinary is the belief that goodness is stronger than evil, that life is stronger than death, that love wins.

This is the belief, it seems to me, that is hammered by events in Syria or runaway cell division in children, not the existence of a supernatural realm.

But belief in love is, at bottom, not only an appraisal of how the world works and works out, it is a personal disposition, which is often taken in the face of evidence and personal battering. 'I will live as though love is the force that makes the world turn; and just maybe it really is.'

Belief in God is surely not about God's existence, and is not about the contents of the universe. It is about whether we need to feel bleak, friendless and miserable about the world, or whether we can, should, may at least sometimes feel grateful, hopeful, joyful and inspired to live with a will.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
{snip}
Belief in God is surely not about God's existence, and is not about the contents of the universe. It is about whether we need to feel bleak, friendless and miserable about the world, or whether we can, should, may at least sometimes feel grateful, hopeful, joyful and inspired to live with a will.

This seems a non sequitur. Moreover, the latter does not require the former.

K.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Yeah. That's what I'm saying. I think.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How is the claim that there is an invisible deity controlling all things - who is not obvious to everyone - anything other than extraordinary?

If that doesn't fit the bill, then what does?

I do think that this whole argument is daft, because contrary to what IngoB keeps saying, at a base level being a deist is not rational.

How many theists have you met who would define their belief as "I believe in an invisible deity who controls all things"? I don't think very many people at all believe that "God" controls all things, other than, perhaps, a small number of hyper-calvinists.

Belief or not is much more around the question of whether there is a Creator - whether the universe and all things within in it were brought into being by some supernatural creative force, or whether they just happened some other way. FWIW, I think that both these statements:

- Everything in existence was created by G-d
- Everything in existence just came to exist without any G-d

are BOTH extraordinary. How can they not be? I can't get my head around either of them. So, in terms of burden of proof & extraordinariness of claims, it's pretty much a tie. So, for me, this whole notion of who has the bigger burden of proof is something of a red herring.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

- Everything in existence was created by G-d
- Everything in existence just came to exist without any G-d

are BOTH extraordinary. How can they not be? I can't get my head around either of them. So, in terms of burden of proof & extraordinariness of claims, it's pretty much a tie. So, for me, this whole notion of who has the bigger burden of proof is something of a red herring.

Not really, there are any number of explanations of how creation could exist without a creator, starting with it is what it is. If you are not already believing in one explanation over another (and these things were perfectly logical), you'd need a lot of evidence to go in any direction beyond 'well, dunno, it just is'.

Given that we are here not only talking about a creator but indeed a very particular kind of deity - namely the one we see in the person of Jesus Christ - to claim that this is somehow more of an extraordinary claim than not believing in a deity is itself extraordinary.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
you'd need a lot of evidence to go in any direction beyond 'well, dunno, it just is'.

But that's my point - "it just is" is an extraordinary claim itself.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given that we are here not only talking about a creator but indeed a very particular kind of deity - namely the one we see in the person of Jesus Christ - to claim that this is somehow more of an extraordinary claim than not believing in a deity is itself extraordinary.

Well, I wasn't talking about any particular kind of deity, just the general concept of whether there is a creator or not. And yes, of course, when one starts to get down to specifics, the claims by their very nature become more extraordinary.

However, if someone has sided with "there is a creator"*, it's not unreasonable for them to explore what that creator might be like, and the different existing belief systems that try to describe it. Moving beyond "there is a creator" to believing certain things about that creator is not unreasonable.

*And however much you think it's extraordinary to conclude that, it's no more extraordinary than the opposite, and that the vast majority of people do conclude that should give you at least some pause for thought.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mr cheesy: there are any number of explanations of how creation could exist without a creator, starting with it is what it is.

That's not an explanation.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

*And however much you think it's extraordinary to conclude that, it's no more extraordinary than the opposite, and that the vast majority of people do conclude that should give you at least some pause for thought.

I have already said that these things do not work on the level of logic. I suspect that the change of worldview needed to move an atheist to a theist is as much of a leap to move a theist to be an atheist. So everyone is talking past each other if they think it is possible to convince the other with logic that God does or does not exist.

But I still think that for a person who has not gone beyond experiencing existence, the claim that there is a God is extraordinary. Otherwise we are left saying that the natural state of people is belief in God.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
That's not an explanation.

I'm not having this argument again. Some people do not require an explanation. Some explanations are not accepted on a base level by everyone who engages with the origins discussion. We know this.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So everyone is talking past each other if they think it is possible to convince the other with logic that God does or does not exist.

Agreed.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But I still think that for a person who has not gone beyond experiencing existence, the claim that there is a God is extraordinary.

Agreed, though my main point (which I don't think you have either conceded, or disagreed with) is that for another person (or, the same person!) who has not gone beyond only experiencing existence (whatever that means), the claim that there is no God is just as extraordinary.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Otherwise we are left saying that the natural state of people is belief in God.

This does not follow from the previous sentence, given that both the claim of a Creator's existence and the claim of a Creator's lack of existence are BOTH extraordinary. The natural state is ignorance.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Agreed, though my main point (which I don't think you have either conceded, or disagreed with) is that for another person (or, the same person!) who has not gone beyond only experiencing existence (whatever that means), the claim that there is no God is just as extraordinary.

I'm not sure. If the natural state is ignorance, I would think it was less extraordinary to say that there is no God than to say that there is one.

It is hard to think of a comparable example, but if we imagine a tribe seeing an aeroplane for the first time, high in the sky.

First they might not know what it is. Then a natural, less extraordinary (I'd argue) explanation might be given that it is a large bird that nobody has seen before.

In fact the correct explanation is that a lot of people, effort and intelligence has gone into producing a flying vehicle. Given that these are concepts which have no meaning to this tribe, getting onto the plane would be a large leap of faith. Believing it was some kind of horrendous bird, less so.

Similarly, I think if you have no concept of Creation, then suddenly becoming aware of it does not naturally lead to a complicated explanation of a Creator.

Of course, I can also see that it can be argued that a Creator is a less complicated explanation than the atheist one, but for me I don't. And I don't really see that it is inarguable that they are both equally complicated non-logical ideas which require a leap of faith.

quote:
his does not follow from the previous sentence, given that both the claim of a Creator's existence and the claim of a Creator's lack of existence are BOTH extraordinary. The natural state is ignorance.

I am not sure this is true for reasons described above. But again, it does depend exactly what is being offered as an explanation and how this fits in the mind of the person whom is being persuaded.

Of course, none of us are actually in this state of ignorance as (I think) all those involved are aware of the arguments put forwards by everyone and is conscious of the created world.

[ 22. July 2015, 12:51: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Some people believe there are stars in the sky when in fact many believe that they are shiny plates stitched to a giant carpet. I know that sounds extraordinary, but actually not believing this explanation is just as extraordinary.

This is the type of conversation we're having.

K.

[ 22. July 2015, 13:15: Message edited by: Komensky ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If I claim that I can read auras, then it is up to me to prove that I can. It isn't up to my opponents to prove that I can't.

Why are you assuming a situation in which there are opponents?
No doubt formal debates between opponents happen; but are they a good model for the justification of belief? I don't think so. How often have you come out of a formal debate between opponents thinking that it was a constructive examination of the evidence for and against?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course, I can also see that it can be argued that a Creator is a less complicated explanation than the atheist one, but for me I don't.

Of course, mileages vary.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
it does depend exactly what is being offered as an explanation and how this fits in the mind of the person whom is being persuaded.

Yes.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course, none of us are actually in this state of ignorance as (I think) all those involved are aware of the arguments put forwards by everyone and is conscious of the created world.

Very true.

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
This is the type of conversation we're having.

...it really isn't, by any stretch of imagination.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Mr Cheesy, I think where your aeroplane example fails is that it's dealing with the material, with physical things. I think this is the category error that both atheists and theists can fall into, because they treat belief in something supernatural as if it is the same kind of thing as the natural.

So, for a primitive superstitious religious person, there is this blurring between the material and immaterial, equating rainfall and drought with happy or unhappy Gods (or its modern 'parking space' equivalent). For the atheist, it's reducing the divine to a thing that exists or not, which should be able to be posited, observed and understood within a material framework.

But a belief in a creator or the supernatural, or whatever, boils down to a more fundamental thing (IMO). It's simply a gut reaction to the question "is there something more... is there something beyond... is there are deeper meaning beyond the natural?" It's not very easy to verbalise this question. For some, the answer is "no - there is nothing beyond what 'exists'"*. But for others of us, there is this inescapable feeling that there is more to life, that there is a deeper meaning, a supernatural or divine existence beyond what 'is', and that existence itself points towards this.

As you say, this has very little to do with logic, evidence, and argument. And I think that's why the Arts have a lot more (initially) to say about G-d than the sciences do.

Arguing whether this mysterious aeroplane is a bird (or a 'god') in the way you describe is still a discussion within a material framework. I think you're right to say that it's hard to think of a comparable example, simply because what we're talking about is a different category altogether. Someone who says "I believe there is a meaning beyond" is not saying very much about the material universe, other than it is only part of the complete picture.

*Of course, there's plenty of mystery within our physical universe to keep us going for a long time, but I believe there is even more mystery beyond it.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Dafyd: Why are you assuming a situation in which there are opponents?
No doubt formal debates between opponents happen; but are they a good model for the justification of belief? I don't think so. How often have you come out of a formal debate between opponents thinking that it was a constructive examination of the evidence for and against?

You asked a question: "What on earth can [burden of proof] mean in the context of epistemology?" I answered the question by providing a Wikipedia link of what 'burden of proof' means in the context of epistemology. I also gave an illustrative example, think of it as an extra.

I wasn't really interested in a discussion about how relevant or useful formal debates are. You asked a question related to formal debates, and I answered it. In fact, "how relevant are formal debates anyway?" (I'm paraphrasing here) seems to be moving the goalposts a bit.

This was my formal debate answer [Smile]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

"Extraordinary" means out of the ordinary. A quick google gives, "Unusual or remarkable." It's not exactly objectively definable, is it? What is remarkable to one person will not be remarkable to another. And no amount of headstanding will make deism unusual or out of the ordinary. The word ("Extraordinary"), in questions of the existence of God/gods/whatever, plays the role of a weasel word.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Otherwise we are left saying that the natural state of people is belief in God.

I'm not sure why this is such an odd claim, given what we know about the history of the world. If the vast majority of human beings through history have property X, it's not exactly weird to say that having property X is the natural state of people.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Thanks, goperryrevs, that's a good explanation.

My quibble here is that even for those who experience the "this isn't all there is" gut feeling, not all of them resolve it with reference to a deity. And of those that do, not all believe in a good deity, and of those that do, a smaller number believe in the Christian deity.

So we have layers of belief and "leaps of faith" upon one another here. An atheist who accepts that he too feels there is more to life than the material is not therefore forced to accept Jesus as Lord.

But he who is asking for proof beyond "this is what I have experienced and therefore how I've come to understand life, the universe and everything" is also committing a category error, in the sense of asking for something which cannot be delivered.

I think the contrast here is to an atheist who believes that his whole construct is perfectly rational and that each step has objective evidence which points to the next. He therefore may indeed believe that he can discount the accounts of the believer by pointing to rational explanations of the phenomena described.

Ultimately, I suppose the problem is that there is no objective way to determine what is a category error, or whether even such categories exist. Truth claims which are not logical are not able to be tested - or at least not in the same way.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

2. 'Burden of proof' is an internet cliche. The phrase has a meaning in a court of law. What on earth can it mean in the context of epistemology?
3. 'Extraordinary claim' is also an internet cliche. Without begging any questions, what makes a claim extraordinary?
4. You've not answered my second question at all.
Whether you think burden of proof is an internet cliche or not has nothing to do with it.

Cliches are not thinking but a substitute for thought.

quote:
Affirming your own belief(s) [how to you see and understand the world] to include a belief in magic and invisible super-beings is, by any stretch, an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence.

You make that claim. Are you going to give any more reason to accept it?

I asked what makes a claim extraordinary.

Belief in magic or in invisible entities is really pretty ordinary in human history. So that's not what you mean by extraordinary. So what do you mean? What special meaning are you giving to the word?

For example, suppose someone claims that the lights in the sky are balls of gas many times larger than the earth. Is that an extraordinary claim? If so, what kind of evidence is extraordinary enough to match the claim that they're many times larger than the entire earth? Mathematical calculations? But surely mathematical calculations are ordinary. Mistakes in mathematical calculations are ordinary. The evidence offered is nowhere near as extraordinary as the claim. No evidence could be as extraordinary as the claim.
And yet it is reasonable to believe that the stars are many times larger than the earth.

Conclusion: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is a piece of ad hoc rhetorical nonsense.

quote:
Finally, getting to your final comment (the 'second question' to which you refer). Your wording is strange indeed: 'Are you saying that there is only evidence for something if that evidence is sufficient to make it unreasonable to disbelieve it?'Can you rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I certainly don't need to spend time disproving all the supernatural claims. Do you lay awake at night wondering how you are going to disprove the existence of Thor or Zeus or Hanuman?

I ask you what evidence is, and once more you talk about proof.

We need to talk about something that is unrelated to the existence of God or the supernatural, since that way we won't be tempted to make ad hoc judgements.
Consider the dating of Homer's Iliad. Some scholars think it's written as early as the ninth century BC; some as late as the seventh. Both sides quote internal features, references to objects and behaviour, and compare them with archaeological finds to support their claims.
Now my question:
Do you think that it makes sense to talk about there being evidence either way? Or is it only evidence if it shows decisively that one side is right?

You keep talking as if it's only evidence if it shows decisively that one side is right. For example, you keep switching from evidence to proof. But you haven't said so explicitly.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Extraordinary" means out of the ordinary. A quick google gives, "Unusual or remarkable." It's not exactly objectively definable, is it? What is remarkable to one person will not be remarkable to another. And no amount of headstanding will make deism unusual or out of the ordinary. The word ("Extraordinary"), in questions of the existence of God/gods/whatever, plays the role of a weasel word.

Mmm. Well, I'm sure it is true that on a global level more believe in a deity than don't, so I suppose it must then be true that it is not unusual, at least on that level.

I hadn't thought of it like that, fair cop. I was thinking of children and whether they naturally tend to come up with the idea of a deity - in my experience they don't.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
For some, the answer is "no - there is nothing beyond what 'exists'"*. But for others of us, there is this inescapable feeling that there is more to life, that there is a deeper meaning, a supernatural or divine existence beyond what 'is', and that existence itself points towards this.

As you say, this has very little to do with logic, evidence, and argument. And I think that's why the Arts have a lot more (initially) to say about G-d than the sciences do.

Yes, I think this is right. I'm not sure about the word 'beyond' but words slip when we use them in an arty style to talk about depth and meaning. Similarly I don't like 'supernatural' which suggests something somewhere other than the natural, where the 'other' is understood in relation to all the natural. Belief that the natural is super or extraordinary or divine I'm perfectly happy with.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

For example, suppose someone claims that the lights in the sky are balls of gas many times larger than the earth. Is that an extraordinary claim?

Yes, I think it is. I don't think one could reason that without intricate observations with specialised equipment.

quote:
If so, what kind of evidence is extraordinary enough to match the claim that they're many times larger than the entire earth? Mathematical calculations?

I think we're talking here about the volume, reproducibility and type of evidence. It isn't just mathematics, it is mathematics backed up with many years of observations by telescope.. etc

quote:
But surely mathematical calculations are ordinary. Mistakes in mathematical calculations are ordinary. The evidence offered is nowhere near as extraordinary as the claim.

Isn't it? I think going to Pluto to back up claims made about Pluto is quite extraordinary, don't you?

quote:
No evidence could be as extraordinary as the claim.

Can't it? I'm not sure what you mean here.

quote:
And yet it is reasonable to believe that the stars are many times larger than the earth.

Well, only when there is a large amount of observed data to suggest it, together with centuries of reproducible results indicating that these are credible conclusions.

quote:
Conclusion: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is a piece of ad hoc rhetorical nonsense.

I don't think it is rhetorical nonsense exactly, although obviously it is rather more applicable to some fields of thought than others. I think that in the fields of observed science, it is quite a good rule of thumb that someone suggesting something which is way outwith of the general way of thinking on the subject needs to be standing on a mass of data to have anything to convince his peers. But maybe it doesn't work in other spheres.

quote:
I ask you what evidence is, and once more you talk about proof.

We need to talk about something that is unrelated to the existence of God or the supernatural, since that way we won't be tempted to make ad hoc judgements.
Consider the dating of Homer's Iliad. Some scholars think it's written as early as the ninth century BC; some as late as the seventh. Both sides quote internal features, references to objects and behaviour, and compare them with archaeological finds to support their claims.
Now my question:
Do you think that it makes sense to talk about there being evidence either way? Or is it only evidence if it shows decisively that one side is right?

But it isn't really like that. It'd be more like one side saying that Homer's Iliad exists and the other side saying it doesn't. In that context, what evidence could you provide of the non-existence of something?

quote:
You keep talking as if it's only evidence if it shows decisively that one side is right. For example, you keep switching from evidence to proof. But you haven't said so explicitly.

Mmm. I'm not sure if this is fair or not.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You asked a question: "What on earth can [burden of proof] mean in the context of epistemology?" I answered the question by providing a Wikipedia link of what 'burden of proof' means in the context of epistemology.

Just because there's a wikipedia page for something doesn't mean it's actually a sensible topic. You'll notice that few of the references on that page link to things that use the phrase 'burden of proof'. (The first couple of references are about the fallacy of argument from ignorance, which is a different matter.)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And I won't read any answer from IngoB. I'm sure he's got one. But it won't work.

For a sufficiently idiosyncratic definition of "working", that is probably true.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I do think that this whole argument is daft, because contrary to what IngoB keeps saying, at a base level being a deist is not rational.

Being a theist typically has non-rational (not necessarily irrational) elements. But deism in particular can be very minimalistic, e.g., contain nothing "supernatural" other than accepting the metaphysical argument for the necessary existence of an uncaused Cause. I don't see how one can call that sort of deism "not rational".

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Belief in God is surely not about God's existence, and is not about the contents of the universe. It is about whether we need to feel bleak, friendless and miserable about the world, or whether we can, should, may at least sometimes feel grateful, hopeful, joyful and inspired to live with a will.

It remains mysterious to me why you claim to speak about God, when for all practical intents and purposes you eradicate all traces of the Divine from whatever you say. I think you are hiding behind this pop psychology, but from what exactly?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Mr Cheesy, no disagreements with your previous post. But this...

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But it isn't really like that. It'd be more like one side saying that Homer's Iliad exists and the other side saying it doesn't.

.
...is wrong. It's not. Everyone agrees the Iliad exists, in the same way, everyone agrees the Universe exists.

It's more like a disagreement as to whether it was really Homer who wrote the Iliad, or more appropriately, whether people believe Shakespeare really wrote his plays or some other person (because there is slightly more of a genuine debate there).

Or, (if I'm being facetious), whether Homer wrote the Iliad (the theistic equivalent), or if the Iliad just appeared into existence (the atheistic equivalent) [Razz]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

OK, forget the Iliad then. Whether the Q source of the gospels exists.

Some can put forward evidence that it does exist, much harder (if not impossible) to convincingly supply evidence that it doesn't.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Mr Cheesy, no disagreements with your previous post. But this...

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But it isn't really like that. It'd be more like one side saying that Homer's Iliad exists and the other side saying it doesn't.
.
...is wrong. It's not. Everyone agrees the Iliad exists, in the same way, everyone agrees the Universe exists.

It's more like a disagreement as to whether it was really Homer who wrote the Iliad, or more appropriately, whether people believe Shakespeare really wrote his plays or some other person (because there is slightly more of a genuine debate there).

Or, (if I'm being facetious), whether Homer wrote the Iliad (the theistic equivalent), or if the Iliad just appeared into existence (the atheistic equivalent)

There's an old joke about the claim that the Iliad wasn't actually written by Homer but by someone else with the same name. The joke being that all we know about Homer is his name.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For example, suppose someone claims that the lights in the sky are balls of gas many times larger than the earth. Is that an extraordinary claim?
Yes, I think it is. I don't think one could reason that without intricate observations with specialised equipment.

'Extraordinary' means 'something someone couldn't reason without intricate observation with specialised equipment'?
I don't think belief in God qualifies as extraordinary under that description.

quote:

quote:
If so, what kind of evidence is extraordinary enough to match the claim that they're many times larger than the entire earth? Mathematical calculations?
I think we're talking here about the volume, reproducibility and type of evidence. It isn't just mathematics, it is mathematics backed up with many years of observations by telescope.. etc

No doubt. Is that enough for the evidence to count as 'extraordinary'?
Well, yes. What I'm trying to get at is that the word 'extraordinary' here is sufficiently vague that the user can get it to refer to anything the user wants it to refer to and not refer to anything the user doesn't want it to refer to, using entirely ad hoc explanations.

quote:

quote:
No evidence could be as extraordinary as the claim.
Can't it? I'm not sure what you mean here.

The claim is that the size of the stars is entirely outside our experience or even our imagination; therefore the evidence would have to be entirely outside our experience or imagination.
But my underlying argument is that 'extraordinary' is too vague to mean anything precisely.

quote:

quote:
Conclusion: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is a piece of ad hoc rhetorical nonsense.
I don't think it is rhetorical nonsense exactly, although obviously it is rather more applicable to some fields of thought than others. I think that in the fields of observed science, it is quite a good rule of thumb that someone suggesting something which is way outwith of the general way of thinking on the subject needs to be standing on a mass of data to have anything to convince his peers. But maybe it doesn't work in other spheres.

I do rather agree with the suggested principle that someone suggesting something outwith of the general way of thinking on a subject needs rather more data to support their argument than someone suggesting something more compatible with the general way of thinking.
But I doubt that the point that Komensky is trying to argue. I don't think he'd be satisfied that belief in the supernatural is not extraordinary by a claim that belief in the supernatural is the general way of thinking on the subject.

quote:

quote:
Do you think that it makes sense to talk about there being evidence either way? Or is it only evidence if it shows decisively that one side is right?
But it isn't really like that. It'd be more like one side saying that Homer's Iliad exists and the other side saying it doesn't. In that context, what evidence could you provide of the non-existence of something?

I was going for something completely disanalogous, because I want to steer clear of anything specific to the question of theism or supernatural and go for something quite general. Besides Komensky wasn't talking about evidence of non-existence, but rejecting alleged evidence of existence.

quote:

quote:
You keep talking as if it's only evidence if it shows decisively that one side is right. For example, you keep switching from evidence to proof. But you haven't said so explicitly.
Mmm. I'm not sure if this is fair or not.

I'm not sure either, which is why I'm asking.

[ 22. July 2015, 15:11: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Extraordinary" means out of the ordinary. A quick google gives, "Unusual or remarkable." It's not exactly objectively definable, is it? What is remarkable to one person will not be remarkable to another. And no amount of headstanding will make deism unusual or out of the ordinary. The word ("Extraordinary"), in questions of the existence of God/gods/whatever, plays the role of a weasel word.
Mmm. Well, I'm sure it is true that on a global level more believe in a deity than don't, so I suppose it must then be true that it is not unusual, at least on that level.

I hadn't thought of it like that, fair cop. I was thinking of children and whether they naturally tend to come up with the idea of a deity - in my experience they don't.

Children are not born with a set of names pre-installed for everything that exists (or in the case of God, whatever verb you want to use, to short-circuit the apophatics). So it's hardly surprising that a five year old would not say, out of the blue, "There's a creator who made everything." Granted they may ask their parent "Who made the world?" and the answer the parent gives will be what the parent believes. If the answer is "nobody knows for sure; maybe a god (insert brief description here), maybe nobody" (the honest agnostic answer) then the child may later investigate the god option.

If "indoctrinated" by theist parents, the child will presumably believe in gods/God, at least for a time. If "indoctrinated" by atheist parents ("nobody made the world; it just is"), they will presumably not believe in God/gods, at least for a time. There are of course conversions in both directions.

None of this answers the question, why is theism (or at least deism) so much more popular down the halls of time than atheism? Did humans develop a sense of the divine before we left Olduvai? Or did it happen in multiple places at different times? And if so, why? We as a race/species would seem to be predisposed to "leap" (if you must) to that conclusion/explanation, even if children aren't born being able to produce it without being given words for it by their caregivers.

Leaving me to wonder, why does the case of the child matter? It assumes a "blank slate" which is as much a leap of faith (and indeed given what we know about genetics and epigenetics a demonstrably false one) as anything else. Given such, it is perfectly reasonable to think that the existence of God/gods is something we are genetically predisposed to. Then the argument shifts to, Why would that be?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Maybe a lot of human brains don't see God until they are healed? Or until they approach things from a different angle? Not approach God from a different angel, but some aspect of life, and through that God becomes obvious?
Deliberate pun or Freudian slip?

Just a typo. Not every typo has meaning.

(Tangent warning!) I am intrigued at friends who call themselves atheists because they do not believe in God, but they are sure angels exist.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Can I ask again whether the atheists in this discussion have answered these questions, and if not could they please do so:

1. Why is it not enough for a believer to say, "I have been convinced by extraordinary experience that God exists." By this I don't mean enough to convince anybody else. I mean enough to count as extraordinary evidence for this person.

2. Must evidence for the existence of gods/God be available to everybody to be sufficient even for one person?

3. Why?

4. And why is it not question-begging for the atheist to say, "No, there is a natural explanation for your experience, therefore it is not evidence of a deity"?

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can I ask again whether the atheists in this discussion have answered these questions, and if not could they please do so:

1. Why is it not enough for a believer to say, "I have been convinced by extraordinary experience that God exists." By this I don't mean enough to convince anybody else. I mean enough to count as extraordinary evidence for this person.

2. Must evidence for the existence of gods/God be available to everybody to be sufficient even for one person?

3. Why?

4. And why is it not question-begging for the atheist to say, "No, there is a natural explanation for your experience, therefore it is not evidence of a deity"?

Uttering something, no matter how many times, does not contribute to its truth claims. No doubt many people are convinced they were abducted by aliens. Whatever their claims, none of them are evidence of space aliens. The claims of a god or gods (why can't there be an evil god?) must simply be addressed like all claims. What is the evidence? The evidence in none. The evidence of the experience is a separate case.

K.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can I ask again whether the atheists in this discussion have answered these questions, and if not could they please do so:

Even if I did, I'll never find it, so I'll happily accept the challenge again! [Smile]

QUOTE][1. Why is it not enough for a believer to say, "I have been convinced by extraordinary experience that God exists." By this I don't mean enough to convince anybody else. I mean enough to count as extraordinary evidence for this person.[/QUOTE]It is enough evidence, whether you call it extraordinary or not, for a personal belief, but if that person wishes it to be accepted as true by others, then it must be accompanied by objective, testable facts, preferably obtained via the scientific method.

quote:
2. Must evidence for the existence of gods/God be available to everybody to be sufficient even for one person?

If one objective piece of information about God, or any god, existed, then it, having stood up to testing and verification, would become a fact and, whether acknowledged by only a few or by many, would remain a fact unless new and more reliable information and facts superseded it.

quote:
3. Why?

Because over recent centuries, and particularly in recent years, anyone using modern technology knows that it works because it has been tested and, if something goes wrong, more study of facts, more testing and checking will usually result in reliability being restored. There are no testable, checkable facts about God or any god.

quote:
4. And why is it not question-begging for the atheist to say, "No, there is a natural explanation for your experience, therefore it is not evidence of a deity"?

Because there has always been a natural explanation in the end. This is so reliably the case, that, although it is clearly true that there are a vast number of things we don’t know yet, the likelihood of a natural explanation sooner or later is very high.
The more we know about the natural world, how medical cures can be made, tested and used, how man-made machines can travel accurately as far as Pluto, the more the work of scientists gains people's confidence.
Thank you for the opportunity to think about the answers to your questions. It has been rather a twiddling-thumbs day today!

[ 22. July 2015, 17:34: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I missed one of the brackets or slashes or something - sorry about that!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Dafyd: Just because there's a wikipedia page for something doesn't mean it's actually a sensible topic. You'll notice that few of the references on that page link to things that use the phrase 'burden of proof'. (The first couple of references are about the fallacy of argument from ignorance, which is a different matter.)

Sigh. You wrote a post stating that 'burden of proof' is a term from the legal realm, casting strong doubts on whether it had any meaning in epistemology.

As a reply, I linked to a Wikipedia article that starts with the words "In epistemology, the burden of proof is ..." This article has existed for 5.5 years, and is visited approximately 300 times per day.

Does this show that 'burden of proof' is a sensible term in epistemology? It does. I am a Wikipedia contributor with over 16,000 edits. Yes, there are inaccuracies on Wikipedia sometimes. But not of this order; I know how it goes. If 'burden of proof' wouldn't be a sensible term in epistemology, there would be vicious wars on whether to keep the article, with various deletions attemps within days of the article having been started. Instead, the article has been around for years.

If you think there is interesting information in the article's references, you're more than welcome to read them. You asked whether 'proof of doubt' is a term in epistemology. I have shown you that it is.

[ 22. July 2015, 17:39: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can I ask again whether the atheists in this discussion have answered these questions, and if not could they please do so:

1. Why is it not enough for a believer to say, "I have been convinced by extraordinary experience that God exists." By this I don't mean enough to convince anybody else. I mean enough to count as extraordinary evidence for this person.

2. Must evidence for the existence of gods/God be available to everybody to be sufficient even for one person?

3. Why?

4. And why is it not question-begging for the atheist to say, "No, there is a natural explanation for your experience, therefore it is not evidence of a deity"?

1. How would you know that an experience was an experience of God? If you're talking about inner convictions, thoughts, voices, inexplicable coincidences, answers to prayer, how does anyone know what to ascribe them to? To have an extraordinary experience is one thing, to immediately know it's cause is quite another.
2. Isn't evidence by nature a sort of public, pass-on-able thing? If I claim evidence for my theory about pasta and the decline of folk music but say that I can't in any way share the evidence, people might not take me very seriously.
3. Becauses given above.
4. This seems to be an atheist who thinks God is supposed to be a natural object, as many of them do. But it's the result of confusion.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

2. Isn't evidence by nature a sort of public, pass-on-able thing? If I claim evidence for my theory about pasta and the decline of folk music but say that I can't in any way share the evidence, people might not take me very seriously.

But your theory might still be true.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Some people say they have been kidnapped by aliens. I am going to assume that some sincerely believe this has happened to them - so in that case, if someone was to relate their experience, would that he evidence for the existence of aliens? Would not most people bring in other knowledge and think that this person was delusional or worse - due to the lack of objective convincing evidence that they exist?

Is there a difference in the reasonableness of believing in a deity vs aliens? Can either experiences alone be considered evidence, never mind proof?

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

I think care is needed when using a “burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim” approach, as the linked article explains.

“If I claim that I can read auras, then it is up to me to prove that I can. It isn't up to my opponents to prove that I can't.” The null hypothesis here is not 'You can't read auras', but 'I don't know whether you can read auras or not'. Similarly, one cannot make the claim that the null position is 'God doesn't exist', but 'God might or might not exist'.

The section on pluralism is interesting in this regard. Probably a better way of approaching things is to examine the relative probabilities for competing worldviews.

Might I also suggest, following on, that if God exists, to claim that would be an ordinary statement of a true fact. To say that claiming the existence of God is extraordinary, is to start with a null hypothesis that God doesn't exist.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some people say they have been kidnapped by aliens. I am going to assume that some sincerely believe this has happened to them - so in that case, if someone was to relate their experience, would that he evidence for the existence of aliens?

It would depend on how well I knew the person, what I know about their character, their mental health, and details of the story they tell, especially if any of it can be corroborated or discounted. But either way, yes, it's evidence. It might be weak evidence, it might even turn out to be evidence that is contrary to what the person claims.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Would not most people bring in other knowledge and think that this person was delusional or worse - due to the lack of objective convincing evidence that they exist?

Hold on, the universe is a very very big place, and we live in a tiny part of it. Of course we don't have convincing evidence that aliens exist. An amoeba in Antarctica doesn't have convincing evidence that polar bears exist, that doesn't mean they don't. I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility of aliens existing - it's just if there are any, they are probably a long, long way away. I mean, one of the greatest scientists of our time just announced a $100,000,000 project to find extraterrestrial life. It's worth at least entertaining the possibility that aliens exist.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is there a difference in the reasonableness of believing in a deity vs aliens?

Yes. The former is 'beyond', the latter is within the confines of creation. Finding out whether aliens exist or not is the task of the standard scientific method. Finding out whether G-d is or not is outside its scope.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Can either experiences alone be considered evidence, never mind proof?

Of course they can be considered evidence. It's the quality and nature of the evidence that matters (as Dafyd has been trying to explain). Evidence and proof are not the same thing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

None of this answers the question, why is theism (or at least deism) so much more popular down the halls of time than atheism?

Because it is an answer. Perhaps correct, perhaps not, but it is simple and easy.
"What is that father?
That is a cart, son.
I made it. I felled the trees, shaped the wood and bound it together with rope and hide.
What is that?
That is a rainbow.
Who made that and how?
Well, son, it is a meteorological phenomenon caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in tiny water drops in the air. The colours are actually the components of sunlight which, when combined, appear whitish to our eyes.
However, since this is the late neolithic and I don't understand what I just said, let's say the Gods are smiling upon us".
Really not making fun of theists here, just that there are perfectly rational reasons why god(s) and magic might become an explanation other than it must be true.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
But, anyway, the burden of proof is on the person attempting to convince.
I think I agree with what you're trying to say, but why use the phrase 'burden of proof' to express it? If what you think it means is that I'm not justified in calling the other person irrational or saying that they hold their beliefs without evidence merely because they disagree with my claims, then I would happily agree;

Yes, that. I used 'burden of proof' because that is what had been used. Late into this discussion and not justifyin what anyone said.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

You're comfortably in the lead hatless.

mousethief, damn good question on what evolutionary and/or phenomenological processes have disposed us to belief in the supernatural. Just as I do whilst denying all claims since Christ.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Uttering something, no matter how many times, does not contribute to its truth claims.]

What does this have to do with my questions?

quote:
No doubt many people are convinced they were abducted by aliens. Whatever their claims, none of them are evidence of space aliens.

They most certainly are. From wikipedia:

quote:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

You are confused between "evidence" and "good evidence" or "strong evidence" or "conclusive evidence."

quote:
The claims of a god or gods (why can't there be an evil god?) must simply be addressed like all claims. What is the evidence? The evidence [is] none.

This is circular reasoning.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Really not making fun of theists here, just that there are perfectly rational reasons why god(s) and magic might become an explanation other than it must be true.

I never claimed it must be true.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Really not making fun of theists here, just that there are perfectly rational reasons why god(s) and magic might become an explanation other than it must be true.
I never claimed it must be true.

No, you didn't. But ISTM, that is the caboose of that logic train for most people who use it.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What is that?
That is a rainbow.
Who made that and how?
Well, son, it is a meteorological phenomenon caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in tiny water drops in the air. The colours are actually the components of sunlight which, when combined, appear whitish to our eyes.
However, since this is the late neolithic and I don't understand what I just said, let's say the Gods are smiling upon us.

And in what way do you imagine that your physical answer is incompatible with your theological answer? Are droplets intrinsically evil, so that their interaction with sunlight cannot be God (gods) smiling upon us? The idea that only one description level is in truth possible for one phenomenon is merely a belief, and in my opinion not a particularly rational one where agents are concerned. Compare: lilBuddha noticed herself making a mistake in detecting grammar errors, her brain showed increased theta oscillations in the frontal region. Did you not notice a mistake? Are you in truth non-existent as an agent just because I can measure your corresponding brain activity? Or are these simply two ways of describing the same thing, which in fact inform and complement each other?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
]And in what way do you imagine that your physical answer is incompatible with your theological answer?

Didn't say it was. Just making the point that humans contemplating the existance of gods does not indicate the existance of gods. Simply that.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It would depend on how well I knew the person, what I know about their character, their mental health, and details of the story they tell, especially if any of it can be corroborated or discounted. But either way, yes, it's evidence. It might be weak evidence, it might even turn out to be evidence that is contrary to what the person claims.

Thanks for responding, I was trying to think of an example that is more similar to the one we're discussing.

I think you are wrong here: given that alien abductions are widely discredited and when examined have never been shown to have any evidence, I don't think it would matter who was saying these things.

I think the exception here would be if there was some kind of exceptional collaborating evidence: a lot of eyewitnesses to the same event, a lot of extra data which cannot be disputed, a lot of experts who are saying that this must have happened.

A personal saying this happened - when the thing they're describing is highly unlikely to have happened - isn't going to be regarded by many as evidence of anything.

Of course, I accept that this depends on your own frame of mind. Someone who is a conspiracy theorist may well be more prepared to believe. But I think someone who is interested in science and evidence is going to expect a lot more than just someone saying something happened.

quote:
Hold on, the universe is a very very big place, and we live in a tiny part of it. Of course we don't have convincing evidence that aliens exist. An amoeba in Antarctica doesn't have convincing evidence that polar bears exist, that doesn't mean they don't. I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility of aliens existing - it's just if there are any, they are probably a long, long way away. I mean, one of the greatest scientists of our time just announced a $100,000,000 project to find extraterrestrial life. It's worth at least entertaining the possibility that aliens exist.

That's true, but not what I asked. Someone saying that they were abducted by aliens is not evidence which scientists can use to weigh whether aliens exist. The fact that some scientists believe in the possibility that they exist does not even mean that they exist.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is there a difference in the reasonableness of believing in a deity vs aliens?
Yes. The former is 'beyond', the latter is within the confines of creation. Finding out whether aliens exist or not is the task of the standard scientific method. Finding out whether G-d is or not is outside its scope.

OK. I don't think things are as clear cut as this, but fair enough.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Can either experiences alone be considered evidence, never mind proof?
Of course they can be considered evidence. It's the quality and nature of the evidence that matters (as Dafyd has been trying to explain). Evidence and proof are not the same thing.

I think on reflection that the definitions of evidence and proof that Dyfyd is using is not really the one that a scientist would use. And I don't think it would carry much weight in a court-of-law either.

A man standing in a dock high on drugs telling the judge that he was in a "spacecraft flying to Pluto" instead of robbing the bank he is accused of is not really giving evidence that the court will accept. In a strict sense, he is "giving evidence" in that he is speaking the words in a court of law. But I think one needs to come up with the construction of an idea that is beyond the fantastical to really be considered evidence.

The same in science, I think. A wild result is not really "evidence" if the simplest explanation is that there was some kind of methodological error. Usually such anomalous results are removed from analysis because of the potential to skew and bias conclusions.

Proof is a more difficult concept. In mathematics, a proof is something where you use deductive reasoning and logic to show that something is true in all cases.

In observed science, this is much more difficult to do, of course. It is much harder to "prove" anything definitively, so the only tools we have left are repetition and reproducibility - more experiments completed in the same way to get the same results.

In philosophy, I think if we are trying to say that it is possible to "prove" something, we are liable to get into a chain of logic like Socrates in The Republic - this then that then the other - which leads to ridiculous extremes nobody believes in.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
As a reply, I linked to a Wikipedia article that starts with the words "In epistemology, the burden of proof is ..." This article has existed for 5.5 years, and is visited approximately 300 times per day.

Does this show that 'burden of proof' is a sensible term in epistemology? It does. I am a Wikipedia contributor with over 16,000 edits.

It's a Start Class quality article.
Yes, as a default, the considerations you adduce are evidence that wikipedia articles in general are reliable. However, they're not strong enough evidence to override contrary evidence in any given case. In particular, if you're doing academic work you stress that wikipedia itself is not a source: you can use it to find the sources cited in the article. And, as I said, the cited sources here are lacking.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website produces no hits for 'burden of proof'.

That the phrase 'burden of proof' is frequently used in this way on the internet is true; I called it a cliche earlier in the thread. That the original source of the wikipedia article is any discussion within philosophy, as opposed to the internet cliche, I doubt.

There's nothing in the wikipedia article about criticisms of the concept or contrary views. In philosophy there are always criticisms of the concept and contrary views.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Uttering something, no matter how many times, does not contribute to its truth claims.]
What does this have to do with my questions?

Who said I'm answering your questions only? I'm not at all confused about degrees of evidence. You seem to be arguing that someone's experience of X is evidence of some kind for Y. If someone prays that they get a new job and then shortly after they get a new job, it is no evidence of any kind (bad or good) of the efficacy prayer or the existence of God—or anything supernatural. I stepped on a spider and within hours it rained. Therefore, this is evidence that stepping on spiders (at least sometimes) makes it rain. Your starting point ('there is a God') is completely and totally without any kind of evidence beyond the sort of subjective or anecdotal kind. You are taking a fairy story as axiomatic. There is no more evidence for the Christian God Yaweh than there is for Thor or Zeus or any of the other thousands of 'dead' gods. The discussions about experience of the idea of god (or gods) is a separate one. That discussion can be had in a similar context to that of alien abduction or visions of the Virgin Mary. In both cases, there is heaps of the sort of evidence you seem to be considering.

K.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

That the phrase 'burden of proof' is frequently used in this way on the internet is true; I called it a cliche earlier in the thread. That the original source of the wikipedia article is any discussion within philosophy, as opposed to the internet cliche, I doubt.

There's nothing in the wikipedia article about criticisms of the concept or contrary views. In philosophy there are always criticisms of the concept and contrary views.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this paper appears to be examining the concept of "burden of proof" in terms of philosophical argument and dialogue.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Dafyd: Yes, as a default, the considerations you adduce are evidence that wikipedia articles in general are reliable.

Thank you, but this isn't exactly what I meant. The Wikipedia article could very well contain inaccuracies; that happens sometimes even if the article is visited a lot (300 visits / day is a relatively low number for that). It is evidence though that 'burden of proof' is seen as a reasonably sensible term in epistemology.

I'm a development worker not a philosopher, so I don't know how universally the term is accepted in epistemological circles. I googled a bit, and I found some peer-reviewed articles that discuss the concept rather quickly; I can give you the links if you want. I'd say that this is sufficient evidence (I might even say proof) that the term isn't just an internet cliché.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

On burden of proof:

Richard H. Gaskins, Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse (Yale, 1992).

K. Parsons, God and the Burden of Proof: Plantinga, Swinburne, and the Analytic Defense of Theism (Prometheus Books, 1989).

K.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

To me, perhaps the most interesting and exciting thing about the scientific method is that the Theories involved are constantly open to challenge. This often reinforces the Theory in question, but any new, improved addition, or correct challenge, is, in the main, welcomed by those seeking the truth. There is no Theory of or for God (or god/s) so there are no facts to be corrected, challenged or improved, are there?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SusanDoris: There is no Theory of or for God (or god/s) so there are no facts to be corrected, challenged or improved, are there?

I do agree with you, more or less. All of us have theories about God to some degree, and we do challenge each other on those theories (a lot of discussions on the Ship are about exactly that). Sometimes this leads to our personal theories being corrected or improved.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think you are wrong here: given that alien abductions are widely discredited and when examined have never been shown to have any evidence, I don't think it would matter who was saying these things.

I think I would personally phrase it as: the evidence for alien abductions when examined has always been found to be weaker than the evidence against.

quote:
I think on reflection that the definitions of evidence and proof that Dyfyd is using is not really the one that a scientist would use. And I don't think it would carry much weight in a court-of-law either.

Scientific enquiry requires that evidence be checkable or repeatable. And personal testimony is not generally checkable.
That doesn't mean that the relation between evidence and proof differs. It just means that what counts as admissible evidence in science is different from what counts as admissible evidence in, for instance, history or sociology or autobiography. That's why history is not a science.
Suppose someone wants to find out which group of birds flamingos are most closely related to. Looking at anatomy they seem most closely related to storks; the lice in their feathers are most closely related to duck lice (lice are conservative enough in their hosts that this is evidence); and their egg proteins are most similar to herons.
Are those all evidence? Yes. They are all evidence. But at least two must be evidence for a false conclusion.
In fact, according to wikipedia recent genetic studies, and studies of fossil anatomy, suggest flamingos are most closely related to grebes. DO the egg proteins still count as evidence, even though we now know there is no relation to ducks? It seems to me that they are still evidence even though we are confident that the conclusion is wrong due to the preponderance of evidence that they're unrelated.

The overall point is that frequently there is evidence on both sides of a question. So just because the evidence on one side is strong, even overwhelmingly stronger, does not mean that what you have on the other side isn't still evidence.

Personal testimony of alien abduction is evidence; it is just that the considerations that tell against alien abduction are overwhelmingly stronger. If I step on a spider and it rains half and hour later that is evidence that stepping on spiders make it rain; however, if I then step on a spider and it doesn't rain that is much stronger evidence that it doesn't make it rain. That we have strong beliefs about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might be triggered by stepping on spiders, and about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might cause rain, and lack of overlap is also if not technically evidence a rational consideration against.

Does that make my position clearer?

(I am not a lawyer, but I believe nothing prevents a defendant from claiming that they weren't there because they were abducted by aliens at the time. The jury will form their own judgement as to whether said testimony is strong enough to outweigh any other evidence that might be offered. However, if the defendant were to claim that the aliens had informed the defendant of the real culprit that would be hearsay and therefore not admissible evidence.)

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The overall point is that frequently there is evidence on both sides of a question. So just because the evidence on one side is strong, even overwhelmingly stronger, does not mean that what you have on the other side isn't still evidence.

That seems to me like an odd way to describe evidence. It seems like you are saying information which is incorrect, or even irrelevant is still usable to make a case. If it turns out the egg protein is not relevant to make a decision on the most related species, I can't see how that can be simultaneously also usable evidence; it is irrelevant, it turns out.

quote:
Personal testimony of alien abduction is evidence; it is just that the considerations that tell against alien abduction are overwhelmingly stronger. If I step on a spider and it rains half and hour later that is evidence that stepping on spiders make it rain; however, if I then step on a spider and it doesn't rain that is much stronger evidence that it doesn't make it rain.

I don't understand this point. Stepping on spiders is independent of rain, therefore it is not proof either way. These are just two randomly correlated events without causation.

quote:
That we have strong beliefs about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might be triggered by stepping on spiders, and about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might cause rain, and lack of overlap is also if not technically evidence a rational consideration against.

I don't think that belief in and of itself is evidence. I can believe rain and spiders are related, but I'd be wrong.

quote:
Does that make my position clearer?

No, not really, I'm afraid.

quote:
(I am not a lawyer, but I believe nothing prevents a defendant from claiming that they weren't there because they were abducted by aliens at the time. The jury will form their own judgement as to whether said testimony is strong enough to outweigh any other evidence that might be offered. However, if the defendant were to claim that the aliens had informed the defendant of the real culprit that would be hearsay and therefore not admissible evidence.)

I am not either, but I think a judge will direct a jury to ignore information given in a trial that cannot be accepted as evidence.

[ 23. July 2015, 12:21: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The overall point is that frequently there is evidence on both sides of a question. So just because the evidence on one side is strong, even overwhelmingly stronger, does not mean that what you have on the other side isn't still evidence.
That seems to me like an odd way to describe evidence. It seems like you are saying information which is incorrect, or even irrelevant is still usable to make a case. If it turns out the egg protein is not relevant to make a decision on the most related species, I can't see how that can be simultaneously also usable evidence; it is irrelevant, it turns out.

Whether it's evidence can't depend on how it turns out in the end. The whole point of evidence is that you don't know how it will turn out in the end. If it's only evidence if it turns out to be relevant in the end, then you don't know whether you've got evidence until you know how it will turn out, which defeats the purpose of using evidence.
What makes the egg protein evidence is the existence of a general rule that if two bird groups have similar egg proteins they are probably related (because similar egg proteins are probably created by similar genes which are probably inherited from a common ancestor). The general rule exists even in the minority of cases where the probabilities don't turn out.

Saying the egg protein is not evidence if it turns out evidence in the wrong direction is a bit like saying you were wrong not to buy a lottery ticket if the lottery comes up with your birthday.

quote:

quote:
If I step on a spider and it rains half and hour later that is evidence that stepping on spiders make it rain; however, if I then step on a spider and it doesn't rain that is much stronger evidence that it doesn't make it rain.
I don't understand this point. Stepping on spiders is independent of rain, therefore it is not proof either way. These are just two randomly correlated events without causation.

I believe Komensky was referring to a superstition that stepping on spiders makes it rain.
He is saying that there is no evidence for the superstition. I'm saying there may be very weak evidence outweighed by far stronger evidence in the other direction.

quote:

quote:
That we have strong beliefs about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might be triggered by stepping on spiders, and about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might cause rain, and lack of overlap is also if not technically evidence a rational consideration against.
I don't think that belief in and of itself is evidence. I can believe rain and spiders are related, but I'd be wrong.

Not quite my point. If I believe that in general pigs do not fly, and I see what I think is a pig flying, I can either revise my belief that pigs don't fly or I can decide that there must be some other explanation for what I think I saw.
If it was strongly reasonable for me to believe beforehand that pigs don't fly then the latter is the rational option.

quote:
I am not either, but I think a judge will direct a jury to ignore information given in a trial that cannot be accepted as evidence.

I believe hearsay evidence (that is, reports of what somebody else said) cannot be accepted and forced confessions, or such like. I don't believe a judge can direct a jury to ignore evidence on the grounds that it's a tall story, though she may I think make sarcastic remarks in her summing up. I think she has to leave judgements of whether something's a tall story to the jury to decide.

[ 23. July 2015, 13:32: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm learning a bit about this difference between evidence and proof myself. It came up in a discussion I had with orfeo a couple of weeks ago. I'm hampered a bit by the fact that these seem to translate as the same word (bewijs) in Dutch.

quote:
mr cheesy: I don't think that belief in and of itself is evidence. I can believe rain and spiders are related, but I'd be wrong.

The way I understand it, in this case your *belief* wouldn't be the evidence. But if you could show in some way that on Tuesday 2.13pm you stepped on a spider and on 2.35 it rained, this would be evidence in favour of your belief that stepping on spiders causes rain.

It would be very weak evidence of course, and it would immediately be disproved by stepping on a couple of dozen other spiders, but if we look at the definition of the word, it would be called evidence.

DISCLAIMER: No animals were harmed in the composition of this post, and by writing this post I'm not advocating hurting animals in any way.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I suppose in science, that things like repeatability are emphasized. Thus, if you step on a spider and it rains, you would expect, first to repeat this yourself, to see if it happens again, and second, that others will also repeat it. Furthermore, you might start to guess about possible connections, and also make predictions, which are testable.

This seems very different from personal experience, although I suppose that some people have 'repeats'. But if I experience the great Shimmering Shimmeringness of All, can I get you to repeat this? Maybe to an extent - I know Buddhists and Sufis who have had very similar experiences, but not of the Shimmeringness, alas.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Uttering something, no matter how many times, does not contribute to its truth claims.]
What does this have to do with my questions?
Who said I'm answering your questions only?

Well since you quote my questions, then immediately make this statement, I think I can be forgiven for thinking this is an answer to my questions. That's kind of how quoting and responding tends to work here. Why would you quote my questions, and my questions only, and then immediately ignore them and answer somebody else? It makes no sense. But then there's a hell of a lot on this thread coming from the atheists that makes no sense.

quote:
I'm not at all confused about degrees of evidence. You seem to be arguing that someone's experience of X is evidence of some kind for Y.

You're reasoning circularly again. I'm saying that somebody claiming to have witnessed X is evidence for X. This happens in law courts every day, thousands of times a day. It may not be very good evidence. They could be hallucinating. They could be misremembering what they saw. And so forth. But it is still evidence, according to the definition of evidence. If we can't agree on what words mean, we cannot have a sensible or fruitful discussion.

quote:
If someone prays that they get a new job and then shortly after they get a new job, it is no evidence of any kind (bad or good) of the efficacy prayer or the existence of God—or anything supernatural. <snip>

All none to the point, as your examples are not analogous to what I am arguing.

quote:
Your starting point ('there is a God') is completely and totally without any kind of evidence beyond the sort of subjective or anecdotal kind.

That's not my starting point in this discussion. This strand of the discussion is merely about the meaning of the word "evidence," which you have wrong.

quote:
You are taking a fairy story as axiomatic.

No I am not. Nowhere in this discussion am I presupposing the existence of God/gods.

quote:
There is no more evidence for the Christian God Yaweh than there is for Thor or Zeus or any of the other thousands of 'dead' gods.

You don't know that. How many people claim to have encountered (say) Zeus? How many people claim to have encountered Yahweh? Each such claim is one piece of evidence. It may amount to a hill of beans. They may all be mistaken. But that's not what the word evidence means. You claim to know what it means but repeatedly insist on using it improperly.

quote:
The discussions about experience of the idea of god (or gods) is a separate one.

No, that is the discussion I am having. The discussion about the EXISTENCE of gods is separate from this one. I am merely trying to establish the common-sense, dictionary meaning of "evidence," and the fact that you are not using it properly.

For any discussion to be fruitful, everybody needs to be using the words the same way. Otherwise they will think they are agreeing, or think they are disagreeing, when in fact they aren't even saying the same thing.

I am working (as is Dyfed) towards agreement on the meaning of the word "evidence." I am taking the common-sense, dictionary meaning of the word, and showing that people here are not using it according to the normal definition. They have created a special definition which suits their argument, and which nobody has actually defined with any degree of precision, or in a way that is not question-begging or a category error.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
DISCLAIMER: No animals were harmed in the composition of this post, and by writing this post I'm not advocating hurting animals in any way.

Spiders are not animals. They are demons from the yawning chasms of Hell in exoskeletal form, spawned from the evil mind of the Prince of Darkness himself.

Scientific proof of this claim available upon request.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
quetzalcoatl: But if I experience the great Shimmering Shimmeringness of All, can I get you to repeat this?

There are certain herbs that can help you with this.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
quetzalcoatl: But if I experience the great Shimmering Shimmeringness of All, can I get you to repeat this?
There are certain herbs that can help you with this.

Some friends of mine travelled to the Amazon to take ayahuasca, and had a good vomit, anyway, when they got back, realized you can get it in Brixton. Not such nice scenery though, same vomit maybe.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0