1 of 3
1
On unscientifically verifiable beliefs and Faith
Posted: 15 October 2010 08:39 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2010-10-15

Lee Siegel writes:


“The leap of faith is really a very ordinary operation. We take it every time we fall in love, expect kindness from someone, impulsively sacrifice some little piece of our self-interest. After all, you cannot prove the existence of truth, beauty, goodness and decency; you cannot prove the dignity of being human, or your obligation to treat people as ends and not just as means. You take a gamble on the existence of these inestimable things. For that reason, when you lay scientific, logical and empirical siege to the leap of faith at the core of the religious impulse, you are not just attacking faith in God. You are attacking the act of faith itself, faith in anything that can’t be proved. But it just so happens that the qualities that make life rich, joyful and humane cannot be proved.”


Where does this leave us then? Are our justification of these intangibles limited only through philosophical argument? If our religious intuitions are derived in the same way as our deepest emotional and moral intuitions, does the same rational support we give in favor of these serve as a starting point to the affirmation of the validity of faith claims?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2010 03:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Hey dhs!

The problem might be organized religion. Despite the fact that billions adhere officially to a religion and billions may have a personal religion, also billions reject organized religion for one or many reasons.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2010 08:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
dhs - 16 October 2010 12:39 AM

writes:


“The leap of faith is really a very ordinary operation. We take it every time we fall in love, expect kindness from someone, impulsively sacrifice some little piece of our self-interest. After all, you cannot prove the existence of truth, beauty, goodness and decency; you cannot prove the dignity of being human, or your obligation to treat people as ends and not just as means. You take a gamble on the existence of these inestimable things. For that reason, when you lay scientific, logical and empirical siege to the leap of faith at the core of the religious impulse, you are not just attacking faith in God. You are attacking the act of faith itself, faith in anything that can’t be proved. But it just so happens that the qualities that make life rich, joyful and humane cannot be proved.”


Where does this leave us then? Are our justification of these intangibles limited only through philosophical argument? If our religious intuitions are derived in the same way as our deepest emotional and moral intuitions, does the same rational support we give in favor of these serve as a starting point to the affirmation of the validity of faith claims?


That’s just equivocation, and the reification of faith and love and kindness and such (they’re terms used to describe behaviors and emotions and such, not Things Unto Themselves).

“Faith” in the potential rewards of the emotions and actions of love and kindness and such are completely different from faith that an incoherently defined super being that created and is in charge of the Cosmos exists (and also usually agrees completely with the given believer advocating the given god concept and/or religious doctrine).

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 October 2010 04:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2010-10-19

Or, put another way, all those emotions and values proceed from us, as humans. Religious faith is purported to proceed from (in terms of being mandated by) a supreme being outside of us, who demands that we recognize its independence from us humans.

 Signature 

I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.—Bertrand Russell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2010 04:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2010-10-06

Religious faith is purported to proceed from (in terms of being mandated by) a supreme being outside of us, who demands that we recognize its independence from us humans.

But science requires the same thing of us.  For example, evolution is a process outside of us that demands that we recognize its independence from us.  We cannot control evolution (according to evolutionists), and it requires we put our faith in it.  It requires that we unquestionably put our faith in it.  Evolutionists don’t even want to consider any other idea that is taught in school, whether it be scientifically valid or not.  This can clearly be seen in films like Expelled by Ben Stein.  Science, also, in the end, is not so much an act of evidence as it is an act of faith.  Unless we were there when it took place, we can never really know how the world was created unless we put our faith in a belief.  As a Christian, I put my faith in the Bible and the creation story that it contains.  According to science, scientists put their faith in how the world was formed based on observations from the conditions of the present world (which are clearly not the conditions of the world when it was formed).  As a matter of fact, scientists (at least scientists who fully subscribe to evolution and don’t believe in God or any sort of designer) have to have a lot more faith than Christians because evolution teaches that the beauty and majesty that we see in the creation around us all happened blindly by chance, which is as likely as sitting a group of monkeys down at typewriters and expecting them to type the complete works of Shakespeare (this has been tried, for the record, and the monkeys didn’t even type so much as one sensible word).  However, as Christians, we believe that the earth was created by a creator for a specific purpose, which is much more logical than believing that the whole earth and everything on it was randomly created by chance.  I look forward to hearing your responses soon!!!! smile

      In Christ’s Love,
          Cody Alan Rushing smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2010 08:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2010-11-30

I thought of this too, so I came up with an explanation to myself for this.
I put faith in the small things of life because I have seen it happen before. I put faith in that my parents will let me eat a cookie right before dinner, because I have done it many times before in front of them and most of the time they didn’t object. It is about probability. We do it all the time in every aspect of life. I have not seen multiple Universes, some created randomly and without a creator, but most of the universes created by a creator, so I cannot use my probability faith in something like that.

I have another way of looking at it. It is also about trust. If your friend is a mechanical engineer, you will most likely trust him that he knows what he is talking about when it comes to physics and how machines work, but when he starts talking about biology and their animal kingdom names then you start to get wary of what he says. You might trust him though if he said he was taking biology classes.
Another example is you may have a friend, who you would trust to maybe get your mail and newspaper for you while you are on vacation. But you might not trust trust that friend enough to be in charge of your house and watch your pets. He would have to earn your trust by maybe just getting your mail or being a good friend before you will let that friend watch your house.

I do not just believe what people tell me and then not give me any facts. I am going with atheism, because the evidence supports it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2010 09:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10
NotAnAtheist - 28 November 2010 09:01 PM

Religious faith is purported to proceed from (in terms of being mandated by) a supreme being outside of us, who demands that we recognize its independence from us humans.

But science requires the same thing of us.  For example, evolution is a process outside of us that demands that we recognize its independence from us.  We cannot control evolution (according to evolutionists), and it requires we put our faith in it.  It requires that we unquestionably put our faith in it.  Evolutionists don’t even want to consider any other idea that is taught in school, whether it be scientifically valid or not.  This can clearly be seen in films like Expelled by Ben Stein.  Science, also, in the end, is not so much an act of evidence as it is an act of faith.  Unless we were there when it took place, we can never really know how the world was created unless we put our faith in a belief.  As a Christian, I put my faith in the Bible and the creation story that it contains.  According to science, scientists put their faith in how the world was formed based on observations from the conditions of the present world (which are clearly not the conditions of the world when it was formed).  As a matter of fact, scientists (at least scientists who fully subscribe to evolution and don’t believe in God or any sort of designer) have to have a lot more faith than Christians because evolution teaches that the beauty and majesty that we see in the creation around us all happened blindly by chance, which is as likely as sitting a group of monkeys down at typewriters and expecting them to type the complete works of Shakespeare (this has been tried, for the record, and the monkeys didn’t even type so much as one sensible word).  However, as Christians, we believe that the earth was created by a creator for a specific purpose, which is much more logical than believing that the whole earth and everything on it was randomly created by chance.  I look forward to hearing your responses soon!!!! smile

      In Christ’s Love,
          Cody Alan Rushing smile

Evolution demands nothing of us, requires nothing of us, and communicates nothing to us.  It merely is, and we dance to it’s tune.  It does not require faith to accept evolution, unless you are calling into question our ability to know anything about the world.  If we can know certain things about the world, such as what happened yesterday, or the weight of a particular substance, then science is verifiable. 

Lets look at the science behind aerodynamics.  Is it safe to say that we know a little something about making otherwise unwieldy objects attain flight?  If you have ever flown in an airplane, you are putting your faith in the science behind aerodynamics.  However, the scientists and engineers that designed that aircraft have only one faith claim: that newtonian physics will not change.  Your faith is one of pure ignorance, whereas their faith is one of measured confidence.  COULD newtonian physics one day alter?  I guess…but having “faith” that the entire known universe will not cease to function as it has for as long as science has existed is really stretching the term ‘faith’, don’t you agree?  If you build a plane on faith in jesus, and the engineers build one on faith in aerodynamics, I’d put 100:1 odds that no one would even consider trusting their life to yours.

This: “This can clearly be seen in films like Expelled by Ben Stein.”

- The only thing clear about this movie was that actors are not scientists, but if they’re christians, other christians will believe their opinions about science.  He would have a splendid point, but for one small, nigh insignificant snag in his operation: creationism does not qualify as science.  Plain and simple, saying it was done by “magic” is turning a blind eye to all that science has achieved.  Lightning was once thought to be magic, it is now understood.  Disease, gravity, wind, water, stars; just about any facet of the world that has ever garnered wonder, and motivated expressions of our ignorance, has been anthropomorphized by our ancestors.  Subsequent discoveries through examination of the natural world have yielded full, natural explanations of this phenomenon.  Not ONE mystery has ultimately rested upon the existence of magic, though many a half-truth has walked hand in hand with such flights of fancy. 

“(which are clearly not the conditions of the world when it was formed)”

- Clearly?  What presumptions are scientists making about the ancient world that are “clearly” different now?  What test-altering adjustments can we glean through application of creationism to these base, unimaginative naturalists?  What evidence do you have to suggest the differences?  These were the questions asked of creationism, and ID, when it applied for the honor of accompanying established science in the classroom.  This is the criteria through which all of the information taught to children is filtered.  It is an imperfect process, no doubt, but something as blatantly unscientific as “it was magic”, justified by frivolous criticism of the current theory, does not get past our curriculum ‘bouncers’, much less into the labs. 

      “Whats that you have there in your test tube, Johnny?”
      “Oh, its magic dust, pretty sure this is what God used to make man.”
      “How do you know its magic?”
      “...”
      “Has it tested differently than regular dust?”
      “...”
      “What experiment do you intend to perform, and for what hypothesis?”
      “...”

- Fill in the “...” for me, if you feel I have been unfairly prejudicial against creationism.

“Unless we were there when it took place, we can never really know how the world was created unless we put our faith in a belief.”

- But what a difference in faith claims!  Christians are asserting a realm outside the known universe(for which they have provided no evidence), declaring the existence of a deity(for which they have provided no evidence), repeatedly proclaimed (contradictory) edicts from the deity in this “other” realm(for which they have no reason other than appealing to authority), and now, as presented in your post, are lambasting scientists for our egregious “faith” that continued testing will continue to produce the same results as the past umpteen million tests before.  You’re rolling a 6 sided dice and claiming that there’s a 7th side, it just never pops up.  Science is rolling a 6 sided dice and you’re calling it faith-based because it doesn’t accept the possibility of a 7…

“all happened blindly by chance” “randomly created by chance”

- If you could find where this is taught, either by physics or evolution, I would be quite surprised and dumbfounded.  The fact is, this constitutes what’s known as a straw-man argument, in which you create a bad argument, attribute it to your opponent, then ridicule it as though your doing anything but wasting time.

“which is as likely as sitting a group of monkeys down at typewriters and expecting them to type the complete works of Shakespeare (this has been tried, for the record, and the monkeys didn’t even type so much as one sensible word).”

- This was brought up in Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion, though I don’t think it originated there.  Whoever tried it as you are claiming obviously had either extra monkeys, extra typewriters, or too much money and not enough common sense.  The presentation of this analogy was accompanied by a time span in excess of the length of time itself(13+ billion years), and therefore an attempt at a “mythbusters” style refutation, if it ever did occur(a fact I am merely taking your word for), would be a complete waste of time.  I think the portion in Dawkins book refers to the use of a single monkey, so perhaps they were attempting to shorten the timespan by adding more monkeys.  Either way, I’m having a hard time not bursting out in laughter at just how many monkeys it would take to make this experiment replicable within even a human life span.  A simple statistics class would have done more good.

All joking aside, it’s not ‘random’ or ‘chance’ occurrences that produce biological complexity, though ‘random’ and ‘chance’ play their part in this, as in anything.  There are rules; success means reproduction, failure means death.  Rules have exceptions(enter chance).  Scientists since Darwin have been discovering these rules in ever increasing frequency, and not just in the field of biology.

——

I want to be clear on one thing, though: you are welcome to believe whatever you want.  I can’t make you stop believing the earth is 6k years old, or evolution is a lie, or the moon landings were staged, or elvis is still alive, etc., etc.  However, don’t be surprised if your opinion is not taken seriously until it can stand up to the same evidence-based critique that the rest of science’s “faith” claims do. 

  - From the enveloping, noodly appendages of the FSM,
    Lee.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2010 02:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Reerr

- But what a difference in faith claims!  Christians are asserting a realm outside the known universe(for which they have provided no evidence), declaring the existence of a deity(for which they have provided no evidence), repeatedly proclaimed (contradictory) edicts from the deity in this “other” realm(for which they have no reason other than appealing to authority), and now, as presented in your post, are lambasting scientists for our egregious “faith” that continued testing will continue to produce the same results as the past umpteen million tests before.  You’re rolling a 6 sided dice and claiming that there’s a 7th side, it just never pops up.  Science is rolling a 6 sided dice and you’re calling it faith-based because it doesn’t accept the possibility of a 7…

You have probably heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which implies you cannot have a perpetual motion machine, the universe included; you have probably heard of the Big Bang theory which is the most accepted scientific theory to explaining the beginning of the universe;  you have probably heard of the principle of causality which means that in the natural world everything has a cause.  From the scientific evidence above you must conclude that the universe must have had a beginning, that the best scientific model for this beginning is the big bang 13,7 billion years ago and that there must be a cause outside space time which caused the big bang.  Call this force whatever, but god fits pretty well.

Otherwise you would have to embrace the idea that the universe sprang spontaneously out of nothing which is the same as saying something= nothing or that 1? 0 which are both scientific contradictions

All joking aside, it’s not ‘random’ or ‘chance’ occurrences that produce biological complexity, though ‘random’ and ‘chance’ play their part in this, as in anything.  There are rules; success means reproduction, failure means death.  Rules have exceptions(enter chance).  Scientists since Darwin have been discovering these rules in ever increasing frequency, and not just in the field of biology.

But, how did these rules come about?  they wrote themselves? They sprang spontaneously out of nothing?  I believe a yes answer to these questions is unscientific and preposterous.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2010 05:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10
IAMWHOIAM - 08 December 2010 07:45 PM

Reerr

- But what a difference in faith claims!  Christians are asserting a realm outside the known universe(for which they have provided no evidence), declaring the existence of a deity(for which they have provided no evidence), repeatedly proclaimed (contradictory) edicts from the deity in this “other” realm(for which they have no reason other than appealing to authority), and now, as presented in your post, are lambasting scientists for our egregious “faith” that continued testing will continue to produce the same results as the past umpteen million tests before.  You’re rolling a 6 sided dice and claiming that there’s a 7th side, it just never pops up.  Science is rolling a 6 sided dice and you’re calling it faith-based because it doesn’t accept the possibility of a 7…

You have probably heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which implies you cannot have a perpetual motion machine, the universe included; you have probably heard of the Big Bang theory which is the most accepted scientific theory to explaining the beginning of the universe;  you have probably heard of the principle of causality which means that in the natural world everything has a cause.  From the scientific evidence above you must conclude that the universe must have had a beginning, that the best scientific model for this beginning is the big bang 13,7 billion years ago and that there must be a cause outside space time which caused the big bang.  Call this force whatever, but god fits pretty well.

Otherwise you would have to embrace the idea that the universe sprang spontaneously out of nothing which is the same as saying something= nothing or that 1? 0 which are both scientific contradictions

1. TD2 requires a closed system, who’s to say the universe is such a system?  We assume it is finite and 4 dimensional, but we don’t know yet.  If it is a closed system, however, then nothing outside of it can affect it, ever, or it then becomes an open system, and TD2 no longer applies.  Funny you should bring up the laws of thermodynamics, considering your hypothesis violates the First Law.  You want to use these rules to justify a hypothesis that logically entails breaking them.  Or are we back to “magic” again…

2. BBT explains the occurrences in the universe the nanosecond after it’s supposed “beginning”, citing this does no work towards establishing causality (its like citing evolution to establish abiogenesis).  The “cause” as you say, of the big bang, is not included within the Big Bang Theory.  That fraction of a nanosecond or so (or longer) remains a mystery.

Mystery ? Magic.

3. Principle of causality is falsified on a regular basis by quantum particles.

4. Suggesting that the only “logical” conclusion is a force outside the universe (especially considering the universe is defined as everything that exists) is merely giving up on the problem, not finding a solution.  Moreover, this type of conjecture suffers a logical penalty of incoherence, where the universe must include all that exists, so being outside the universe implies non-existence.  You may scoff and call my objection ‘mere semantics’, but unless you can come up with a better word for everything BUT god, you’re out of luck.

Lets say, for argument’s sake, I grant you the unmoved mover.  You have deism, though a shaky sort, now why do you think this ...thing is the god of abraham?  What logical argument do you have that spans the deism-theism gap?

IAMWHOIAM - 08 December 2010 07:45 PM

All joking aside, it’s not ‘random’ or ‘chance’ occurrences that produce biological complexity, though ‘random’ and ‘chance’ play their part in this, as in anything.  There are rules; success means reproduction, failure means death.  Rules have exceptions(enter chance).  Scientists since Darwin have been discovering these rules in ever increasing frequency, and not just in the field of biology.

But, how did these rules come about?  they wrote themselves? They sprang spontaneously out of nothing?  I believe a yes answer to these questions is unscientific and preposterous.

Yet an answer of “no, it was magic man” IS scientific and non-preposterous?  How about a simple, honest answer we can both live with: I don’t know.  I never claimed to know the answer, but again…mystery ? magic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2010 06:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Reerr

1. TD2 requires a closed system, who’s to say the universe is such a system?  We assume it is finite and 4 dimensional, but we don’t know yet.  If it is a closed system, however, then nothing outside of it can affect it, ever, or it then becomes an open system, and TD2 no longer applies.  Funny you should bring up the laws of thermodynamics, considering your hypothesis violates the First Law.  You want to use these rules to justify a hypothesis that logically entails breaking them.  Or are we back to “magic” again…

The Universe by definition is a closed system since it comprises all existing matter and space.  Since the cause must be outside the universe and previous to time this force is not natural to the universe and thus must be supernatural, so yes, the first law is violated by this supernatural force or energy in its beginning;  Otherwise the universe must be eternal, which would violate TD2 or the universe must have sprang spontaneously out of nothing which is a scientific contradiction (and please do not mention multiverses or bouncing ones since they are just variations of the same situation)

2. BBT explains the occurrences in the universe the nanosecond after it’s supposed “beginning”, citing this does no work towards establishing causality (its like citing evolution to establish abiogenesis).  The “cause” as you say, of the big bang, is not included within the Big Bang Theory.  That fraction of a nanosecond or so (or longer) remains a mystery.

The model fails at t = 10 raised to minus 43,  so we again see the natural laws being superseded by the supernatural, a mere coincidence you may add or mystery.  The big magic is a universe out of nothing trick!  Guess who could pull that one out?

3. Principle of causality is falsified on a regular basis by quantum particles.

There are some exceptions to causality in quantum mechanics, but the overwhelming evidence in the natural world is the universality of causality.

4. Suggesting that the only “logical” conclusion is a force outside the universe (especially considering the universe is defined as everything that exists) is merely giving up on the problem, not finding a solution.  Moreover, this type of conjecture suffers a logical penalty of incoherence, where the universe must include all that exists, so being outside the universe implies non-existence.  You may scoff and call my objection ‘mere semantics’, but unless you can come up with a better word for everything BUT god, you’re out of luck.

Lets say, for argument’s sake, I grant you the unmoved mover.  You have deism, though a shaky sort, now why do you think this ...thing is the god of abraham?  What logical argument do you have that spans the deism-theism gap?

There is no incoherence and I am not giving up the problem; the force we are talking about by definition is outside the natural order.  You were asking for evidence for the existence of a force, for the cause without a cause, for IAMWHOIAM, you have it pretty neatly and consistently packed.  If you deny this, more than mystery you fall in contradiction.

So thank you for granting the possibility for the unmoved mover.  And now please let me ask you, if there is this first cause, and please do no start asking what caused de cause since there is no before in this realm,  why do you think, what is the most probable reason, ( I would like to say only reason), that the unmoved mover, in its perfection, moved to create the universe?  Just a sudden caprice, was bored,  wanted to play dice?

Cheers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2010 06:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Reerr

Yet an answer of “no, it was magic man” IS scientific and non-preposterous?  How about a simple, honest answer we can both live with: I don’t know.  I never claimed to know the answer, but again…mystery ? magic.

In the same way is preposterous to think that an universe could have sprang spontaneously out of nothing, is preposterous to think the laws, all the information required for the universe to develop the way it did from simple to more complex systems,  from particles to atoms, to heavier elements, to stars, planets and orbits, to the genetic codes and life,  to you and me,  just developed randomly.

[ Edited: 08 December 2010 07:05 PM by IAMWHOIAM]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2010 10:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10
IAMWHOIAM - 08 December 2010 11:55 PM

Reerr

1. TD2 requires a closed system, who’s to say the universe is such a system?  We assume it is finite and 4 dimensional, but we don’t know yet.  If it is a closed system, however, then nothing outside of it can affect it, ever, or it then becomes an open system, and TD2 no longer applies.  Funny you should bring up the laws of thermodynamics, considering your hypothesis violates the First Law.  You want to use these rules to justify a hypothesis that logically entails breaking them.  Or are we back to “magic” again…

The Universe by definition is a closed system since it comprises all existing matter and space.  Since the cause must be outside the universe and previous to time this force is not natural to the universe and thus must be supernatural, so yes, the first law is violated by this supernatural force or energy in its beginning;  Otherwise the universe must be eternal, which would violate TD2 or the universe must have sprang spontaneously out of nothing which is a scientific contradiction (and please do not mention multiverses or bouncing ones since they are just variations of the same situation)

If the universe is a closed system, there cannot be anything outside of it acting upon it.  Thats the law.  If the universe comprises all existing matter and space, there cannot be anything existing outside of it.  There cannot be anything previous to time, as the term ‘previous’ logically entails time.  If the first law is a law at all, it cannot be violated, or it is no longer a law.  If the universe is eternal, which has not been ruled out, the second law is not violated simply because matter and energy are interchangeable.  Don’t fuss about scientific contradictions if your going to use supernatural and/or magical forces as a catalyst for your hypothesis.  Supernatural is BY DEFINITION unscientific.  I’m not a theoretical physicist, so I won’t weigh in on string theory.  Where did you get your Ph.D. in physics from?

IAMWHOIAM - 08 December 2010 11:55 PM

2. BBT explains the occurrences in the universe the nanosecond after it’s supposed “beginning”, citing this does no work towards establishing causality (its like citing evolution to establish abiogenesis).  The “cause” as you say, of the big bang, is not included within the Big Bang Theory.  That fraction of a nanosecond or so (or longer) remains a mystery.

The model fails at t = 10 raised to minus 43,  so we again see the natural laws being superseded by the supernatural, a mere coincidence you may add or mystery.  The big magic is a universe out of nothing trick!  Guess who could pull that one out?

I’m sorry, what?  What is t in this example?  Why does it fail?  How does the failure of a theory garner the supernatural conclusion?  I thought I already pointed out that Mystery ? Magic?  I never said the universe sprang out of nothing, thats you’re claim.  I stand by my statement: I don’t know.

IAMWHOIAM - 08 December 2010 11:55 PM

3. Principle of causality is falsified on a regular basis by quantum particles.

There are some exceptions to causality in quantum mechanics, but the overwhelming evidence in the natural world is the universality of causality.

Not good enough, I’m afraid.  If you want to use a principle to form a logical conclusion, there cannot be exceptions.  That is what is known as a faulty premise.  Exceptions debunk ‘universality’.  Logic ain’t horseshoes or hand grenades, close enough ain’t good enough.

IAMWHOIAM - 08 December 2010 11:55 PM

4. Suggesting that the only “logical” conclusion is a force outside the universe (especially considering the universe is defined as everything that exists) is merely giving up on the problem, not finding a solution.  Moreover, this type of conjecture suffers a logical penalty of incoherence, where the universe must include all that exists, so being outside the universe implies non-existence.  You may scoff and call my objection ‘mere semantics’, but unless you can come up with a better word for everything BUT god, you’re out of luck.

Lets say, for argument’s sake, I grant you the unmoved mover.  You have deism, though a shaky sort, now why do you think this ...thing is the god of abraham?  What logical argument do you have that spans the deism-theism gap?

There is no incoherence and I am not giving up the problem; the force we are talking about by definition is outside the natural order.  You were asking for evidence for the existence of a force, for the cause without a cause, for IAMWHOIAM, you have it pretty neatly and consistently packed.  If you deny this, more than mystery you fall in contradiction.

You are welcome to claim there is no incoherence, but I have demonstrated it.  Repeating incoherent statements, such as “by definition outside the natural order”, does not remove the conflict.  You are giving up the problem, by looking at a mystery of the natural world and declaring that the solution must be outside the natural world.  This is like trying to fix a car, and after giving it a thorough inspection, declaring that the problem must be outside the car.

IAMWHOIAM - 08 December 2010 11:55 PM

So thank you for granting the possibility for the unmoved mover.  And now please let me ask you, if there is this first cause, and please do no start asking what caused de cause since there is no before in this realm,  why do you think, what is the most probable reason, ( I would like to say only reason), that the unmoved mover, in its perfection, moved to create the universe?  Just a sudden caprice, was bored,  wanted to play dice?

Cheers

Easy now, don’t be greedy.  I granted that “for the sake of argument”, if you recall. 

If there is this cause, uncaused itself, and perfect, in a realm in which there is no time, space, or matter, unable to interact with the universe or else it will violate TD2, unable to differentiate between one moment and the next due to there being no time, unable to create anything due to TD1…what was the question again?  Oh, thats right, yes, I would throw it the key and try to help it out of prison.

Look, if there is no time, there is no choice.  Every action is simultaneous with every other, cause and effect become interchangeable.  The purpose of my brief concession was to make this point.  You wish to ask me what motivation would a deity have to choose to create the universe, and I object to the grammar of the question based upon the preordained rules governing this entity and the realm in which it must…not…exist?  Or exist…that might be a contradiction as well.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2010 10:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10
IAMWHOIAM - 08 December 2010 11:57 PM

Reerr

Yet an answer of “no, it was magic man” IS scientific and non-preposterous?  How about a simple, honest answer we can both live with: I don’t know.  I never claimed to know the answer, but again…mystery ? magic.

In the same way is preposterous to think that an universe could have sprang spontaneously out of nothing, is preposterous to think the laws, all the information required for the universe to develop the way it did from simple to more complex systems,  from particles to atoms, to heavier elements, to stars, planets and orbits, to the genetic codes and life,  to you and me,  just developed randomly.

You are welcome to continue insulting my honest ignorance, but your theory requires magic.  To be perfectly honest, I’m actually laughing at how silly this is…  I’m just imagining your argument going something like this: “Well, your idea is TERRIBLE, totally counter-intuitive.  The ONLY logical explanation is that Gandalf got the hobbit and some dwarves, fought a dragon, and stole his treasure.  THATS why the federal reserve uses gold!”

You insist that the laws and rules require a creator, then completely ignore them to slander every hard-won scientific discovery regarding the natural world.  We have explanations, gleaned through the study of these laws and rules, for the emergence of complexity, evolution of galaxies and stars, genetic information, life, and yes, even you and me.  As I said, it is not random, though there is a degree of uncertainty.  You can’t play both sides of the same coin and expect to get away with it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2010 10:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10

I’m still waiting on a response to my question:

“What logical argument do you have that spans the deism-theism gap?”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2010 02:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Reerr

I’m still waiting on a response to my question:

“What logical argument do you have that spans the deism-theism gap?”

.

To answer your question, I thanked you for granting the possibility for a deity;  then I asked you what was your idea on why would this deity move considering that being a deity is perfect.

I will get back to your question after I see the answer to my question, whatever your answer is. 

best

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2010 06:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10
IAMWHOIAM - 09 December 2010 07:56 AM

Reerr

I’m still waiting on a response to my question:

“What logical argument do you have that spans the deism-theism gap?”

.

To answer your question, I thanked you for granting the possibility for a deity;  then I asked you what was your idea on why would this deity move considering that being a deity is perfect.

I will get back to your question after I see the answer to my question, whatever your answer is. 

best

I asked first, but if you glance up three* posts, I have already been gracious enough to answer:

“You wish to ask me what motivation would a deity have to choose to create the universe, and I object to the grammar of the question based upon the preordained rules governing this entity and the realm in which it must…not…exist?  Or exist…that might be a contradiction as well.”

The remainder of my response is within that post.  Your move.

*edit from two.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed
newrelic.loglevel = "verbosedebug" newrelic.daemon.loglevel = "verbosedebug"