Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Assumptions of Science

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Assumptions of Science

    The practice of science has many assumptions such as the uniformity of nature, the reliability of our senses and cognitive facilities, moral values, and so on. Does God have to exist in order to be justified in believing that these assumptions are true?

  • #2
    No, of course not.

    But those regularities certainly don't obviate the notion of a creative deity.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      No, of course not.

      But those regularities certainly don't obviate the notion of a creative deity.
      The question is do those regularities make more sense as being a result of intelligence or non-intelligence.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        The question is do those regularities make more sense as being a result of intelligence or non-intelligence.
        The philosophy of science is indifferent to making sense of any assumptions of ultimate origins of physical existence being intelligent nor non-intelligent, since these assumptions of the ultimate origins are beyond assumptions of Methodological Naturalism. Making sense of theological assumptions of intelligent or non-intelligent origins remain the prevue of theology and philosophy.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
          The practice of science has many assumptions such as the uniformity of nature, the reliability of our senses and cognitive facilities, moral values, and so on. Does God have to exist in order to be justified in believing that these assumptions are true?
          First, the foundation of the sciences and scientific methods do not make any assumptions concerning moral nor ethical values. The reliability of the senses and cognitive facilities is not assumed to be uniform on the individual level. Science makes the assumption that the scientific methods take into consideration any weaknesses in the reliability of our senses and cognitive abilities on the individual human level.

          The assumption of the uniformity of nature is not entirely an assumption. The uniformity of nature is to a certain extent falsifiable by objective scientific methods. As long as the results of the methods of science produce consistent results in the falsification of theories and hypothesis than the uniformity of nature remains falsifiable.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
            Does God have to exist in order to be justified in believing that these assumptions are true?
            Yes, though I wouldn't take it in this transcendental direction. It is true that if things exist the way that they, then it follows deductively that God exists. Ergo if science is possible; God exists. Conversely if God did not exist, science would not be possible, and frankly I'm not sure anything could be said to exist or happen in that case.

            The question whether an atheist, despite being mistaken about the existence of God, can be justified in believing in these assumptions would also be yes. He would have reason from natural experience and the light of reason, to know that the world is reliable, that his senses can be trusted within reasonable limits (as our senses can be fooled, as can our intellect).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
              Does God have to exist . . . ?
              Is really the question at issue. The question presumes existence.

              An uncaused existence does not need any kind of god.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                An uncaused existence does not need any kind of god.
                True, but this would be all we can conclude from the evidence. There is no evidence for an 'uncaused cause' beyond the known nature of our existence. The evidence does not preclude that there is not an 'uncaused cause' of our physical existence.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  True, but this would be all we can conclude from the evidence. There is no evidence for an 'uncaused cause' beyond the known nature of our existence. The evidence does not preclude that there is not an 'uncaused cause' of our physical existence.
                  Well an uncaused cause is something other than an uncaused existence. What is uncaused has no beginning. An uncaused cause would be a cause without a beginning. But a cause causes beginnings. A cause is then a temporal thing. Uncaused is not a temporal thing. An uncaused cause is both not temporal being uncaused and temporal being a cause.

                  I mentioned uncaused existence.
                  You mentioned uncaused cause. Which is something else.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    Well an uncaused cause is something other than an uncaused existence. What is uncaused has no beginning. An uncaused cause would be a cause without a beginning. But a cause causes beginnings. A cause is then a temporal thing. Uncaused is not a temporal thing. An uncaused cause is both not temporal being uncaused and temporal being a cause.

                    I mentioned uncaused existence.
                    You mentioned uncaused cause. Which is something else.
                    Well in terms of our natural physical existence, it is possible that it is uncaused existence. The uncaused cause in this case would be Natural Law.

                    IF the uncaused cause is God, than it is possible that his world in which our physical Creation exists is the uncaused existence,
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Well in terms of our natural physical existence, it is possible that it is uncaused existence. The uncaused cause in this case would be Natural Law.

                      IF the uncaused cause is God, than it is possible that his world in which our physical Creation exists is the uncaused existence,
                      The uncaused existence would be existence itself, natural law being merely its defining nature. If the world is an uncaused existence, then it makes no sense to apply to it a cause such as a creator god. You can't have your cake and eat it to shunya. Existence can't be both caused and uncaused.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        The uncaused existence would be existence itself, natural law being merely its defining nature. If the world is an uncaused existence, then it makes no sense to apply to it a cause such as a creator god. You can't have your cake and eat it to shunya. Existence can't be both caused and uncaused.
                        I was only presenting some of the problems of the flawed logical arguments by 37818 concerning the existence of God. I AM NOT presenting any sort of logical argument from my perspective concerning the existence of God in terms of the assumptions of Science and the nature of the origins of our physical existence.

                        My basic philosophy is that the assumptions of science and the physical nature of our physical existence stand alone from Theological apologist arguments for the existence nor nonexistence of God in terms of Methodological Naturalism.

                        There is not cake to have nor eat here.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Well in terms of our natural physical existence, it is possible that it is uncaused existence.
                          Science does not support this. Space is a caused existence and affected by the matter in it. Space is effectively defined by the matter in it. Our existence is defined by matter. One fundamental particle plays an essential role - the electron. No experiment in science can be done without it.
                          The uncaused cause in this case would be Natural Law.
                          No.
                          A cause is temporal or there are no events. Either one unique first event or an infinite set of events where there was never any first event.
                          IF the uncaused cause is God, than it is possible that his world in which our physical Creation exists is the uncaused existence,
                          No.

                          An uncaused existence has no cause for it. An uncaused cause would have two natures. Uncaused being eternal in nature. A cause which is temoral in nature. An uncaused cause would always be a second entity to uncaused existence even if they are regarded as the same uncaused entity.
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Science does not support this. Space is a caused existence and affected by the matter in it. Space is effectively defined by the matter in it. Our existence is defined by matter. One fundamental particle plays an essential role - the electron. No experiment in science can be done without it.
                            No.
                            Your caught in the ancient Newtonian paradigm of science. Absolutely NO, Space is not defined by the matter in it. The electron has not been considered a fundamental particle for many years. Quantum Mechanics is what currently defines the fundamental foundation of the Physics of our existence. Quantum Mechanics science does not indicate any point in time nor space that our physical existence began. Quantum Mechanics deals with the physical world beyond the electron,

                            A cause is temporal or there are no events. Either one unique first event or an infinite set of events where there was never any first event.
                            The foundation Quantum world is not temporal, and does not recognize a unique first event nor an infinite set of events.

                            An uncaused existence has no cause for it. An uncaused cause would have two natures. Uncaused being eternal in nature. A cause which is temoral in nature. An uncaused cause would always be a second entity to uncaused existence even if they are regarded as the same uncaused entity.
                            Again the fundamental understanding of the science of our physical existence is not temporal, nor is it specifically matter in the Newtonian context, nor in terms of electron, protons or neutrons. Yes, it is possible in Quantum Mechanics for our physical world to be an uncaused existence. There is not evidence to support the necessity of a second entity or source to have caused existence.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-09-2015, 10:14 AM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Your caught in the ancient Newtonian paradigm of science. Absolutely NO, Space is not defined by the matter in it. The electron has not been considered a fundamental particle for many years. Quantum Mechanics is what currently defines the fundamental foundation of the Physics of our existence. Quantum Mechanics science does not indicate any point in time nor space that our physical existence began. Quantum Mechanics deals with the physical world beyond the electron,
                              Quantum Mechanics defines the temporal actions of electrons and other sub atomic particles. Space is defined by what is in it. Gravity for example. Then there is time shifts do to relativity which affects the relative size, distance and mass of matter relative to other matter in space. Space cannot be measured without matter for that matter. And yes the electron is still considered a fundamental particle. Again, all science is dependent on the electron. Even life itself. This post and your reply.


                              The foundation Quantum world is not temporal, and does not recognize a unique first event nor an infinite set of events.
                              So? Quantum Mechanics still defines temporal events at atomic and sub atomic levels.


                              Again the fundamental understanding of the science of our physical existence is not temporal, nor is it specifically matter in the Newtonian context, nor in terms of electron, protons or neutrons. Yes, it is possible in Quantum Mechanics for our physical world to be an uncaused existence. There is not evidence to support the necessity of a second entity or source to have caused existence.
                              Our understanding of our physical existence is in fact temporal. Prove otherwise.

                              It is a metaphysical argument that there is an uncaused existence. And uncaused cause is also a metaphysical argument. Uncaused existence and uncaused cause are two different uncaused things. That they might be the same uncaused entity is also a metaphysical issue.

                              Science has to do with the physical.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              508 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X