No Higgs Boson?

[Ansgar Seraph]

I suppose this claim can be easily refuted. Simply produce an alleged miracle which has been investigated and found to BE genuine. How hard is that to understand?

Ah, but we've been through that already. There is no scientific explanation which can verify a phenomenon as miraculous. Scientific investigations either yield a natural cause or an "I don't know."

OK, fair enough. There's a lot I can't explain also. And I agree that when we run into something we can't explain, some people regard it as unexplained and others regard it as miraculous. Science developed from the philosophical paradigm that the universe IS consistent and understandable. Before that everyone, and since then most people, haven't accepted this, preferring gods and miracles.

The philosophical paradigm that the universe is consistent and understandable was in place well before modern science got a hold of it! You find it as far back in human history as you wish to go and has always been part of the theistic paradigm. What you are referring to isn't that the universe is consistent and understandable but that there can be no violations of that consistency, that all phenomena are theoretically understandable from a natural philosophy. And such a view is just that, a natural philosophy.

I'll disagree with you here, although this may be just semantics. By "impossible" I mean in violation of what the rules of our universe permit. Miracles are impossible, and THEREFORE require divine intervention or the supernatural - which simply means in violation of what's possible. That's my interpretation, anyway.

I won't argue with that definition. I'd say that impossible is a term that isn't limited to merely the natural (it's impossible for God to create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it) but it's a semantic distinction, as you say.

Yep, here we agree. Hopefully with the agreeable proviso that science has only scratched the surface of what CAN be known. I suggest being highly reluctant to attribute any of what is not yet known to divine agency or miracle. This is the god of the gaps trap.

From the theist standpoint, there also exists the opposite trap of assuming that a phenomenon which seems to defy explanation is merely an unknown natural process. There are large risks either way.

OK. Once again, I would hesitate to leap to the "miracle" explanation too hastily. I think it's worth reflecting on the fact that in all of the many many explanations of things science has provided over the centures, NOT ONE has ever required anything supernatural, and where sufficient data exists, there are very few "don't know" cases, and those have a very short half life.

Sure, if one limits the set to "things science has provided over the centuries." But it's factual to say that this set leaves out a significant portion of human history. Which, given a lack of scientific explanation, is left to be explained by competing philosophies.

Because this is the null hypothesis, of course. Otherwise, we're back to the "every bridge deal is a miracle" fallacy of post facto calculation of the odds.

Ah, but here you equate the dealing of cards with specific human events and that doesn't hold. Believers in miracles do not hold that every seeming act of randomness can equally be attributed the "miracle" label. You have to presuppose that a naturalistic philosophy is more plausible to immediately grant a blanket preference for the null hypothesis in every situation. In any event, you're a long way from being able to call this a disingenuous idea.

I simply disagree with you. No agency is required for any of this, and non-agency explanations have always been sufficient, whenever sufficient data exists. Much of scientific research consists of isolating the phenomenon in question, so that sufficient relevant data can be collected. Whenever this has been possible, agency has never survived for long. But I think I understand what you're saying about philosophy. When I see a brick drop, and notice that everything else drops also, I look for a natural pattern and not a supernatural agency. When I get a good bridge hand, I attribute it to chance and not supernatural agency. (When I get a lousy hand, THEN maybe some agency doesn't like me!)

To me, supernatural agency is simply magic, a word which implies no limitations or boundaries. And therefore isn't capable of being tested. No matter WHAT happens, it can be attributed to magic. If you consider this "equally valid" to explanations that are based on known principles and make accurate predictions, then we will never agree.

(And I should add that of course everything done by living creatures has an agency, and sometimes we must use indirect methods to establish that an agency was involved.)

I don't begrudge a disagreement about the supernatural and miracles. Remember that my objection wasn't your lack of belief in miracles but that you claimed that "every claimed miracle that HAS been investigated, turned out not to be miraculous after all. ALL of them. Without exception." Whatever our disagreements about the natural and the supernatural, we can agree that the above statement simply isn't supportable.

Wasn't it Chesterton who said you should keep an open mind, but no so far open your brains fall out? I agree that a position that insists on valid explanations, accurate predictions, good observations is FAR more dognatic than a position that just hand-waves anything and everything away as a miracle if it's not understood. If you are saying that accurate predictions of one approach and NO predictions of another approach are "no more or less verification" equivalent, then we're not communicating at all. Saying 2+2=4 is of course FAR more dogmatic and inflexible than saying "gee, 2+2 could add to anything we want, poof, it's a miracle."

I've seen that attributed to Chesterton but don't know which work it came from. Chesterton, more pointed to our topic, also said this:

Orthodoxy. G.K. Chesterton. Chapter 2

There is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel.

© source where applicable

In other words, the theist is free to believe and follow mathematical proofs, scientific inquiries and empirical evidence. KBertsche, for example, is a scientist and certainly doesn't resemble the caricature of the "poof, it's a miracle!" individual. Dogma and inflexibility are not intrinsically bad but a philosophy that is not "allowed to retain even the tiniest imp," in a world where the existence of imps is still in question, appears to me far too dogmatic and inflexible.

If and when such things should ever occur, of course...

OK, so long as you keep saying "if they occur".

Whoa, wait a minute. When you say something is a miracle, this is EXACTLY what you are doing. I've been trying very hard to contrast this sort of Absolute Knowledge, with a skeptical, empirical, evidence-based approach. Now I understand that the latter is slow, uncertain, error-prone, always making adjustments and corrections. What's authoritarian is if you claim Truth, when science claims only tentative acceptance. And that's probably what bothers me most, is the lack of "maybe" in the demon-haunted world.

I don't think that I've ever claimed miracles as instances of "Absolute Knowledge" and I'm unfamiliar with many theologians who have. Most Christians understand miracles as matters of faith, which necessitates the presence of doubt. Most Christians aren't really able to articulate the complexity of faith and doubt and many will revert to authoritarian dogma and absolutism (such is human nature) but the theology of the Christian Church is fairly explicit on the the requirement of faith and the necessity of doubt. A declaration of a miracle is intrinsically a statement of faith, not a statement of Absolute Knowledge.

What's odd coming out of this last paragraph is that you're the one who has claimed a Truth, not I. You wrote that, without exception, every claimed miracle that has been investigated turned out not to be miraculous. And my objection was and is that such dogmatism is unwarranted. In this, I believe we agree. Apart from this, our disagreement is philosophical.

--Sam

[phank]

Ah, but we've been through that already. There is no scientific explanation which can verify a phenomenon as miraculous. Scientific investigations either yield a natural cause or an "I don't know."

Yes, that's right. And where sufficient data exists, "I don't knows" are rare and temporary. But most miracles are reputed to be irreproducible, one-time events, happening unexpectedly so that nobody brought along all of the necessary instrumentation and had it all set up waiting...

The philosophical paradigm that the universe is consistent and understandable was in place well before modern science got a hold of it! You find it as far back in human history as you wish to go and has always been part of the theistic paradigm. What you are referring to isn't that the universe is consistent and understandable but that there can be no violations of that consistency, that all phenomena are theoretically understandable from a natural philosophy. And such a view is just that, a natural philosophy.

OK, I agree with you...I think. You are saying that long before the advent of science, the universe was considered consistent, EXCEPT when it wasn't! And science presumes as an axiom that this does not happen. I don't think we're disagreeing here. Science considers it axiomatic that the universe is consistent and understandable, that there are NO violations, and that the nature of reality as we know it simply can't violate itself. I agree this is a philosophy and can't be empirically determined. Of course, if it weren't the case, science wouldn't work...

From the theist standpoint, there also exists the opposite trap of assuming that a phenomenon which seems to defy explanation is merely an unknown natural process. There are large risks either way.

In principle, this is true. As a practical matter, gap-gods have been getting eliminated steadily and there are few durable gaps long unexplained. So faced with something unexplained, if I were forced to bet on either "goddidit, we'll never understand" or "this is natural but in some way not yet determined" I will always go with the latter. So far, the latter is pitching a shutout.

Sure, if one limits the set to "things science has provided over the centuries." But it's factual to say that this set leaves out a significant portion of human history. Which, given a lack of scientific explanation, is left to be explained by competing philosophies.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Yes, granted there's no time machine, and so there's no way to go back and examine historical events. We have only recorded observations of various provenance. And the further we go back, the more incomplete and more thoroughly massaged those observations become. My reading (of quite a bit of history) is that given hopelessly incomplete data from often unreliable sources, which almost always see what they want and expect to see (as do we all), doing any verifiable analysis is problematic. Did Nero REALLY fiddle while Rome burned? I don't regard the answer to this question as being a matter of philosophy. Unless you mean something different with the term.

Ah, but here you equate the dealing of cards with specific human events and that doesn't hold.

It holds as I intended it. Nearly all specific human events, if not all of them, are highly contingent and coincidental. Enormously unlikely, like specific bridge hands. But that there will BE human events is certain, just as SOME bridge hand is certain.

Believers in miracles do not hold that every seeming act of randomness can equally be attributed the "miracle" label.

If not, how are miraculous things distinguished from coincidental things?

You have to presuppose that a naturalistic philosophy is more plausible to immediately grant a blanket preference for the null hypothesis in every situation. In any event, you're a long way from being able to call this a disingenuous idea.

I guess we'll continue to disagree. If you get to sift through an essentially infinite collection of highly unlikely events, picking those you decide qualify as miracles without any PRIOR decision criterion, then this is fatuous. I think you are not properly crediting the importance of accurately predictive explanations. Maybe I'm just not seeing your point.

I don't begrudge a disagreement about the supernatural and miracles. Remember that my objection wasn't your lack of belief in miracles but that you claimed that "every claimed miracle that HAS been investigated, turned out not to be miraculous after all. ALL of them. Without exception." Whatever our disagreements about the natural and the supernatural, we can agree that the above statement simply isn't supportable.

And I still don't quite understand why. Scientific research, of which there has been more than a single mind can grasp, has NEVER encountered a miracle. Now, I tend to think in concrete terms (i.e. the shroud of Turin dates from the time it was discovered, the pigment dates from the same time, the pigment was based on something unavailable at the time and place of Christ, there was a known thriving cottage industry at that time and place (Turin) producing fake "artifacts" of this sort, etc. etc.) And so when I ask for an example of a verified, investigated miracle and you retreat into philosophical meanderings, I become frustrated and disappointed. To me, a statement claiming there are no exceptions is refuted by an exception. Not by claims of philosophical orientation or by semantic redefinitions or the like.

I've seen that attributed to Chesterton but don't know which work it came from. Chesterton, more pointed to our topic, also said this:

Orthodoxy. G.K. Chesterton. Chapter 2

There is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel.

© source where applicable

Yes, I quite agreed with Chesterton, I think. I will agree again. The realist is constrained by the slings and arrows of outrageous reality, whereas the spiritualist is fettered only by the limits of his imagination.

In other words, the theist is free to believe and follow mathematical proofs, scientific inquiries and empirical evidence. KBertsche, for example, is a scientist and certainly doesn't resemble the caricature of the "poof, it's a miracle!" individual. Dogma and inflexibility are not intrinsically bad but a philosophy that is not "allowed to retain even the tiniest imp," in a world where the existence of imps is still in question, appears to me far too dogmatic and inflexible.

I think I understand. But I'll repeat, I think the null hypothesis is that there are no imps. A null hypothesis, at least as I understand it, is NOT an inflexible dogma. For that, you'd need to consult Jorge, becca or JohnMartin. Instead, the null hypothesis says that what is not in evidence should not be presumed. And if there are no imps in evidence, neither the realist nor the spiritualist is saying there's no such thing as an imp. But the realist says, pending any relevant data, CLAIMING there's an imp is Making Stuff Up. Same with miracles. They are not entirely ruled out, but because violations of the principles of the universe constitute such a wildly extraordinary claim, we'd need astoundingly solid evidence. Not phillosphical navel-gazing.

I don't think that I've ever claimed miracles as instances of "Absolute Knowledge" and I'm unfamiliar with many theologians who have. Most Christians understand miracles as matters of faith, which necessitates the presence of doubt.

I get lost at this point, I'm afraid. To me, alleging the impossible (as we defined it) requires Certainty. Doubt would prohibit the allegation from the start. And has been written (often enough for me to encounter in multiple places), the religious mind might be right or it might be wrong, but it does not doubt. Religion largely exists to battle against doubt.

Most Christians aren't really able to articulate the complexity of faith and doubt and many will revert to authoritarian dogma and absolutism (such is human nature) but the theology of the Christian Church is fairly explicit on the the requirement of faith and the necessity of doubt. A declaration of a miracle is intrinsically a statement of faith, not a statement of Absolute Knowledge.

OK, please understand that this is a very difficult distinction for me to grasp. Even such knowledgeable and thoughtful people here as Jim admit to no doubts about their gods. I am certainly not a theologian, but I recognize that doubt is essential for everyone, regardless of faith or profession. Investigating the material world is very humbling - nearly every scientific hypothesis fails the tests, proving the scientist wrong, and must be discarded. Contrast this with religious claims, which can't be tested. JohnMartin has been asked what evidence would change his mind. So has Jim, so has Jorge. The responses equate to the same answer - nothing can. They KNOW. Maybe the Christian theology makes impossible demands on the faithful?

What's odd coming out of this last paragraph is that you're the one who has claimed a Truth, not I. You wrote that, without exception, every claimed miracle that has been investigated turned out not to be miraculous. And my objection was and is that such dogmatism is unwarranted. In this, I believe we agree. Apart from this, our disagreement is philosophical.

Sigh. Hopefully, we now understand one another better. I said there were no verified exceptions to the null hypothesis. I think this is the case. Claiming that there CAN be no exceptions is philosophical. Claiming that there HAVE BEEN no verified exceptions is simply a statement of fact. And yes, I understand that science takes as an axiom that there CAN BE no exceptions, because exceptions would undermine the edifice of science and render the scientific method useless. If a philosophy is the same as a set of axioms, then this is part of the philosophy of science.

[phank]

Sam,

If you have the patience and interest, here is a wonderful online book overlapping much of this and similar discussions. It's not difficult reading, the guy's style is very approachable, but it's still a whole book...

[little_monkey]

really? so parallel universes and multiverses are not "natural"?

It would be beyond what is considered presently as "natural".

But the point I was making is that you are accusing science of being closed minded, unwilling to explore what could exist beyond the "natural" because of its "presuppositions", when in reality, science is willing to explore any ideas, including the supernatural, but you are unwilling to accept its verdict, that 500 years of scientific investigation shows no evidence of the supernatural. The real thing is that you have accepted your beliefs unconditionally, and anything from science that threatens your cherished beliefs is cast as closed minded, when in reality, you are the one being closed minded. So stop this hypocrisy, you are deluding no one but yourself. The one being closed minded here about "presuppositions" is YOU, not scientists.

If that happened, scientists would assume someone had invented some sort of teleportation device. It would be explained "naturally"

One would have to prove that there exists such teleportation device, and since there is no proof of that, that explanation would be easily debunked. Try again, imbecile.

besides, weren't you one of those who were arguing that an entire universe can just pop into existence uncaused, out of NOTHING,

You are confusing me with someone else. But if you are referring to the theory that Hawking has proposed, it's not out of nothing, but the universe came from quantum fluctuations.

and yet you have a problem with a teeny mountain being moved and saying THAT defies all logic and laws of physics?

If you can explain that phenomenon in terms of natural laws, please enlighten me.

[robrecht]

"The one being closed minded here about 'presuppositions' is YOU, not scientists"

I think both believers and scientists can be closed minded, maybe in different ways or about different things. More important is to focus on how particular methodologies are open or closed to expansion and growth and maturation. The 'scientific method' has produced a number of paradigm shifts, which demonstrate its openness, while nonetheless being driven by competition and disagreement. Similarly, theological methodologies can and have evolved, 'though some do not think so or do not want this to happen.

[Sparko]

It would be beyond what is considered presently as "natural".

But the point I was making is that you are accusing science of being closed minded, unwilling to explore what could exist beyond the "natural" because of its "presuppositions", when in reality, science is willing to explore any ideas, including the supernatural, but you are unwilling to accept its verdict, that 500 years of scientific investigation shows no evidence of the supernatural. The real thing is that you have accepted your beliefs unconditionally, and anything from science that threatens your cherished beliefs is cast as closed minded, when in reality, you are the one being closed minded. So stop this hypocrisy, you are deluding no one but yourself. The one being closed minded here about "presuppositions" is YOU, not scientists.




One would have to prove that there exists such teleportation device, and since there is no proof of that, that explanation would be easily debunked. Try again, imbecile.



You are confusing me with someone else. But if you are referring to the theory that Hawking has proposed, it's not out of nothing, but the universe came from quantum fluctuations.





If you can explain that phenomenon in terms of natural laws, please enlighten me.

ah quantum fluctuations in nothing. a very good explanation, lil monkey. Give something a technical term and all of a sudden it becomes "science" instead of "woo woo magic" eh?

You can believe that an entire universe could just pop into existence out of nothing, er quantum fluctuations, yet you have a problem believing that anything else can happen that defies your teeny brain's idea of Logic. If a mountain were to be moved, you would think it defies logic because of course when things happen in the universe they need causes right? But you don't think the universe itself needs a cause? Hey I have an idea, if a mountain ever moves from one place to another, we can call it geographic fluctuations and then it won't defy logic any more!

You brainless buffoon.

[little_monkey]

ah quantum fluctuations in nothing. a very good explanation, lil monkey. Give something a technical term and all of a sudden it becomes "science" instead of "woo woo magic" eh?You can believe that an entire universe could just pop into existence out of nothing, er quantum fluctuations, yet you have a problem believing that anything else can happen that defies your teeny brain's idea of Logic.

Contrary to your idiotic idea of just renaming something to make it look good, what Hawking has proposed doesn't come from wild speculation, but from equations which are based on firm principles. If I would develop the math as I did in post 61, you wouldn't understand anything, since you can't even add two numbers, let alone understand the math required such as advanced calculus, group theory, differential geometry to name a minimum requirement in understanding this stuff. You are in no position to argue with Hawking. You can scream foul all you want, but you are an ignoramus for whom science can only look like chinese characters for someone who knows nothing about chinese alphabet.

If a mountain were to be moved, you would think it defies logic because of course when things happen in the universe they need causes right?

Has anyone ever seen a mountain disappeared overnight and reappeared 5000 miles away? I don't think so, and if it would happen, it would require an explanation, and presently there is no scientific theory that would explain that phenomenon, and therefore it would defy all logic.

But you don't think the universe itself needs a cause?

Cause and effect exist within the universe. Postulating a cause outside the universe is problematic.

Hey I have an idea, if a mountain ever moves from one place to another, we can call it geographic fluctuations and then it won't defy logic any more!

If that wasn't pathetic, it would be hilarious. Sorry, I don't share your idiotic sense of humour.

[robrecht]

Cause and effect exist within the universe. Postulating a cause outside the universe is problematic.

I agree but perhaps for different reasons. Can you explain here, or has it already been explained elsewhere to your satisfaction?

My view of the problem has to do mainly with the limitations of our knowledge and reasoning abilities outside of our own context. But still I admire some of the creative efforts to push the limits of our reasoning abilities.

Thanks, Robrecht

[Sparko]

Contrary to your idiotic idea of just renaming something to make it look good, what Hawking has proposed doesn't come from wild speculation, but from equations which are based on firm principles. If I would develop the math as I did in post 61, you wouldn't understand anything, since you can't even add two numbers, let alone understand the math required such as advanced calculus, group theory, differential geometry to name a minimum requirement in understanding this stuff. You are in no position to argue with Hawking. You can scream foul all you want, but you are an ignoramus for whom science can only look like chinese characters for someone who knows nothing about chinese alphabet.




Has anyone ever seen a mountain disappeared overnight and reappeared 5000 miles away? I don't think so, and if it would happen, it would require an explanation, and presently there is no scientific theory that would explain that phenomenon, and therefore it would defy all logic.

has anyone seen a universe appear out of nothing for absofreakinglutely no reason at all? No? It defies all logic! Gee that was easy. Got any more?

If an entire universe can appear out of nothing, why can't a mountain appear out of nothing? Or even move from one place to another? Or the entire universe disappear into nothing?

You believe something that is so completely unbelievable and yet you balk at something a trillion, trillion trillion times more trivial happening. That is what defies logic, LM. What is a mountain appearing compared to an entire universe?

Cause and effect exist within the universe. Postulating a cause outside the universe is problematic.

No, postulating NO cause and effect outside the universe is problematic. There is no evidence for it. nada.

If that wasn't pathetic, it would be hilarious. Sorry, I don't share your idiotic sense of humour.

Morons like you don't have a sense of humor. That's what makes you so hilarious to the rest of us.

Write any more scifi books lately?

[little_monkey]

If an entire universe can appear out of nothing, why can't a mountain appear out of nothing?

When did I say that the universe came out of nothing?

FAIL.

[Sparko]

When did I say that the universe came out of nothing?

FAIL.

Where did the "quantum fluctuations" come from? What did they appear in? What caused them?

[robrecht]

… No, postulating NO cause and effect outside the universe is problematic. There is no evidence for it. nada. …

Indeed, this does appear to be the more difficult of the two postulates!

Also, my limited understanding of the quantum fluctuations is that they represent the very fabric of space itself, which, if you believe that space itself was 'created' in the proverbial Big Bang, it is not a cause that can explain the Big Bang but an effect.

Thanks, Robrecht

[little_monkey]

Where did the "quantum fluctuations" come from? What did they appear in? What caused them?

You're labouring on a theory proposed by Hawking. You should ask him. I suspect he would answer that these quantum fluctuations don't need to come from anywhere, but that's my guess. Since you seem to be so fascinated by Hawking, here are his own words, hope that helps you:

"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

[robrecht]

You're labouring on a theory proposed by Hawking. You should ask him. I suspect he would answer that these quantum fluctuations don't need to come from anywhere, but that's my guess. Since you seem to be so fascinated by Hawking, here are his own words, hope that helps you:

"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

This may be a bit of a false dichotomy, explained perhaps by a rather shallow understanding of theology on the part of Hawking, which I have suspected elsewhere as well.

Thanks, Robrecht

[Sparko]

You're labouring on a theory proposed by Hawking. You should ask him. I suspect he would answer that these quantum fluctuations don't need to come from anywhere, but that's my guess.

Sounds like a fancy way of saying "nothing" to me.