Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Underlying Presuppositions

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

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    The multiverse is an emergent theory based upon science, there is no scientific basis upon which to theorize an actual nothingness.
    Nothingness is an abstract concept. It need no more have a "scientific basis", than does "triangle", "opposite side", "less than" etc...

    As for the multiverse it is not an emergent theory. It doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis. Its remains entirely speculative as a part of philosophy of physics. Its an interesting extrapolation. Fascinating. Giving rise to all sorts of hilarious conceptual problems that are fun enough to deal with.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      So? In science there is no multiverse either. What's your point?
      I think Tassman believes that science is our only source of knowledge, and that philosophy only serves to clarify the statements of science. Therefore since 'nothingness' as its conceived by philosophers does not exists in physics, therefore its a meaningless concept.

      Its a nonsensical position. And unfortunately one that is popular with the New Atheist crowd.

      Having been an atheist I'd like to say that not all atheists are scientistic like that though. Massimo Pigliucci is one of my favorite of those philosophers who have at least tried to steer the boat back towards a saner relationship with philosophy. And the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, a podcast I still listen for its excellent coverage of skeptical and scientific topics also argues that skeptics shouldn't engage in scientism.
      Last edited by Leonhard; 02-12-2018, 03:46 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Krauss' theory of "nothing" has been almost universally panned by philosophers
        I have the book on my shelf in a huge collection of new atheist writings back when I was exploring the question of theism vs atheism. His book was definitely one of the most underwhelming.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          and even aligns with one proposition from Lawrence Krauss: that "nothing" is one of the most unstable states possible, and always gives rise to "something."
          Can't say I've heard of the guy, but I've made a similar argument independently on this site myself before.

          I suggested that perhaps the laws of physics should be interpreted not so much as causing the things they mandate to happen, but rather as laws banning anything but those things from happening. Perhaps anything that can happen, does happen, unless it is being actively prevented from doing so. In that sense, nothingness would amount to a lack of restrictions, and be the ultimate instability because anything and everything would immediately pop into existence because nothing was preventing it from doing so. And thus we would expect all possible worlds, all possible universes, and all possible existences to be actualized in a hyper-multidimensional-multi-universe space. Us and our universe are possible, therefore we exist. Thus the answer to the ultimate question of "why?" would actually be "why not?" If the precursor was nothingness, then there was no ban on us coming into existence and nothing to prevent our universe from doing so.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            So you are reading studies where the atomic structure of the nervous system results in thought/instinct/choices, and thought/instinct/choices have no impact on the what the body does? Or are you suggesting that the thought/instinct/choices of the brain drive the body and what the body does has no impact on the subsequent thought/instinct/choices of the mind? I would dearly love to see those studies. Can you link to a few?
            Carp, we are speaking of the brain mind connection:

            Start with the Libet study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjam...;s_experiments

            Or the Haynes study: https://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/

            Or the Bear & Bloom study: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7008181.html

            In all cases the brain makes a decision before we are conscious of it, there is no evidence that a conscious thought can in turn influence neurology.
            Last edited by seer; 02-12-2018, 07:04 AM.
            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


            • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              This is more word tickling. You do not like the words I use, but there are no better words available that either of us know.
              I'm not sure what "word tickling" means. I have no problem with you using "creation," Jedidiah. I was merely pointing out that it is a word that presupposes its conclusion, so I would not use it myself. You believe there is a creator, so the word creation is appropriate for you. It does, however, reflect the fact that you have already decided that is was created by this being. That is what my statement meant.

              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              The only "nothing" I have heard of giving rise to "something" is what I have called the pregnant void (I forget where I heard that term, but I loved it too). It there is truly nothing there is no potentiality for anything. Where you have that potentiality you have something not nothing. I am not ready to listen to an hour long presentation on the youtube video, however.

              ETA: "I wish I was that smart/knowledgeable. " Me too.
              Understandable. I don't listen to every link sent to me. Krauss has been accused of possibly using "nothing" as a substitute for "quantum vacuum," which is a slightly different term that does not truly refer to nothing at all existing. Personally, I am not a physicist, so much of this is over my head. That's why the best I can achieve is "I don't know."
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Carp, we are speaking of the brain mind connection:

                Start with the Libet study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjam...;s_experiments

                Or the Haynes study: https://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/

                Or the Bear & Bloom study: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7008181.html

                In all cases the brain makes a decision before we are conscious of it, there is no evidence that a conscious thought can in turn influence neurology.
                Ahh, I misunderstood you. My bad. I'll review the articles and get back to you.

                Edited to add: I have to admit I have not yet read the articles (I skimmed the Wired article). I also did something else: I searched them for the words "feedback" and "loop." Neither words exist in any of the linked articles. So how can an article deny that a feedback loop exists without using the words "feedback" and "loop." What the Wired article appears to be showing is that the brain lights up a measurable period before physical action is taken on the choice, and even before the person is conscious of having made a choice. That is no surprise to me. It suggests a significant part of our thought process and decision process is happening subconsciously. Most of us know that the subconscious is a huge part of our psyche (this relates to the "implicit bias" discussion had in another thread).

                But to then suggest that our choices, once they become conscious, and their translation to the physical, does not then provide feedback to subsequent choices denies most of what all of us experience. And none of this, in any way, alters the points I have been making in this thread; that a significant part of our decisions are made subconsciously does not impact the accuracy of our perception/thought/reasoning processes. I continue to submit that accurate perception and reasoning conveys on a species a survival advantage over those with inaccurate perception and reasoning, so evolution will naturally select for this characteristic. There is no reason to conclude that a brain that is wired to perceive and reason accurately will then reason innacurately for abstract concepts. Indeed, the evidence suggests that we DO reason accurately in this venue. If we didn't, the entire world of science and technology would simply not exist. We would not be able to reason abstractly to concepts like special relativity, derive the periodic table, calculate load to support our towering skyscrapers, etc. The evidence of the accuracy of our abstract thought is all around us.

                This entire philosophical argument strikes me as being of the kind a former philosophy instructor once (indirectly) warned our class about when he described some philosophers as "being willing to spend an hour convincing you that the walls of the room are insubstantial, and then take his/her leave of the room by way of the door."
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-12-2018, 07:31 AM.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  Nothingness is an abstract concept. It need no more have a "scientific basis", than does "triangle", "opposite side", "less than" etc...

                  As for the multiverse it is not an emergent theory. It doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis. Its remains entirely speculative as a part of philosophy of physics. Its an interesting extrapolation. Fascinating. Giving rise to all sorts of hilarious conceptual problems that are fun enough to deal with.
                  Well, call it what you will, the notion of a multiverse was derived of science, from quantum mechanics. There is no such scientific evidence that gives rise to a notion of absolute nothingness.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Well, call it what you will, the notion of a multiverse was derived of science, from quantum mechanics. There is no such scientific evidence that gives rise to a notion of absolute nothingness.
                    JimL, you can do better than this. At least try not to live up to the very worst stereotypes about new atheists. Its cringy to watch.

                    Instead of answering me, you just repeat yourself.

                    Its true, there's no scientific basis for 'nothingness'. That's my point. Nothingness is an abstract concept. Like a triangle. According to you there's no scientific basis for triangles. Does that render the concept of a triangle moot?

                    There are a lot of things in the world that has no "scientific basis" (what you mean by that is a bit nebulous, but I take it to mean - derived from scientific discovery and put on an empirical basis).

                    There is no scientific basis for the laws of logic, science can't tell us that logical fallacies are something to be avoided. Science, at least in the sense you're using it, can't tell you that 2 + 2 is 4. It further can't tell you how one should do science, what is bad science, what is good science? It can't tell you how narrative, affects the practice of science. It can't tell you what a triangle is, the definition of that is gotten elsewhere.

                    Science is pretty much limited to the study of empirically observable natural events, in the context of a peer-review vetted system. Its specifically limited to this particular field.

                    That 'absolute nothingness' is not something found in science, has no bearing on the question 'can something come from nothing?'. The answer to that question is no, and we've known that since anyone has ever cared to write down rational thoughts.

                    Finally you can object that '2 + 2 = 4' while not derived from empirical observation, is at least an analytical statement used within the context of mathematically precise fields of science. True. But then the same is true of nothingness. If I asked a Computer Scientist what set of programs could solve the Halting Problem, his answer would be "None". Basically nothing then. Whenever someone invokes non-existence of something, then that basically means that's nothing.

                    Now empty space. Is not nothing. Its far, far, far more than nothing. At the very least its filled with quantum fields. It has properties of symmetry of various kinds. The more properties it has, the less nothing it is. And quantum vacuum has enough properties to it that the existence of the universe is considered just a mere rotation matrix applied to its wave function.

                    If I were a reductionist, and I'm not, I'd be tempted to say that the only difference between you and "nothingness" (the kind Krauss considers nothing) is just a simple state space transformation.
                    Last edited by Leonhard; 02-12-2018, 08:59 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      JimL, you can do better than this. At least try not to live up to the very worst stereotypes about new atheists. Its cringy to watch.

                      Instead of answering me, you just repeat yourself.

                      Its true, there's no scientific basis for 'nothingness'. That's my point. Nothingness is an abstract concept. Like a triangle. According to you there's no scientific basis for triangles. Does that render the concept of a triangle moot?

                      There are a lot of things in the world that has no "scientific basis" (what you mean by that is a bit nebulous, but I take it to mean - derived from scientific discovery and put on an empirical basis).

                      There is no scientific basis for the laws of logic, science can't tell us that logical fallacies are something to be avoided. Science, at least in the sense you're using it, can't tell you that 2 + 2 is 4. It further can't tell you how one should do science, what is bad science, what is good science? It can't tell you how narrative, affects the practice of science. It can't tell you what a triangle is, the definition of that is gotten elsewhere.

                      Science is pretty much limited to the study of empirically observable natural events, in the context of a peer-review vetted system. Its specifically limited to this particular field.

                      That 'absolute nothingness' is not something found in science, has no bearing on the question 'can something come from nothing?'. The answer to that question is no, and we've known that since anyone has ever cared to write down rational thoughts.

                      Finally you can object that '2 + 2 = 4' while not derived from empirical observation, is at least an analytical statement used within the context of mathematically precise fields of science. True. But then the same is true of nothingness. If I asked a Computer Scientist what set of programs could solve the Halting Problem, his answer would be "None". Basically nothing then. Whenever someone invokes non-existence of something, then that basically means that's nothing.

                      Now empty space. Is not nothing. Its far, far, far more than nothing. At the very least its filled with quantum fields. It has properties of symmetry of various kinds. The more properties it has, the less nothing it is. And quantum vacuum has enough properties to it that the existence of the universe is considered just a mere rotation matrix applied to its wave function.

                      If I were a reductionist, and I'm not, I'd be tempted to say that the only difference between you and "nothingness" (the kind Krauss considers nothing) is just a simple state space transformation.
                      I'm merely trying to explain to Adrift the difference between the concept of a multiverse and that of an absolute nothingness. The former has a scientific basis, the latter does not.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Can't say I've heard of the guy, but I've made a similar argument independently on this site myself before.

                        I suggested that perhaps the laws of physics should be interpreted not so much as causing the things they mandate to happen, but rather as laws banning anything but those things from happening. Perhaps anything that can happen, does happen, unless it is being actively prevented from doing so. In that sense, nothingness would amount to a lack of restrictions, and be the ultimate instability because anything and everything would immediately pop into existence because nothing was preventing it from doing so. And thus we would expect all possible worlds, all possible universes, and all possible existences to be actualized in a hyper-multidimensional-multi-universe space. Us and our universe are possible, therefore we exist. Thus the answer to the ultimate question of "why?" would actually be "why not?" If the precursor was nothingness, then there was no ban on us coming into existence and nothing to prevent our universe from doing so.
                        Gibberish.
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Edited to add: I have to admit I have not yet read the articles (I skimmed the Wired article). I also did something else: I searched them for the words "feedback" and "loop." Neither words exist in any of the linked articles. So how can an article deny that a feedback loop exists without using the words "feedback" and "loop." What the Wired article appears to be showing is that the brain lights up a measurable period before physical action is taken on the choice, and even before the person is conscious of having made a choice. That is no surprise to me. It suggests a significant part of our thought process and decision process is happening subconsciously. Most of us know that the subconscious is a huge part of our psyche (this relates to the "implicit bias" discussion had in another thread).
                          The point is, if the subconscious does make your decisions, perhaps all of your decisions (which science seem to be moving towards), then then conscious thoughts play no causal role. Our thoughts would truly be epiphenomenal.

                          But to then suggest that our choices, once they become conscious, and their translation to the physical, does not then provide feedback to subsequent choices denies most of what all of us experience. And none of this, in any way, alters the points I have been making in this thread; that a significant part of our decisions are made subconsciously does not impact the accuracy of our perception/thought/reasoning processes. I continue to submit that accurate perception and reasoning conveys on a species a survival advantage over those with inaccurate perception and reasoning, so evolution will naturally select for this characteristic. There is no reason to conclude that a brain that is wired to perceive and reason accurately will then reason innacurately for abstract concepts. Indeed, the evidence suggests that we DO reason accurately in this venue. If we didn't, the entire world of science and technology would simply not exist. We would not be able to reason abstractly to concepts like special relativity, derive the periodic table, calculate load to support our towering skyscrapers, etc. The evidence of the accuracy of our abstract thought is all around us.
                          We are speaking of beliefs, not neurological function. Neurological functions could give us the ability to survive without corresponding true beliefs, especially if epiphenomenalism is true.

                          This entire philosophical argument strikes me as being of the kind a former philosophy instructor once (indirectly) warned our class about when he described some philosophers as "being willing to spend an hour convincing you that the walls of the room are insubstantial, and then take his/her leave of the room by way of the door."
                          Well as dualist I don't hold to epiphenomenalism... This is why I do believe that science does work, that our thoughts do play a causal role.
                          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


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            I'm not sure what "word tickling" means. I have no problem with you using "creation," Jedidiah. I was merely pointing out that it is a word that presupposes its conclusion, so I would not use it myself. You believe there is a creator, so the word creation is appropriate for you. It does, however, reflect the fact that you have already decided that is was created by this being. That is what my statement meant.
                            Word tickling just means you are playing with words but made no response to anything I wrote. I used "creation" because you objected when I used "everything that exists." You keep quibbling with words and ignoring the fact that the choice of whether to accept a creator beyond the existing system is one of personal incredulity. I find it personally incredulous that the detectable universe is self existent. You find it personally incredulous that it is not.

                            Oh, and the Law of Parsimony is not truly a law, but a rule of thumb when dealing with testable scientific issues. When you are dealing with competing answers, the one requiring the fewest assumptions is more likely, nothing more. It can not apply as a test of the truth of a creator beyond the creation.


                            Understandable. I don't listen to every link sent to me. Krauss has been accused of possibly using "nothing" as a substitute for "quantum vacuum," which is a slightly different term that does not truly refer to nothing at all existing. Personally, I am not a physicist, so much of this is over my head. That's why the best I can achieve is "I don't know."
                            I get my physics from simplified popular treatments. I have not read any new ones for a year or so, but the "something from nothing" question, as adrift pointed out, has been clearly rejected.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              The point is, if the subconscious does make your decisions, perhaps all of your decisions (which science seem to be moving towards), then then conscious thoughts play no causal role. Our thoughts would truly be epiphenomenal.
                              If the subconscious makes your decisions then there is no such thing as 'conscious thoughts' in the sense that, as thoughts, they are derived at consciously. So, correct, consciously derived thoughts would play no causal role, because consciously derived thoughts wouldn't exist.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                The point is, if the subconscious does make your decisions, perhaps all of your decisions (which science seem to be moving towards), then then conscious thoughts play no causal role. Our thoughts would truly be epiphenomenal.
                                First, my subconscious is part of me, so that it functions at a level that I am not consciously aware of does not make it less me. Second, this still appears to have nothing to do with whether or not the choices/conclusions are "right" or "true."

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                We are speaking of beliefs, not neurological function. Neurological functions could give us the ability to survive without corresponding true beliefs, especially if epiphenomenalism is true.
                                They could not give us the ability to survive without reasonably accurate ability to perceive reality and reason on it - even subconsciously. And, as I have noted, the evidence that we can and do reason to true beliefs is all around us.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Well as dualist I don't hold to epiphenomenalism... This is why I do believe that science does work, that our thoughts do play a causal role.
                                Indeed - the problem is largely in the world on religious beliefs, Seer. You see, abstract beliefs that are related to science and nature have a mechanism for testing them and verifying their accuracy. As a result, they produce working output that further provides a testament to their accuracy. Indeed, the fact that we are not perfect perceivers/reasoners is a reality that the world of science has a means for addressing.

                                But religious beliefs lack this capability. There is no way to sort out "incorrect" beliefs from "correct ones" in the religious sphere. This is the reason, I believe, that religions tend to fragmentation rather than unification.

                                But now we are returning to themes that arose in the other thread, and we have moved away from a significant theme in this thread: the role that foundational assumptions play in our worldview. I submit that a foundational assumption is one that is not dependent on other assumptions or logical reasoning to be held as true. As such, foundational assumptions are largely impervious to challenge. If two people share a common set of foundational assumptions, they can then discuss conclusions that arise from those assumptions when reasoning and observation is applied. But if the foundational assumptions of two people overlap, but do not overlap completely (e.g., you and I), then the foundational assumptions that are in one person's set and not in the other represent a disconnect between the two people that is not subject to reasoning/observation because these are assumption held BEFORE reasoning/observation is applied.

                                So, for example, if you believed that the basic mathematical laws (e.g., 1 = 1; the law of identity) was a foundational assumption and I believed it was not (i.e., I believed 1 is not equal to 1), we would have no basis for discussion/reasoning. The beliefs are not BASED on reasoning, so reasoning cannot show them false. You would consider me irrational, and I would consider you irrational, and that would be that.

                                In our case, you believe "god is" and "all that is was created by god" are this type of foundational assumption (if I understood you correctly). I do not see these are foundational assumptions. I see these as conclusions that can be affirmed or refuted by reasoning from foundational assumptions and observations, but they are not themselves foundational assumptions. Because I reject these two assumptions on your part, you necessarily must see me as "irrational," much as you would if I rejected 1 = 1 as a foundational assumption. It wuold appear that this leaves us with no basis for a discussion related to these two concepts.

                                Or did you not mean to call these foundational assumptions? Or am I otherwise not understanding you?
                                Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-12-2018, 10:20 AM.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X