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

An infinite series of finite causes.

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

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Nor do I. But science HAS not, and does not even have an idea of how that might be accomplished (as far as I know). So until then, "god did it" is attempting to fill "we don't know" with an explanation, at least from my POV.
    I am not sure who is saying that God did it in this context.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I do not believe I claimed that there ARE multiple universes. My claim was that the lottery argument presupposes there aren't. Since we do not know that to be true, we do not know the lottery argument works. I am not saying it is "proven untrue," I am saying it is "not proven true."
    I am assuming that there is only one universe because of the data that we currently have. I could be wrong in which case you are correct, the lottery analogy would have to be substantially modified.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    We are in agreement here, I think. I agree we can calculate the probability Jane winning the lottery. After all, we know ALL of the variables: six numbers each 1-50, and the result is a simple mathematical model. But if Jane has already won the lottery, claiming that "god must have done it" because Jane won is the error. However improbable - it happened and it was not impossible. We cannot jump from the probability to "god did it" on the basis of that probability.
    I agree 100% and this is why it is a choice. If Jane won the lottery and the odds were 1 to 10^100 stacked against her, one could rightfully conclude that it was just luck. However, I also think that a potential explanation is that someone rigged the lottery.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    But there is a greater problem - in the case of the universe, we are attempting to calculate a probability without even a clue as to the actual variables. If it turns out that the parameters governing this universe are NOT variable, they are fixed, then the probability of a created universe being like this one is 1. From there the probability diminishes, but we don't have a clue what it diminishes to.
    Sure and I can buy that. I think that the cosmological constant being off by 10^120 (theoretical vs observed) is what gives physicists the idea that the constants can vary. They may be wrong in which case you are correct. The probability of this universe being created (if a universe is created) would be 1. However, I don't think that gets rid of the problem.


    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Agreed. No one who does not already believe there is no god would use that approach. Challenge: parse THAT sentence and it's triple negative...if you can!
    Darn! You have bested my double negative.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    But I have heard many theists who already believe there is a god use arguments like, "you can't have a design without a designer," and "you can't have creation without a creator," and so forth. Sometimes, folks use words that pre-suppose their belief system. So it's not "the universe," it's "creation." It's not order and organization, it's "design." And it's not "parameters ideally suited to the development of life," it's "a fine-tuned universe."
    Sure but I don't think people take those arguments seriously. You are begging the question. However, I don't think using anthropomophic language is limited to theology. For example, we do this for proteins all of the time. For example: Is your protein happy in that buffer? The virus just doesn't like that mutation. This protein was designed to limit the host response. None of these are technically correct but in the every day verbiage of science, no one concentrates on the language being used.

    Most of the time language is used like this because we are trained to tell stories. Stories about your work are more well received. So in the process of telling the story, the biological components of the story take on human characteristics. It may not be accurate but it is effect for communicating an idea.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    My basis for thinking the hypothesis is flawed is completely about a) the general application of probability, and b) the basing of the entire argument on the assumptions derived from within this universe, and c) the inability to determine what the sample space truly is.
    I think it is perplexing that you posit these problems on the basis of hypothetical science. I understand that we cannot know for sure that there is only one universe but for you to withhold judgment about something that we cannot see, directly measure, or experimentally validate... hmm sounds familiar .

    Comment


    • Originally posted by element771 View Post
      I am not sure who is saying that God did it in this context.
      It was a generic observation; not one that was specific to you.

      Originally posted by element771 View Post
      I am assuming that there is only one universe because of the data that we currently have. I could be wrong in which case you are correct, the lottery analogy would have to be substantially modified.
      So my point would be that your assumption is not warranted. The data we have is about THIS universe. We have no data about anything "outside" or "before" this universe, and don't even know if those words have meaning in that context. This absence of data might be explained by the claim "there is only one universe," but it could just as easily be explained by the claim, "no one can 'see' outside their own universe."

      Originally posted by element771 View Post
      I agree 100% and this is why it is a choice. If Jane won the lottery and the odds were 1 to 10^100 stacked against her, one could rightfully conclude that it was just luck. However, I also think that a potential explanation is that someone rigged the lottery.
      Possible, yes. But here is where I think people make the incorrect leap: they assume that because the outcome had a low probability, that means "god did it" has a high probability. That is, to me, the unsubstantiated leap.

      Originally posted by element771 View Post
      Sure and I can buy that. I think that the cosmological constant being off by 10^120 (theoretical vs observed) is what gives physicists the idea that the constants can vary. They may be wrong in which case you are correct. The probability of this universe being created (if a universe is created) would be 1. However, I don't think that gets rid of the problem.
      I confess... I think I lost track of what problem it doesn't get rid of...

      Originally posted by element771 View Post
      Darn! You have bested my double negative.
      yeah...I'm bad...

      Originally posted by element771 View Post
      Sure but I don't think people take those arguments seriously. You are begging the question.
      First... I never beg...

      Second... what question am I begging again...?

      Originally posted by element771 View Post
      However, I don't think using anthropomophic language is limited to theology. For example, we do this for proteins all of the time. For example: Is your protein happy in that buffer? The virus just doesn't like that mutation. This protein was designed to limit the host response. None of these are technically correct but in the every day verbiage of science, no one concentrates on the language being used.
      Agreed... but since most scientists are social challenged buffoons...





      Originally posted by element771 View Post
      Most of the time language is used like this because we are trained to tell stories. Stories about your work are more well received. So in the process of telling the story, the biological components of the story take on human characteristics. It may not be accurate but it is effect for communicating an idea.
      Generally, I don't disagree. But I also think we have to be careful. I cannot tell you how many times I have been told that the "Laws of Physics" require a "law giver." Or that the "Theory of Evolution" is just a "theory." I know that educated people do not do this, but sometimes I wonder if we don't help people go in the wrong direction with our use of language. As a scientifically-minded person, it is dismaying to me that our country, the United States, one of the most advanced, developed, powerful, and rich countries in the world, is second only to Turkey in rejecting evolution as a true. Just goes to show: wealth and power are no assurance of intelligence.

      Originally posted by element771 View Post
      I think it is perplexing that you posit these problems on the basis of hypothetical science. I understand that we cannot know for sure that there is only one universe but for you to withhold judgment about something that we cannot see, directly measure, or experimentally validate... hmm sounds familiar .
      OK, let's look at this. For me to withhold judgment on something we a) cannot see, b) directly measure, c) experimentally validate is a bad thing? As a scientist, I would have expected you to say, "when we cannot see it, cannot directly measure it, and cannot experimentally validate it, we MUST withhold judgment!
      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 carpedm9587 View Post
        It was a generic observation; not one that was specific to you.
        Fair

        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        So my point would be that your assumption is not warranted. The data we have is about THIS universe. We have no data about anything "outside" or "before" this universe, and don't even know if those words have meaning in that context. This absence of data might be explained by the claim "there is only one universe," but it could just as easily be explained by the claim, "no one can 'see' outside their own universe."
        Sure but if we are going to entertain things that don't have any way of empirically validated, why is it that the multiverse get a pass but intelligent design doesn't?

        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        Possible, yes. But here is where I think people make the incorrect leap: they assume that because the outcome had a low probability, that means "god did it" has a high probability. That is, to me, the unsubstantiated leap.
        I always think of it as inference to the best explanation. If one really thinks that it just happened to be this way despite being highly improbably, then so be it. If another one thinks that this probability is too small to occur naturally and wants to use this in their bag of theological arguments, then so be it.

        I am not saying that one should hang their hat on this argument.

        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        I confess... I think I lost track of what problem it doesn't get rid of...
        Fine tuning or whatever we are calling it now.

        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        First... I never beg...

        Second... what question am I begging again...?

        Sorry ...that should have read "they" are begging the question.

        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        Agreed... but since most scientists are social challenged buffoons...


        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        OK, let's look at this. For me to withhold judgment on something we a) cannot see, b) directly measure, c) experimentally validate is a bad thing? As a scientist, I would have expected you to say, "when we cannot see it, cannot directly measure it, and cannot experimentally validate it, we MUST withhold judgment!
        Well it depends...do we do that for any other topic in science?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by element771 View Post
          You are still conflating the scientific method with scientific conclusions.
          It's reasonable, I would have thought, for the scientific method to arrive at scientific conclusions. It is NOT reasonable for apologists to adopt such research in an attempt to reinforce their own belief in a supernatural universe as “revealed” by an alleged supernatural deity. This is a perversion of what science is all about, namely " the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." - Oxford Dictionary.

          I have never see him use Cliff's position. Vilenkin has gone on record to say that WLC accurately represents the science even though he doesn't agree with his conclusions.

          Can you provide a specific example?
          WL Craig constantly cherry-picks scientific arguments to support his religious agenda e.g. re Harry Cliff:

          https://www.reasonablefaith.org/medi...nd-of-physics/

          And re WL Craig and Vilenkin: “... there is some equivocation going on between Craig’s definition of the word “universe” and that of the physicists he uses to support his claim.”

          https://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            Except there aren't only two possible answers. There's at least two additional answers to the dilemma, one of which is that the question itself is self-contradictory nonsense and the second that the dilemma disappears when you define omnipotence as being able to do anything that's logically consistent.
            It is not logically consistent or meaningful to posit that a deity or anything else, can act in an environment without time. This is the point.

            But I'm not saying that God ever existed outside of time. I'm saying that God exists without time prior to His first act,
            What does “god existing without time” even mean? Existing in “time” is the very definition of existence.

            and that He became a temporal being with his first act. But there is no moment since time began passing that God was not temporal.
            This is purely speculation, i.e. conjecture without basis in fact..
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
              Then it is equally a misuse of science to use its findings or lack of findings as evidence that there is no God & nothing supernatural.
              Deities are irrelevant as far as scientific methodology is concerned

              You would have to use philosophy and logic to determine that,
              It requires science to arrive at a verifiable premise for any philosophical argument.

              and since you suck at both of those your dogmatic atheism is probably quite good evidence that God is real.
              Sad!
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                It is not logically consistent or meaningful to posit that a deity or anything else, can act in an environment without time. This is the point.



                What does “god existing without time” even mean? Existing in “time” is the very definition of existence.
                No it's not. It's Dawkin's question-begging "definition" of existence.


                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                This is purely speculation, i.e. conjecture without basis in fact..
                Even if it were that would be completely irrelevant to the discussion.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  No it's not. It's Dawkin's question-begging "definition" of existence.
                  Without 'time' there can be no existence. The only "question-begging" is your determination to keep a god in the picture, come what may.

                  Even if it were that would be completely irrelevant to the discussion.
                  Hypothetical, unsubstantiated speculation is not an argument.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    No it isn't, though it is a question that has no answer, not because the question is nonsensical, but because the assumption of an eternal timelessness is nonsensical.




                    Again, it's your assumption that eternity is timeless that is not logical, but as long as you hold to that illogical notion then the question I asked you will seem to you to be illogical. The problem is that though you think eternity is timeless, you are unable to explain that idea logically.
                    But I can, and have, explained the idea logically. God is eternal because he has no starting point for his existence, and was timeless in the beginning since time did not exist until after the first moment. And of course this property of eternity and timelessness applies to the first moment as well (even though it might be a bit misleading to speak of "moments" as actual things that can have properties.) since the same (no starting point and time not yet existing) applies to it.



                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    You did say it, you say that eternity is timeless. Eternity is defined as beginningless, not necessarily timeless. That nothing changes within eternity doesn't mean that time doesn't go by for eternity. The figures in a picture on the wall don't change, but that doesn"t mean that time doesn't pass with respect to the picture itself. Thats the mistake your making, your eternal entity may not change in what you call the first [] moment, but time still passes, or if you will, the eternal entity still passes through time. Your denial of this is what you don't have a logical explanation for.
                    But no change isn't the explanation for why the moment is eternal, that's simply a effect of it's timelessness. I already gave the explanation as to what made (notice the past-tense) it timeless, namely the fact that there were no prior moments preceding this eternal moments (which meant that it was literally the only moment that had ever existed). In other words, there had yet not been any movement from one moment to the next, and it's this very movement that we call time. In other words, time did not exist yet, which means that the first moment was (again, past-tense) necessarily timeless.

                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    I understand the difference as you imagine it to be, but the latter, i.e. that there is no starting point for the eternal, doesn't necessarily deny the former, i.e. that eternity is timeless. That is simply an assumption that you are making, but like I said you haven't given a logical explanation as to "how that which endures, endures timelessly." Change, or no change within the eternal entity is not an answer as to why time doesn't pass for the whole of the entity, as I explained above.
                    Two things here. I never stated anything about the eternal moment enduring timelessly. Enduring is a temporal thing, so of course it couldn't have "endured timelessly". In fact, since it would have been exactly the same as any other moment except for it having no beginning and there being no moments prior to it, it didn't endure at all.

                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    If we were to accept your illogical conclusion that eternity is timeless and that time emerged from that eternity, then time would be co-eternal with eternity. Your argument is that no time passed for the eternal, so if no time passed for the eternal, then there was no time before time, there was only a timeless eternity which would make time itself eternal. Then if you are going to argue that eternity existed, or an eternal entity existed, before creation, then there was a before which indicates time.
                    Your argument would only make sense if I had claimed that time began from the first eternal moment. What I actually claimed was that time began with the passing from the first eternal moment to the second moment. I've also pretty consistently been pointing out that the eternal moment ceased being timeless when time began (since it would then have become a part of the set of all moments that have existed, which is what we call the past), so I'm not sure what your about there being "a before which indicates time" is all about.

                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Again, this makes no sense. The fact that you can't even explain it without the use of temporal language such as the "first moment" and the "second moment," should give you a hint that something is askew with your idea.
                    I think what's askew is your understanding of my idea. My use of temporal language is perfectly consistent with the idea. My argument is that a moment can be be properly called timeless if it is the only moment in existence, since time does not exist if there is no passing between moments. And there can be no passing between moments if only one moment exists.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Without 'time' there can be no existence. The only "question-begging" is your determination to keep a god in the picture, come what may.
                      Of course there can be existence without time. There is nothing about existence itself that requires temporal becoming. Time is simply the passing from one moment to the next, so if there was only one moment in existence, and no passing between moments have occurred, then that moment would be exist timelessly in the very present (which would be in our past) when it was the only moment in existence.

                      Or to phrase it in another way; Your assumption that there can be no existence without time is misguided. A more correct notion would be that if there exists a past then existence is necessarily temporal. But if no past exists (that is, if no prior moments exists in relation to the present moment) then that moment would be timeless as long as it is the present moment.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Hypothetical, unsubstantiated speculation is not an argument.
                      I don't buy your scientistic drivel.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        As a scientist, I would have expected you to say, "when we cannot see it, cannot directly measure it, and cannot experimentally validate it, we MUST withhold judgment!
                        Withholding judgement about things that cannot be directly measured or experimentally validated is not what characterizes a scientist, but rather someone who is scientistic.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          It's reasonable, I would have thought, for the scientific method to arrive at scientific conclusions. It is NOT reasonable for apologists to adopt such research in an attempt to reinforce their own belief in a supernatural universe as “revealed” by an alleged supernatural deity. This is a perversion of what science is all about, namely " the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." - Oxford Dictionary.
                          You are conflating again. Science is the systematic study of .... through observation and experiment. No one is using science to do theology. What they are doing is using the conclusions determined by the scientific method in their arguments. These two things are not the same.

                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          WL Craig constantly cherry-picks scientific arguments to support his religious agenda e.g. re Harry Cliff:

                          https://www.reasonablefaith.org/medi...nd-of-physics/
                          We ALL cherrypick data that we use to support our arguments. How else would you formulate an argument? Are you suggesting that we use data that we don't agree with to support our arguments?


                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          And re WL Craig and Vilenkin: “... there is some equivocation going on between Craig’s definition of the word “universe” and that of the physicists he uses to support his claim.”

                          https://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/
                          This is a ridiculously shallow critique. If someone emailed WLC, he could very well give the same answer. This has to do with verbiage and not the actual argument or the science.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                            Fair

                            Sure but if we are going to entertain things that don't have any way of empirically validated, why is it that the multiverse get a pass but intelligent design doesn't?
                            So let me be clear here. My point was that the "lottery argument" makes an unwarranted assumption, which means we don't know if it does or does not fail because we cannot determine the validity of the assumption. That does not mean I am advocating for the "multiverse" theory to become part of a school science curriculum, specifically because it is NOT science, and won't be science until we find a way to investigate it. I would likewise say that someone who says "the universe cannot be created by a god" as a scientific statement is making an unwarranted assumption. There is no way to test or this statement scientifically. So claims that it is so or claims that it is not so are not scientific claims and have no place in a scientific classroom.

                            The multiverse theory DOES have a place in a QM class, because it is one of the theories proposed to deal with some oddities in QM and it is my understanding there is mathematical support for it in that context. But I am not a QM expert and may have that wrong.

                            Originally posted by element771 View Post
                            I always think of it as inference to the best explanation. If one really thinks that it just happened to be this way despite being highly improbably, then so be it. If another one thinks that this probability is too small to occur naturally and wants to use this in their bag of theological arguments, then so be it.

                            I am not saying that one should hang their hat on this argument.
                            Agreed - no one should "hang their hat" on this argument. It's flimsy at best.

                            Originally posted by element771 View Post
                            Fine tuning or whatever we are calling it now.
                            I just don't put any credence in the "fine tuning" argument. It makes so many unwarranted assumptions - it appears to me to be a largely fabricated argument to buttress an existing point of view.

                            Originally posted by element771 View Post
                            Sorry ...that should have read "they" are begging the question.


                            Originally posted by element771 View Post
                            Sorry - I just couldn't resist...

                            Originally posted by element771 View Post
                            Well it depends...do we do that for any other topic in science?
                            I think we do that for EVERY other topic in science, if we are truly pursuing science. If you disagree, then give me one place where we are justified in arriving at a scientific judgment for something we cannot see, cannot measure, and cannot experimentally validate. I am at a loss to think of one.
                            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 Chrawnus View Post
                              Withholding judgement about things that cannot be directly measured or experimentally validated is not what characterizes a scientist, but rather someone who is scientistic.
                              OK, that had me digging for a dictionary, and I found the term in one place. It defines it as "characterized by or having an exaggerated belief in the principles and methods of science."

                              I'm not sure why "exaggerated" is relevant. I'm also not sure why this is at odds with what I wrote. A scientist is someone who pursues knowledge using the scientific method. That process is described as:

                              2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.jpg

                              So we must be able to observe (see) in some fashion. We must be able to measure (test). We must be able to validate the results. If we cannot do this, we cannot engage the scientific method, so we are not in the realm of science and we cannot claim to be a scientist.

                              Or do you see this differently...?
                              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 Chrawnus View Post
                                But I can, and have, explained the idea logically. God is eternal because he has no starting point for his existence, and was timeless in the beginning since time did not exist until after the first moment. And of course this property of eternity and timelessness applies to the first moment as well (even though it might be a bit misleading to speak of "moments" as actual things that can have properties.) since the same (no starting point and time not yet existing) applies to it.
                                I said logically. Simply asserting that eternity is timeless because time did not exist, does not explain logically how a thing can endure forever without time passing. Like the analogy I gave previously, the figures in a picture on the wall do not change/move, but time still passes for the picture, and the same goes for an eternal entity. Time itself has nothing to do with change or motion, other than that's how motion is measured. So, your idea that eternity is changeless, and that therefore it is also timeless, doesn't hold water. It also makes no sense to say that creation which took place 14 billion years ago emerged from a timeless state which also only existed 14 billion years ago. I know, you're going to say that "I never said that." But if there was no time before 14 billion years ago, then you can't logically make the argument that something existed prior to 14 billion years ago, and that it existed long before 14 billion years ago, without refering to time. If there were no such thing as time prior to 14 billion years ago, if time emerged from an eternal substrait 14 billion years ago, then since there was no time before that, time would have to be as eternal as the eternal substrait it emerged from, which of course makes no sense at all.

                                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