An infinite series of finite causes.

[element771]

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.

OK I will buy that. However, if you say that we cannot assume that there is only one universe sounds like a soft endorsement of the multiverse theory.

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.

Are you referring to the many worlds interpretation?

It is interesting that you and Tass both went straight to this example when asked about the multiverse. I typically think of the multiverse that supposedly comes out of string theory.

Agreed - no one should "hang their hat" on this argument. It's flimsy at best.

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.

huh. I dont see it that way at all. I agree that it makes assumptions based on what we observe in this universe. However, to speculate on the existence of other universes as the reason that this is not a valid assumption is like not judging reality based on the fact that we cannot ultimately know if we are a brain in a vat.

We make assumptions all of the time regarding the existence of other minds, future is like the past, that we are actually experiencing reality, etc....

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.

Some proponents of the multiverse are attempting to redefine science in order for it to fit under the u

[carpedm9587]

OK I will buy that. However, if you say that we cannot assume that there is only one universe sounds like a soft endorsement of the multiverse theory.

Sometimes, I have to admit I wonder just how much training folks here have had in basic logic. I keep seeing applications of logic that just don't make any sense, at least not to the training I've had. That being said, your use of "soft" is at least gives the statement some wiggle room. To be clear, the statement "X has not been eliminated as a possibility" is not the equivalent of "I think X is likely."

Are you referring to the many worlds interpretation?

It is interesting that you and Tass both went straight to this example when asked about the multiverse. I typically think of the multiverse that supposedly comes out of string theory.

To that I can only say - I am not versed enough in this topic to know the difference between the two. I am familiar at a very high level, and know that there are aspects/problems in QM that are at least partially resolved if there is a multiverse. Beyond that, my knowledge is more gap than substance. In general, however, the idea that there could be multiple universes has arisen in many contexts. It cannot be substantiated, as far as I know, and it cannot be disproved. Ergo, any argument that depends on one or the other of those conditions is on shaky ground.

huh. I dont see it that way at all. I agree that it makes assumptions based on what we observe in this universe. However, to speculate on the existence of other universes as the reason that this is not a valid assumption is like not judging reality based on the fact that we cannot ultimately know if we are a brain in a vat.

We make assumptions all of the time regarding the existence of other minds, future is like the past, that we are actually experiencing reality, etc....

Yes, we do. But none of those attempts to make a probability calculation on the basis of an enormous body of "we don't know." That is why I do not find the fine-tuning argument compelling. We don't know if the "variables" actually are variables, or if they are fixed, or if some are fixed and some not. We don't know what range of values they could take, if they can be adjusted. We don't know if universes have been cycling in and out of existence infinitely, or if there is one universe or an infinity of universes. The "fine-tuning" argument is speculation piled on top of speculation, all to achieve a, "it just doesn't seem likely to me" conclusion." I am more comfortable with saying "I don't know" when I don't know.

Some proponents of the multiverse are attempting to redefine science in order for it to fit under the u

Some proponents of geocentrism are also working out complex mathematical models to show how the earth actually IS at the center of the universe. It doesn't make their work scientific. If you have to redefine a discipline in order to make a theory work, isn't that somehow backwards? Is the scientific method to be discarded because it doesn't produce the desired results...?

[element771]

Sometimes, I have to admit I wonder just how much training folks here have had in basic logic. I keep seeing applications of logic that just don't make any sense, at least not to the training I've had. That being said, your use of "soft" is at least gives the statement some wiggle room. To be clear, the statement "X has not been eliminated as a possibility" is not the equivalent of "I think X is likely."

Right and I agree which is why I tagged it with soft.

But doesn't that lead us to a default agnostic position about everything?

After all, it could be possible that I am the only thing that exists and you are a figment of my imagination. It is impossible to disprove certain things, does that mean we have to entertain every logically possible scenario?

To that I can only say - I am not versed enough in this topic to know the difference between the two. I am familiar at a very high level, and know that there are aspects/problems in QM that are at least partially resolved if there is a multiverse. Beyond that, my knowledge is more gap than substance. In general, however, the idea that there could be multiple universes has arisen in many contexts. It cannot be substantiated, as far as I know, and it cannot be disproved. Ergo, any argument that depends on one or the other of those conditions is on shaky ground.

It depends on what is being resolved.

Yes, we do. But none of those attempts to make a probability calculation on the basis of an enormous body of "we don't know." That is why I do not find the fine-tuning argument compelling. We don't know if the "variables" actually are variables, or if they are fixed, or if some are fixed and some not. We don't know what range of values they could take, if they can be adjusted. We don't know if universes have been cycling in and out of existence infinitely, or if there is one universe or an infinity of universes. The "fine-tuning" argument is speculation piled on top of speculation, all to achieve a, "it just doesn't seem likely to me" conclusion." I am more comfortable with saying "I don't know" when I don't know.

I agree in principle... sort of..

Let me ask you this...could we ever know that the universe has not been cycling?

I am also skeptical of there being an actual infinite. I think people throw around that word a little too haphazardly IMO.

Some proponents of geocentrism are also working out complex mathematical models to show how the earth actually IS at the center of the universe. It doesn't make their work scientific. If you have to redefine a discipline in order to make a theory work, isn't that somehow backwards? Is the scientific method to be discarded because it doesn't produce the desired results...?

You and I are on the same page with this one. I think it is a mistake to redefine anything.

[carpedm9587]

Right and I agree which is why I tagged it with soft.

But doesn't that lead us to a default agnostic position about everything?

After all, it could be possible that I am the only thing that exists and you are a figment of my imagination. It is impossible to disprove certain things, does that mean we have to entertain every logically possible scenario?

One of my favorite questions. MM has labeled me a "classic post-modernist." For the most part, he's only about 40% wrong. The 60% he has right touches on this question. So here's my take on THAT. Yes, I believe there is nothing we can know with 100% certainty (including that statement). Because we are fallible reasoners, because we are not omniscient, because some percentage of our "knowledge" is inevitably in error, we are prone to mistakes. So yes, I believe we have to hold every belief we have loosely, ready for the next piece of information that will show it to be wrong. Our life is never about certitude - it's about degrees of assurance, and that's how we get by. Is it possible that I am a brian in a vat? Absolutely. However, the evidence available suggests to me I'm not, and there is no reasonable action available to me if I am, so I go through life believing I am NOT a brain in a vat. Is it possible that evolution is wrong? Sure. We could find something next week that would turn the whole thing on its ear. I don't think that is likely, and the body of evidence show it is true is too vast for me to ignore, so I accept it as true (but remain open to new science that shows it is not.

That is generally how I try to approach life. I don't live in the black/white world of certitude; I live in the endlessly varying greys of "most probably."

It depends on what is being resolved.

I agree in principle... sort of..

Let me ask you this...could we ever know that the universe has not been cycling?

I don't know. I think you need an astrophysicist for that one.

I am also skeptical of there being an actual infinite. I think people throw around that word a little too haphazardly IMO.

Agreed. And then you get into language like "eternal now" and "infinite moment" and I think we are firmly in the world of the philosopher. I have been known to quote an old professor of mine who once told us, "a philosopher is a person who will lecture for an hour on the insubstantiality of the walls, and then exit the room by way of the door."

You and I are on the same page with this one. I think it is a mistake to redefine anything.

Amen.

[element771]

One of my favorite questions. MM has labeled me a "classic post-modernist." For the most part, he's only about 40% wrong. The 60% he has right touches on this question. So here's my take on THAT. Yes, I believe there is nothing we can know with 100% certainty (including that statement). Because we are fallible reasoners, because we are not omniscient, because some percentage of our "knowledge" is inevitably in error, we are prone to mistakes. So yes, I believe we have to hold every belief we have loosely, ready for the next piece of information that will show it to be wrong. Our life is never about certitude - it's about degrees of assurance, and that's how we get by. Is it possible that I am a brian in a vat? Absolutely. However, the evidence available suggests to me I'm not, and there is no reasonable action available to me if I am, so I go through life believing I am NOT a brain in a vat. Is it possible that evolution is wrong? Sure. We could find something next week that would turn the whole thing on its ear. I don't think that is likely, and the body of evidence show it is true is too vast for me to ignore, so I accept it as true (but remain open to new science that shows it is not.

So why are you an atheist instead of an agnostic?

[JonathanL]

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:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27416[/ATTACH]

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...?

My point was simply that not all knowledge or beliefs a scientist has to have been necessarily reached via the scientific method. Having the opinion that everything has to be verified by the scientific method before you can believe it is the hallmark of someone holding to scientism/positivism, not a scientist. You can be an outstanding scientist and still believe that there are things you're justified in believing, even if those beliefs haven't been verified by scientific methods.

[JonathanL]

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.

I already explained this to you:

Source: Me from the very same post that you replied to. How about reading the entire post before replying?

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.

© Copyright Original Source

In other words, I do not have to explain logically how eternity could endure without time passing, since I do not believe it "endured" in the first place.

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.

I do not believe eternity is timeless because it's changeless, I believe eternity was changeless because it was timeless. I've given the reason why I think the first moment was eternal and timeless multiple times now, but for some reason you keep ignoring the actual point and attacking this not-even-a-strawman argument. Here's hoping you'll address the actual argument when I present it to you for the nth time:

Source: Again, me from the very same post you replied to

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[SIC] (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.

© Copyright Original Source

[QUOTE=JimL;536278]
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."[/CITE]

Actually, I'm not going to say that at all.

[QUOTE=JimL;536278]
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.[/CITE]

But I don't believe eternity existed "long before" however billions of years old the universe might be. The thing about eternity being timeless is that no time passed during eternity at all.

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.

Time didn't emerge from eternity though. Time began existing simultaneously with the first change in existence and that meant that the eternal moment was already in the past, and no longer in the present when time began existing.

[JimL]

I already explained this to you:

Source: Me from the very same post that you replied to. How about reading the entire post before replying?

I read the post, how about making sense.

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.

© Copyright Original Source

Thats just silly. If the eternal is timeless, and if the eternal doesn't endure, which btw means to continue to exist timelessly, then how do you define its continued existence? I'm assuming that it still exists, right,? So how do you explain its continued existence from long before the Big Bang?

In other words, I do not have to explain logically how eternity could endure without time passing, since I do not believe it "endured" in the first place.

Yeah, I know, but thats what your not explaining. How do you explain the continued existence of something without time passing? Asserting a belief is not the same thing as explaining the logic behind that belief.

I do not believe eternity is timeless because it's changeless, I believe eternity was changeless because it was timeless. I've given the reason why I think the first moment was eternal and timeless multiple times now, but for some reason you keep ignoring the actual point and attacking this not-even-a-strawman argument. Here's hoping you'll address the actual argument when I present it to you for the nth time:

Okay, it's a difficult topic, let's see if I can make any sense of what you're saying.

Source: Again, me from the very same post you replied to

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[SIC] (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.

© Copyright Original Source

And this eternal moment existed just prior to the Big Bang, correct? Obviously the answer to that is yes. And did that eternal moment exist prior to just prior to the Big Bang as well, and did it exist just prior to that, and just prior to that and so on and so on, or not? If your answer is yes, which obviously it would have to be, then how do you explain those prior existences of the eternal without time passing?

[QUOTE=JimL;536278]
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."[/CITE]

Actually, I'm not going to say that at all.

So then, this timeless state, this eternity, it existed 14 billion years ago, just prior to the Big bang, but it didn't exist prior to that, right? Well that makes no sense does it, how could something that didn't exist prior to 14 billion years ago be eternal?

[QUOTE=JimL;536278]
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.[/CITE]

But I don't believe eternity existed "long before" however billions of years old the universe might be. The thing about eternity being timeless is that no time passed during eternity at all.

But you do believe eternity existed long before 14 billion years ago, it's just that without the passage of time you just can't explain what you mean by before.

Time didn't emerge from eternity though. Time began existing simultaneously with the first change in existence and that meant that the eternal moment was already in the past, and no longer in the present when time began existing.

Yes, but if the eternal were timeless, then the first change in that timeless existence would must needs be co-eternal with that timeless existence. If there was no time prior to the first change, then the first change, ergo time, would necessarily be co-eternal with its cause. But again, that would make the eternal 14 billion years old, and that wouldn't make any sense would it?

[Tassman]

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.

To talk about existence without ‘time’ is meaningless as you yourself imply in your #577 reply to Jim: “Time didn't emerge from eternity though. Time began existing simultaneously with the first change in existence and that meant that the eternal moment was already in the past, and no longer in the present when time began existing”. In short, when we say something "exists", we mean that it can be observed, or its effects can be experienced in space and time. Without that there is no existence, except for the likes of you who want to make, without substantive evidence, an exception for a creator god.

I don't buy your scientistic drivel.

Oh right! We all know that ‘Scientism’ is the standard pejorative levelled by theists against those who don’t accept their ‘religionism’ drivel.

[Tassman]

You are conflating again. Science is the systematic study of .... through observation and experiment.

You snipped the key part of my sentence. Again: Science is the systematic study “of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Science is specifically and consciously unconcerned with a hypothetical supernatural universe.

No one is using science to do theology.

Well yes they are. The likes of WL Craig attempt to use science to reinforce their supernatural theistic worldview, a worldview which is contrary to that of science.

What they are doing is using the conclusions determined by the scientific method in their arguments. These two things are not the same.

No, what they are doing is using scientific conclusions, which are solely concerned with the physical and natural world and trying to apply them to the non-physical, unchanging supernatural world. It’s an invalid use of the scientific method.

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?

What I’m suggesting is that we should use data appropriate to the discipline and not “mix ‘n match” data from disciplines with opposing agendas.

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.

That’s not the point. You were arguing that theists like WL Craig don’t use science to reinforce and justify their theological position and I provided two examples where apologist WL Craig did exactly that.

[carpedm9587]

So why are you an atheist instead of an agnostic?

[CARPESPLAIN]

You see them as distinct, and that is certainly a common way of defining the terms. A lot of people do:

Theist - there is a god
Atheist - there is no god
Agnostic - it is not possible to know.

I am a bit more strict with my language. The prefix "a" means "without" or "not." Theist is from the greek "theos" for "god." So:

Theist - God
Atheist - Not God or Without God

I am atheist because I believe there is no god.

Gnostic is from the greek "gnostos" for "knowing" or "knowledge." So literally, the terms mean:

Gnostic*: knowing/knowledge
Agnostic: without knowing/knowledge

The part of me that is indeed "post-modernist" and holds that knowledge in the human person can never be shown to be "perfect," means that my belief about god is not a sure thing. Further evidence may show that my current belief is wrong. That does not stop me from taking the bulk of information I have and coming to a working conclusion. Likewise, it is possible we will discover that gravity is not what we think it is; that doesn't stop me from observing its effects and living my life accordingly. So I am an agnostic atheist: I believe there is no god, but I recognize the limits of knowledge and recognize I could discover, at some point, that I am wrong about it. That's especially true because god is "supernatural," which makes this being difficult/impossible to study.

Ultimately, the way those terms are defined, most Christians I have met are agnostic theists. The believe there is a god (theist) but believe that salvation and experience of this god is arrived at by faith alone (agnostic). None of them reject reason and the application of reason to understand this god and his/her/its universe, but they reject that salvation and experience of this god is arrived at via knowledge.

[/CARPESPLAIN]

I can hear the accusations of "redefinition" being typed already...

*Gnosticism, BTW, is/was a Christian "heresy" (a word that appears to mean that the majority of the Christian sects went a different way) that held that an experience of god and salvation could be arrived at through knowledge, setting it apart from the "by faith alone" creed of the rest of the church.

[carpedm9587]

My point was simply that not all knowledge or beliefs a scientist has to have been necessarily reached via the scientific method. Having the opinion that everything has to be verified by the scientific method before you can believe it is the hallmark of someone holding to scientism/positivism, not a scientist. You can be an outstanding scientist and still believe that there are things you're justified in believing, even if those beliefs haven't been verified by scientific methods.

I would never suggest that "everything" can be arrived at by the scientific method, or that people should limit their beliefs to what is proven by the scientific method. I believe my wife loves me, there is no god, the best pizza topping is triple extra mushrooms, and I am not a brain in a vat. None of those are subject to the scientific method, as far as I know. But scientific claims should be amenable to the scientific method.

In short, I think we're agreeing violently.

[seer]

...and I am not a brain in a vat.

Are you sure about that?

[carpedm9587]

Are you sure about that?

Reasonably...

The question "am I a brain in a vat" deserves about as much attention as...

"is the earth the center of the universe?"
"is evolution a correct description of how life progresses?"
"is there such a thing as gravity"
"is the earth flat?"
"is climate change being substantially impacted by humans?"

[JimL]

[CARPESPLAIN]

You see them as distinct, and that is certainly a common way of defining the terms. A lot of people do:

Theist - there is a god
Atheist - there is no god
Agnostic - it is not possible to know.

I am a bit more strict with my language. The prefix "a" means "without" or "not." Theist is from the greek "theos" for "god." So:

Theist - God
Atheist - Not God or Without God

I am atheist because I believe there is no god.

Gnostic is from the greek "gnostos" for "knowing" or "knowledge." So literally, the terms mean:

Gnostic*: knowing/knowledge
Agnostic: without knowing/knowledge

The part of me that is indeed "post-modernist" and holds that knowledge in the human person can never be shown to be "perfect," means that my belief about god is not a sure thing. Further evidence may show that my current belief is wrong. That does not stop me from taking the bulk of information I have and coming to a working conclusion. Likewise, it is possible we will discover that gravity is not what we think it is; that doesn't stop me from observing its effects and living my life accordingly. So I am an agnostic atheist: I believe there is no god, but I recognize the limits of knowledge and recognize I could discover, at some point, that I am wrong about it. That's especially true because god is "supernatural," which makes this being difficult/impossible to study.

Ultimately, the way those terms are defined, most Christians I have met are agnostic theists. The believe there is a god (theist) but believe that salvation and experience of this god is arrived at by faith alone (agnostic). None of them reject reason and the application of reason to understand this god and his/her/its universe, but they reject that salvation and experience of this god is arrived at via knowledge.

[/CARPESPLAIN]

I can hear the accusations of "redefinition" being typed already...

*Gnosticism, BTW, is/was a Christian "heresy" (a word that appears to mean that the majority of the Christian sects went a different way) that held that an experience of god and salvation could be arrived at through knowledge, setting it apart from the "by faith alone" creed of the rest of the church.

Interesting and well put. I often get questioned about this by Christians here, suggesting that I'm a hypocrite or something, being that I'm listed as agnostic, but that I argue like an atheist, like a non-believer. I am a non believer, but I also can't say that I have certain knowledge. Neither can theists "know" of course, though many of them like to pretend that they do.