In order to demonstrate that the universe 'began' to exist, and is therefore contingent, there needs to be a temporal frame WITHIN which the universe resides.
What Craig is doing here is the equivalent of saying that "since we have discovered the earth has a north pole, we can conclude that the earth must pointing 'northward' in space". In fact there is no such thing as 'northward' in space. but its quite easy to be deceived into thinking there is by these kinds of arguments.
My broader argument is that primary principles, whether they derive from neurobiology (eg. logic or mathematics) or culturally/creedally (theism, atheism, naturalism) all have a similarly profound and all-encompassing effect on our experience of the real world, operating, in effect, as first principles to perception itself, and thus to our idiosyncratic notions of what constitutes "evidence" or "truth."
If they are first principles to perception, they cannot be empirical or rational a priori.
@Calenfeyn41 I still don't really know where you stand. Sometimes I think you're trying to be obtuse. Or maybe we are talking past each other. You seem to have the opinion that any two beliefs that can not be known with absolute certainty are equally valid. As if the most well established scientific fact is no more well founded than the daily horoscope. You also seem to hold the position that almost nothing can be known with absolute certainty. On the 2nd we agree on the 1st we don't.
"I still don't really know where you stand. Sometimes I think you're trying to be obtuse."
You're right to claim this, though I'm not trying to be deliberately difficult. Many of these ideas take time to settle, and in my experience, progressing too quickly often tends to provoke confusion and coping reactions. That applies even more so here given that this is not the ideal medium for philosophical discussions.
My advice at this stage would be to let things settle down, and revisit them later.
My position is that we require a basis of absolute faith-based assumptions (primary principles) in order to be capable of structured thought. Primary principles, such as logic, cannot validate or refute their own axioms, nor that of other primary principles, such as theism.
Your position is that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. However, every argument you make based on deductive reasoning presupposes the principles of logic to be absolutely correct.
What I'm suggesting to you indirectly is that, despite your claims otherwise, you are still thinking causally. The mind is incapable of thinking of considering a phenomenon in total acausal non-contextual isolation, and that applies on a per-modality basis (ie. a random temporal event requiring a temporal cause) and at a broader level.
In the example you gave, the notion of randomness, as nihilistic as it seems, is still used by the brain as a "cause".
"The phrase, caused by randomness, has no meaning for me."
This isn't really about meaning, more about the language of the neurobiology of your brain, whose only "meaning" is to congruitise perception with precept.
"I do not hold strict cause and effect as? a self evident truth."
Sorry if I misunderstood your point. Would you be kind enough to expand on this statement?
"Our ideas about cause and effect come from our observations about the world."
So with that in mind do we accept scientific understanding as it is today, knowing that we are fallible, or do we wait, hoping that science can come up with an explanation that better suits our preconceived notion of what the world "must" be like?
"or do we wait, hoping that science can come up with an explanation that better suits our preconceived notion of what the world "must" be like?"
Does the Agrippa trilemma not suggest that we need a system of precepts before we even begin to approach some method of critical thinking? You may be arguing against a universal causality here, but what about the axioms of logic and mathematics, and various other metaphysical doctrines you've presupposed to come to your own judgments?
@Calenfeyn41 Science then ends up as a system of rational generalization. We make observations, we build models, we test the models. If things click we accept that as progress. Newton observed an apple falling, created a general model that explained it. Used it in general to predict the period of the moon's orbit and got the right answer. That clicks. You put a key in the lock - it fits - you turn it and the door opens. But Newton was also wrong in a sense.
@Calenfeyn41 Science makes assumptions. The laws of the universe are the same now as they were 1000 years ago, and will be in 1000 years. They are the same in all places. This is a working assumption, not a religious belief. If science finds compelling evidence to question this assumption it will be forced to change (though change is not easy). Religious beliefs are often not testable and are therefore different. Many times they are testable but adherents close their minds to the evidence
"This is a working assumption, not a religious belief."
Yet functionally, they operate pretty much as doctrine.
"Working assumption" or faith-based principle - in terms of mechanics of subsequent critical thinking they are pretty much identical. The doctrine of naturalism and also, by extension, its closely related cousin, the doctrine of uniformitarianism, are as non-falsifiable as the "religious beliefs" you are attempting to distinguish them from.
@Calenfeyn41 Uniformitarianism is most certainly falsifiable. If we get up tomorrow and no phones, TV, cars or candles don't work they way they worked the day before. If suddenly no scientific experiment could be reproduced. If labs suddenly get a radically different result every time they conduct a trial and the result is different then the results in the literature we would be forced to give up that notion. Compare to the notion "God is all powerful"
"If we get up tomorrow and no phones, TV, cars or candles don't work they way they worked the day before."
Sorry but this is not a falsification of uniformitarianism.
The philosophical nuances of uniformitarianism are such that these discrepancies you describe would technically be in the sphere of contemporary observations, and thus would contribute to formalising current models of laws and processes.
@Calenfeyn41 There is nothing nuanced about it. If we lived in a world of chaos with no order or uniformity, science would be useless. No experiment could be validated. In that kind of world science would be a religious belief. But that is not the world we live in. Your standards of logical proof or falsification are so high that they are of no practical value.
"Your standards of logical proof or falsification are so high that they are of no practical value."
I would disagree with this point in that, in your last post, you stumbled upon the very philosophical mechanic which renders uniformitarianism non-falsifiable. ie. the philosophical nature of contemporariness within the broader temporal context of uniformitarianism. These are points even acknowledged by the likes of Charles Lyell.
@Calenfeyn41 "As stated before, the idea of self-evidence in causation is a tautology". Not sure I follow you. I never said or meant to imply that causation was self evident. In fact I thought that's what you were saying. I do not hold strict cause and effect as a self evident truth. Do you?
@Calenfeyn41 Our ideas about cause and effect come from our observations about the world. They are not axioms. Perhaps some of the basic notions of explanation are axioms. But our specific ideas about cause and effect have become more nuanced as we make more detailed observations of phenomenon. Sorry to write a book on all this.
Let me try and clarify this with another perspective.
Your claim is that we observe consequences to effects in the real world, and that our models of causation stem from those observations. My claim is that a primary belief in causation drives us to perceive real world mechanics such that perceptual information is ordered in a cause-and-effect profile; and that there is no secularly derived test to confirm if these tendencies accurately represent the mechanisms of the real world.
When observing causal relationships, what is the nature and origin of our tendency to order two or more pieces of perceptual information into hierarchical/causal relationships? What alternative modes of perception are there?
When observing random photon emissions are you really observing acausal phenomena? In terms of the language of perception, you actually observe emissions caused by "randomness." Your very paradigms mandate this association.
@Calenfeyn41 The phrase, caused by randomness, has no meaning for me. Sometimes we observe events that occur at random. They occur with central tendency and a distribution that are governed by circumstance. We do not observe a temporal sequence of "this happened and then that followed". There is an absence of an initiating event. Frequently we do observe an initiating event (a cause) followed by an effect. But the effect has an unexplained (uncaused) variation.
"Our ideas about cause and effect come from our observations about the world"
The idea of self-evidence in causation is a tautology. Primary principles operate primary to experience which in turn determines evidence. To thus argue that these principles are empirically supported is circular reasoning.
I understand your position having long held it as a default view prior to study. These aren't trivial ideas, and take months, for some, even years, of introspection to appreciate.
@Calenfeyn41 If causation is not self evident (as I maintain) and causation can not be supported by observation than how can it be supported?
When we started this conversation I thought you were saying causation was self evident. (but meaningful, not a tautology) Now I take it you are claiming that the idea of causation can not be rationally supported.
"Is belief in causation rational?" "how can it be supported?"
For me it was a profound realisation that, as humans, we operate on many such non-empirical primary assumptions at a deep creedal level; moreover, that our cognitive processes demand such absolutistic assumptions before we even begin to think critically.
As faith-based principles, they cannot be rational. This is evident in the paradox that, in order to think rationally, you need to presuppose the precepts of logic on a faith basis.
@Calenfeyn41 Dude, you're going to have to dumb it down a little for me. I find some of your comments impenetrable. Let's start over. My position is that belief in cause and effect is rational. But I also maintain that some aspects of the world are random. Before you tell me why I'm wrong, tell me what you believe.
Would you say a belief in cause and effect is rational? Please start with yes or no, then you can add as much as you like.
No. The principle of causality is irrational because it is a faith-based primary assumption which is rooted in our biology.
We have a tendency which makes us incapable of considering a stimulus, perception or concept without an association. This "cognitive association" is deeply neurobiological in origin. It is hierarchical in nature, ie. it mandates that we see derivations, origins, causes. We are fundamentally incapable of considerations outside of a context, comparison or cause.
@Calenfeyn41 Does this mean that a belief in blue fairies is the same as a belief in gravity?. That's silly. Gravity is demonstrable. Newtonian gravity may not be exactly correct but gravity whatever it is can be demonstrated by people all around the world as many times as we care to try. Blue fairies can not be demonstrated to be anything but fantasy.
That's an interesting point about computers and blue fairies.
I've read psychiatric case reports of intelligent, productive people who hold very strong atypical primary beliefs (ie. delusions), who seem to operate in an ostensibly systematic, or even logical, perception of an atypical reality which coherently and consistently validates their primary beliefs. There is something pervasive and powerful about the nature of our creedal system and the manner in which it influences perception.
Respond to this video...If you would like to make a computer (we both appreciate computers because that's how we are talking) you have to have a coherent model of physics. Those who believe blue fairies make computers work will not be able to design and manufacture a working one.
Don't get me wrong here, because I do believe that certain primary beliefs have greater validity than others, and that there is an overarching truth. All I wished to demonstrate were that the secular methods of problem-solving cannot provide a mode of discernment to distinguish between defective and valid primary beliefs.
We've so far barely touched the surface of a vast area of epistemology which, very literally, approaches the boundaries of where our minds can take us.
@Calenfeyn41 I assume by secular methods you mean reason, logic and the consideration of empirical evidence. As I said before we agree that, neither logic, reason nor experience can provide absolute truth. That does not demonstrate, as you wished, that logic, reason, and evidence can not distinguish between plausible ideas and utter nonsense. Epistemology is a rich and interesting subject. Insisting on absolute knowledge is pointless.
@Calenfeyn41 Epistemology is used to understand how we distinguish between justified belief and opinion (or faith). If you apply epistemology in an extreme way and conclude that nothing is justified (even epistemology) you may. However, if you do that the conversation can go nowhere. It's back to the weather again.
@Calenfeyn41 There is a boundary between what we can absolutely know and what we can know with uncertainty. This boundary lies very close nothing. That is, there is little to nothing we can know absolutely. Its a big mistake to believe that everything on the uncertainty side of boundary is equally uncertain. Uncertainty can often be quantified and compared, while some beliefs do not even pretend to offer any support in logic or evidence.
My opinion was that our reliance on absolutes raises interesting philosophical and metaphysical considerations, a pathway I've not yet elaborated on. I have never stated that such dependencies render everything meaningless.
Have you noted how, to consider an opinion and articulate it in words, you've already subjected yourself to a system of absolute precepts? You've used primary faith-based precepts to undermine the validity of those same precepts.
Our perception is pervaded by this neurobiological mandate to seek associations, and thus, to seek derivations and causes. It is impossible to prove that the nature of these perceived associations are truly representative of mechanics within the real world. Therefore, a secularist must assume, as a matter of faith, that these tendencies are representative, if he is to apply critical thought within a scientific context.
My position is that we are obligate absolutists/doctrinalists.
By this standard nothing can be proven. Logic can prove nothing because it has no foundation other than logic itself. . Only logic can be used to support logic. That's circular an invalid. The last statement is ironic because it is using logic to show that logic is unreliable. Therefore I can't even make a non-contradictory statement including this one. So I think we agree, as I have said before. No knowledge is absolute.
Respond to this video... This Nihilism if I understand the term. It's seems any conversation around it should last about 10 seconds. It goes like this. Our senses are unreliable, logic is unreliable, our feelings are unreliable, any hardwiring of the brain is unreliable, therefore we can know nothing or be certain of anything. Everyone agrees, the conversation ends and you talk about the weather.
@Calenfeyn41 Arguing for causation based on observation is not circular. It is inductive. If we have observed an effect followed by a cause a 100 times do we have a rational reason to believe it will happen on the 101st time? No, not based on strict logic. Do we have a rational reason it will not happen. No, not in any sense. Would you think it rational to stick your head in front of a 2 ton pendulum because induction cannot be rationally argued?
The principles of causality, logic and mathematics are interesting in that, culturally, they have remained historically uniform with only minor variations, whereas there have been wide variations in uptake of other precepts.
My belief is that these tendencies derive from neurobiology. Causality/logic has similarities to neurologic processes that posit association of concepts/perceptions by hierarchical juxtaposition or by fusion. ie. a system seemingly designed to seek causal patterns.
"a world of chaos with no order or uniformity ... that is not the world we live in." "causation based on observation is not circular"
It is circular reasoning if a system of precepts mandates that higher perception of real world phenomena follow specific predetermined patterns. If we are creedally, or even neurobiologically, driven to seek patterns in perception and cognition, how sure are we that these tendencies accurately reflect the real world?
To "accept scientific understanding as it is today" even on the assumption that we know nothing as a baseline, requires a foundation of such non-empirical faith-based assumptions.
If such primary principles are non-empirical, and, in fact, unilaterally determine the very standards of evidence, then what rationale dictates the choice of theism over atheism, or vice-versa; or choice of logic, mathematics, causality, uniformitarianism or naturalism?
@Calenfeyn41 Agrippa's Trilemma is a great summary of the problem. Thanks for clueing me in to it. I've given it a lot of thought since we last spoke. Agrippa points out that none of the 3 alternatives is completely satisfactory but most would say an axiomatic approach is at least of use. I would agree with that and would add that it can be applied with some level of certainly but not absolute certainty. Axiomatic systems can be effectively applied to symbolic logic and mathematics.
@Calenfeyn41 Axiomatic systems have their limits though even in pure logic and mathematics. Bertrand Russell and his contemporaries showed this but I have to acknowledge that I can only parrot back what they say right now. I am trying to learn and understand these limits. Tarski, Popper, Godel.
Russell and Bronowski have tried to put things back into some sort of working order but again we have to settle for a less than consistent system of logic.
I didn't agree with either of these guys. I think the premise fails. The causes science observe are those of transformation not creation from nothing. Craig uses equivocation. Furthermore we do not observe a cause for every effect. We can't attribute a cause to the location of any given photon hitting a screen placed in front of a slit for example. Why do we believe everything has a cause?
"We can't attribute a cause to the location of any given photon hitting a screen placed in front of a slit for example."
I think this is less about the validity of the principle of causality, and more to do with uncertainty of the precise mechanics of causation in a specific situation where scientific understanding is limited.
@Calenfeyn41. I used to think that too, but to maintain that position you have to reject Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. I think Einstein rejected it, but it has become a well established concept in modern physics. Quantum mechanics has been confirmed in many experiments. It does not state that we simply lack understanding of the underlying mechanism but rather that uncertainty is built into the fabric of nature itself.
Those are some interesting points, and I agree that observations in quantum physics are motivating us to reassess certain derivative precepts in logic, but I think you're still fixated on the mechanics of causation rather than looking into the broader principle of causality.
The natural laws, whether they be quantum or classical, with or without "intrinsic" uncertainties in terms of our observations, still constitute causal mechanisms.
"The causes science observe are those of transformation not creation from nothing."
To argue semantics in terms of the core of your argument here, the theistic premise of a primary cause to the universe is not technically a "creation from nothing" because God is the source of the creation. A true analogy with a "creation from nothing" would be the universe existing as a primary cause unto itself, which would be a logical fallacy and a breach of the principle of causality.
@Calenfeyn41 I am focused on the mechanics of causation because of the current trend of using scientific observations to support philosophical arguments. Observations of cause in the physical world are specific cases of general causation. They can not legitimately be used to support the idea of God creating the universe.
With regard to uncertainty: We not only make observations of reality that are imprecise and uncertain, we make observations of random phenomena. The emission of a proton from a potassium atom is a random event. We can assign no cause. The idea of cause arises from common experience and habit of thinking, but it is not absolute. The strict notion of causation can not be logically defended. It is usually just accepted without justification.
I think you'll understand my point if you appreciate a broader understanding of causation. The "table" example of causation given in the later part of this video is a good example, which illustrates Aristotle's observations of cause comprising material, formal, efficient and teleological components.
The same can be applied to your example. Although no cause can be attributed to the precise time of emission, there are many more components to this mechanic than the temporal aspect.
@Calenfeyn41 I understand that there is a broader context of the notion of causation. A better word though would be explanation. And I am not asserting that radioactive decay has no explanation, I think it does. I am giving an example of an observed event that has no observed cause. I'll grant it should be more specific. Photon emission is a temporal event in which no temporal cause is observed. Aristotle and Newton would have been troubled by this because it undermines a central axiom.
"The idea of cause arises from common experience and habit of thinking, but it is not absolute."
I agree with your point here, though in a slightly different perspective. The principle of causality is an axiom which underlies much of critical thinking, forming the core of the very paradigms with which we interpret phenomena. You're right to say it's unproven, because in a very real sense, people use it as a primary basis to validate evidence in the first instance.
@Calenfeyn41 I agree that cause is considered an axiom and scientists get uncomfortable when it's questioned. "God doesn't throw dice" was roughly Einstein's comment. Bohr's reply was "Stop telling God what to do".
I think the search for a cause to any effect very much drives science. (at least curiosity about the explanation does). Let's look at an example of how cause and effect is used, as you say, to validate evidence. What are you thinking there?
I alluded to the idea earlier that I don't believe quantum level observations to be acausal, and that limited understanding prevents deterministic explanations on a comprehensive per-modality basis.
The fact that these seemingly random observations are "walled in" by causally robust mechanisms, and that determinism may be "recovered" through simple changes in paradigm (eg. wave function as true reality) suggest, teasingly, of an Occam's razor solution to address these discrepancies.
@Calenfeyn41 I understand that position but I don't' hold it to be true. I describe your belief as universal determinism (made famous by Laplace). It means you must necessarily reject Heisenberg and the probability interpretation of the electron wave function. If those are not true it creates a large gaps in our understanding of the atom. Do I understand your position correctly?
"It means you must necessarily reject Heisenberg and the probability interpretation of the electron wave function."
I don't necessarily reject these models. They are accurate to whatever observations can be made within current paradigms. My opinion was that the paradigms themselves need to be reassessed, maybe even at a root level, before a comprehensively deterministic model for quantum physics can be formulated.
But I would agree that this is highly speculative, fanciful, some may argue.
@Calenfeyn41 Or possibly what needs to change is our understanding of cause and effect. Perhaps universal determinism not tenable. What we hold as axiomatic could be false. By and large science has ignored the fact that logic has undermined it's foundations. It relies on induction which can not be logically supported. Nevertheless, we have cell phones and satellites. The practical application of reason over absolute proof.
My reason for proposing that we adhere to universal causality stems from the ideas I've stated earlier: That observed uncertainties in quantum physics seem to operate in isolation within a framework of clearly deterministic mechanisms, and that simple changes in paradigm can abrogate observed uncertainties.
@Calenfeyn41 fascinating discussion, I've learned something from it. Its my belief (I have to use that word) that the causal relationships we see in at the macroscopic level are not isolated from the random processes of the micro world but rather they arise from it. If you heat one end of an iron rod it will cause the temperature at the other to rise. The random motion of atoms at the hot end causes them to bang into adjacent atoms transferring the heat. Can't explain in 500 chars.
@Calenfeyn41 I wanted to add that if you believe that there is an underlying deterministic mechanism that would explain electron behavior then you reject the uncertainty principle. It maintains that the exact position of the electron CAN NOT be known if we have any information regarding its momentum. If does not claim to be an approximation. I think you do necessarily reject it.
Though you're claiming duplicity, or maybe ambivalence, on this issue, I would still argue otherwise. My reasoning for this is that, in many instances, it is helpful to have two functional paradigms in concurrence. Newtonian physics, for example, provides practical solutions to problems within certain parameters, whereas the theories of relativity allow us to address cosmologic problems at an altogether different level.
@Calenfeyn41 We can apply Newton's laws with the knowledge that they only work under special circumstances. (to put a man on the moon, but not to explain the orbit of mercury). Einstein's laws are more generally true but harder to apply. (And Einstein will one day be shown to be not completely true in general). Newton is a special case of Einstein. Heisenberg is not a special case of determinism. When can remain open, but one day we will have to choose.
"Heisenberg is not a special case of determinism."
That's the beauty of the all-encompassing nature of paradigms. We have no idea how the Heisenberg principle will shine under a new analytical light.
If there is indeed a fully causal model/paradigm for quantum physics, we have no idea what form it will take, and whether or not a derivative form of the Heisenberg equation will be incorporated as part of that theory.
"how cause and effect is used, as you say, to validate evidence"
This pertains to the notion of foundationalism and the philosophical problem of Munchhausen's trilemma. That we need a framework of primary principles as a core standard before we even begin to conceive of notions such as proof or evidence. As these precepts formalise the very standards of evidence, to then use evidence to validate these principles is logical fallacy by circular reasoning.
@Calenfeyn41 You're way over my head on this one. I''l have to read up. I will say now that these precepts must somehow be consistent with our experience. Why do we assert that an event must be caused? The foundations of our logic must arise in part from our experience.
@Calenfeyn41 Ok Munchhausen's trilemma is not as mind boggling I thought. The answer is easy. We can't prove things in science. We can not meet the standard of proof held in foundationalism. Science does not give us absolute truth, absolute certainty or absolute knowledge. We have to settle for second best: We observe order, we seek to create a predictive model, and we strive to craft the most rational and consistent model we can. We then test our model empirically to see if it holds.
"The foundations of our logic must arise in part from our experience."
This is what I used to think, but apparently not. Logical axioms, certain mathematical axioms, and the principles of causality, don't actually seem to derive empirically in any sense but seem to operate as primary precepts. They form the fabric of higher perception and decision making, making them primary to our experience of the world, and the validation of our notions such as evidence, reality and truth.
If such axioms were indeed empirical, they would not be axioms.
Some refer to the notion of "self-evidence": The notion that a concept is so obvious, so simple and fundamental that no alternative need be considered - hardly a scientific or a philosophical explanation. The truth is, there is vast existential scope for alternative mechanisms of logic and mathematics, and no real evidence to suggest that our current tendencies accurately reflect the true mechanics of the universe.
Foundationalism refers to proof, and that ultimately we need to fall back to absolutes.
Its deeper implications are that the human mind cannot operate at all without an absolutistic base. ie. a presupposed set of absolute standards, critical in formalising "lower" perception as "higher" perception and eventually decision-making. There are a panoply of such faith-based presuppositions in the typical mind, the majority of which we are not even aware of.
@4Wammer So evidence of an afterlife with people in it has been discovered by the LHC but for some reason their is not any record in any science journal about this discovery.
I might first believe the Earth quakes and zombies in Matthew yet not even the other gospels made an account of this event.
As far as we know, the G-d told us ahead of time, "Eve is the mother of all living."
Perhaps made A LOT, A LOT, & A LOT of stars, planets & galaxies not only because His love for us is indescribable, but also that we should give glory to Him.
I don't think "wouldn't G-d get bored with just one planet", does that assume that there is no G-d, or your thinking is higher than G-d's?
I do not say things like "G-d is G-d - deal with it" - I would say you ought to do a bit more studying.
'I don't think "wouldn't G-d get bored with just one planet", does that assume that there is no G-d, or your thinking is higher than G-d's?"
NO, Im Saying by using your concept of g-d ( not sure which god that is) That we might equaly expect g-d to become bored with on type of decoration over another
'G-d is G-d' would be a true statement this says nothing about what G-d is, or if this G-d exists I guess you think YHWH is G-d?
@gusb232; Within Jewish tradition it is not accepted to say 'God'. It is expected that one not say His name at all, to refrain from saying it in vain, or writing it in vain for this matter; so therefore, the Jews say 'G-d', and not 'God'.
@gusb232; If God did create life on other planets, it wouldn't deter Christian beliefs, or belief in a God of Deistic nature at all. Considering Christianity doesn't specifically say there is "no life" on other planets, so therefore it wouldn't damage the belief systems of intelligent Christians.
@dimic Right, It dont think life on other planets is as detrimental to christianity as many people think. Most becuase since Aliens wouldnt be humans it would be much easier to say they didnt have souls in need of salvation or have souls at all.
@dimic ON a side note, My mother is a christian, and she believes in ET life, but she thinks they would be basicly angels that are going to be bringing the message of jesus with them.
True I have to give it to Craig for being the better orator.
Though I do disagree with the brunt of his argument.
I dont believe that 'nothing' can exist, or if that is even meaningful to say.
Just because we can point to where we know more or less the current state of the universe and its laws began, does not mean there was not another state of existance the caused or is the explaination for the universe as we see it.
still Why only call this explaination a personal god ?
I don't agree with anyone who says there is no God because of personal supernatural experiences with God that have happened to my friends and family. Time is running short and God is doing many out of the ordinary things in these last days. I opened up my mind to God and asked Him to reveal Himself to me and that, He sure did. People arguing about the existence God to each other is useless. What will be their argument when they stand face to face with Him? That is the question.
You do realize that is not an argument, it is a purely defensive apologetic and a defense that you do not accept when made my most of the worlds population that believe god has revealed conflicting personal experiences. And rightly so We shouldn't accept personal testimony uncritically, personal revelation is necessarily first person.
Its my position that any claims about god requiring us to believe a particular set of silly stories in order for us not to tortured forever, Are not from god.
'What will be their argument when they stand face to face with Him?'
the question we must first ask is Which god would that be and who can we know?
Why judge YHWH , Allah, or the fsm to be god, all are equaly unsuported by evidence.
Why assume a perfect deity would be so petty as to torture us for not calling it the right name. when it seems most people that have ever lived never even had the opportunity to love your particular god, What will you god say to them?
great video. I liked what the narrator said near the end. about the universe never needing a first cause. in ekpyrotic universe theory it says that colliding branes can trigger explosions similar to those in the big bang theory. So, in a way the universe causes itself to exist, or rather the laws of the universe causes other universes to exist. it's hard to explain in few words.
@HaleyMary; If a universe was to cause itself to exist, it would have to exist before it could cause itself to exist; so therefore your explanation of the universe is self-contradictory, and absurd.
In order to demonstrate that the universe 'began' to exist, and is therefore contingent, there needs to be a temporal frame WITHIN which the universe resides.
What Craig is doing here is the equivalent of saying that "since we have discovered the earth has a north pole, we can conclude that the earth must pointing 'northward' in space". In fact there is no such thing as 'northward' in space. but its quite easy to be deceived into thinking there is by these kinds of arguments.
Hufflewaffle 4 months ago
Does this second guy really believe that you can have an infinite regress? It surely has to stop somewhere otherwise , did the universe always exist?
Scientists have proven that the universe has a birth date
Rostos1978 1 year ago
@Rostos1978 " infinite regress? It surely has to stop somewhere'
No, not necessarily. But if it were the in that case you could say it (or something analogous) always existed .
Steven Hawking at the end of his famous "brief history of time' explain the infinite regress scenario very well.
If you have taken calculus it makes more sense, the universe and time could become asymptotic.
See also Divergence test for an infinite series.
Greathiway 11 months ago
My broader argument is that primary principles, whether they derive from neurobiology (eg. logic or mathematics) or culturally/creedally (theism, atheism, naturalism) all have a similarly profound and all-encompassing effect on our experience of the real world, operating, in effect, as first principles to perception itself, and thus to our idiosyncratic notions of what constitutes "evidence" or "truth."
If they are first principles to perception, they cannot be empirical or rational a priori.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 I still don't really know where you stand. Sometimes I think you're trying to be obtuse. Or maybe we are talking past each other. You seem to have the opinion that any two beliefs that can not be known with absolute certainty are equally valid. As if the most well established scientific fact is no more well founded than the daily horoscope. You also seem to hold the position that almost nothing can be known with absolute certainty. On the 2nd we agree on the 1st we don't.
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
"I still don't really know where you stand. Sometimes I think you're trying to be obtuse."
You're right to claim this, though I'm not trying to be deliberately difficult. Many of these ideas take time to settle, and in my experience, progressing too quickly often tends to provoke confusion and coping reactions. That applies even more so here given that this is not the ideal medium for philosophical discussions.
My advice at this stage would be to let things settle down, and revisit them later.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
I think a summary is needed:
My position is that we require a basis of absolute faith-based assumptions (primary principles) in order to be capable of structured thought. Primary principles, such as logic, cannot validate or refute their own axioms, nor that of other primary principles, such as theism.
Your position is that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. However, every argument you make based on deductive reasoning presupposes the principles of logic to be absolutely correct.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
What I'm suggesting to you indirectly is that, despite your claims otherwise, you are still thinking causally. The mind is incapable of thinking of considering a phenomenon in total acausal non-contextual isolation, and that applies on a per-modality basis (ie. a random temporal event requiring a temporal cause) and at a broader level.
In the example you gave, the notion of randomness, as nihilistic as it seems, is still used by the brain as a "cause".
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@estragon9
"The phrase, caused by randomness, has no meaning for me."
This isn't really about meaning, more about the language of the neurobiology of your brain, whose only "meaning" is to congruitise perception with precept.
"I do not hold strict cause and effect as? a self evident truth."
Sorry if I misunderstood your point. Would you be kind enough to expand on this statement?
"Our ideas about cause and effect come from our observations about the world."
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
So with that in mind do we accept scientific understanding as it is today, knowing that we are fallible, or do we wait, hoping that science can come up with an explanation that better suits our preconceived notion of what the world "must" be like?
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9
"or do we wait, hoping that science can come up with an explanation that better suits our preconceived notion of what the world "must" be like?"
Does the Agrippa trilemma not suggest that we need a system of precepts before we even begin to approach some method of critical thinking? You may be arguing against a universal causality here, but what about the axioms of logic and mathematics, and various other metaphysical doctrines you've presupposed to come to your own judgments?
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 Science then ends up as a system of rational generalization. We make observations, we build models, we test the models. If things click we accept that as progress. Newton observed an apple falling, created a general model that explained it. Used it in general to predict the period of the moon's orbit and got the right answer. That clicks. You put a key in the lock - it fits - you turn it and the door opens. But Newton was also wrong in a sense.
estragon9 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 Science makes assumptions. The laws of the universe are the same now as they were 1000 years ago, and will be in 1000 years. They are the same in all places. This is a working assumption, not a religious belief. If science finds compelling evidence to question this assumption it will be forced to change (though change is not easy). Religious beliefs are often not testable and are therefore different. Many times they are testable but adherents close their minds to the evidence
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9
"This is a working assumption, not a religious belief."
Yet functionally, they operate pretty much as doctrine.
"Working assumption" or faith-based principle - in terms of mechanics of subsequent critical thinking they are pretty much identical. The doctrine of naturalism and also, by extension, its closely related cousin, the doctrine of uniformitarianism, are as non-falsifiable as the "religious beliefs" you are attempting to distinguish them from.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 Uniformitarianism is most certainly falsifiable. If we get up tomorrow and no phones, TV, cars or candles don't work they way they worked the day before. If suddenly no scientific experiment could be reproduced. If labs suddenly get a radically different result every time they conduct a trial and the result is different then the results in the literature we would be forced to give up that notion. Compare to the notion "God is all powerful"
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9
"If we get up tomorrow and no phones, TV, cars or candles don't work they way they worked the day before."
Sorry but this is not a falsification of uniformitarianism.
The philosophical nuances of uniformitarianism are such that these discrepancies you describe would technically be in the sphere of contemporary observations, and thus would contribute to formalising current models of laws and processes.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 There is nothing nuanced about it. If we lived in a world of chaos with no order or uniformity, science would be useless. No experiment could be validated. In that kind of world science would be a religious belief. But that is not the world we live in. Your standards of logical proof or falsification are so high that they are of no practical value.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9
"Your standards of logical proof or falsification are so high that they are of no practical value."
I would disagree with this point in that, in your last post, you stumbled upon the very philosophical mechanic which renders uniformitarianism non-falsifiable. ie. the philosophical nature of contemporariness within the broader temporal context of uniformitarianism. These are points even acknowledged by the likes of Charles Lyell.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 "As stated before, the idea of self-evidence in causation is a tautology". Not sure I follow you. I never said or meant to imply that causation was self evident. In fact I thought that's what you were saying. I do not hold strict cause and effect as a self evident truth. Do you?
estragon9 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 Our ideas about cause and effect come from our observations about the world. They are not axioms. Perhaps some of the basic notions of explanation are axioms. But our specific ideas about cause and effect have become more nuanced as we make more detailed observations of phenomenon. Sorry to write a book on all this.
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@estragon9
Let me try and clarify this with another perspective.
Your claim is that we observe consequences to effects in the real world, and that our models of causation stem from those observations. My claim is that a primary belief in causation drives us to perceive real world mechanics such that perceptual information is ordered in a cause-and-effect profile; and that there is no secularly derived test to confirm if these tendencies accurately represent the mechanisms of the real world.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@estragon9
Yet another perspective on this:
When observing causal relationships, what is the nature and origin of our tendency to order two or more pieces of perceptual information into hierarchical/causal relationships? What alternative modes of perception are there?
When observing random photon emissions are you really observing acausal phenomena? In terms of the language of perception, you actually observe emissions caused by "randomness." Your very paradigms mandate this association.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 The phrase, caused by randomness, has no meaning for me. Sometimes we observe events that occur at random. They occur with central tendency and a distribution that are governed by circumstance. We do not observe a temporal sequence of "this happened and then that followed". There is an absence of an initiating event. Frequently we do observe an initiating event (a cause) followed by an effect. But the effect has an unexplained (uncaused) variation.
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@estragon9
"Our ideas about cause and effect come from our observations about the world"
The idea of self-evidence in causation is a tautology. Primary principles operate primary to experience which in turn determines evidence. To thus argue that these principles are empirically supported is circular reasoning.
I understand your position having long held it as a default view prior to study. These aren't trivial ideas, and take months, for some, even years, of introspection to appreciate.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 If causation is not self evident (as I maintain) and causation can not be supported by observation than how can it be supported?
When we started this conversation I thought you were saying causation was self evident. (but meaningful, not a tautology) Now I take it you are claiming that the idea of causation can not be rationally supported.
Is belief in causation rational?
estragon9 1 year ago
"Is belief in causation rational?" "how can it be supported?"
For me it was a profound realisation that, as humans, we operate on many such non-empirical primary assumptions at a deep creedal level; moreover, that our cognitive processes demand such absolutistic assumptions before we even begin to think critically.
As faith-based principles, they cannot be rational. This is evident in the paradox that, in order to think rationally, you need to presuppose the precepts of logic on a faith basis.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 Dude, you're going to have to dumb it down a little for me. I find some of your comments impenetrable. Let's start over. My position is that belief in cause and effect is rational. But I also maintain that some aspects of the world are random. Before you tell me why I'm wrong, tell me what you believe.
Would you say a belief in cause and effect is rational? Please start with yes or no, then you can add as much as you like.
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@estragon9
No. The principle of causality is irrational because it is a faith-based primary assumption which is rooted in our biology.
We have a tendency which makes us incapable of considering a stimulus, perception or concept without an association. This "cognitive association" is deeply neurobiological in origin. It is hierarchical in nature, ie. it mandates that we see derivations, origins, causes. We are fundamentally incapable of considerations outside of a context, comparison or cause.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 I'm willing to consider the notion that things happen with out a cause.
estragon9 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 Does this mean that a belief in blue fairies is the same as a belief in gravity?. That's silly. Gravity is demonstrable. Newtonian gravity may not be exactly correct but gravity whatever it is can be demonstrated by people all around the world as many times as we care to try. Blue fairies can not be demonstrated to be anything but fantasy.
estragon9 1 year ago
That's an interesting point about computers and blue fairies.
I've read psychiatric case reports of intelligent, productive people who hold very strong atypical primary beliefs (ie. delusions), who seem to operate in an ostensibly systematic, or even logical, perception of an atypical reality which coherently and consistently validates their primary beliefs. There is something pervasive and powerful about the nature of our creedal system and the manner in which it influences perception.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
Respond to this video...If you would like to make a computer (we both appreciate computers because that's how we are talking) you have to have a coherent model of physics. Those who believe blue fairies make computers work will not be able to design and manufacture a working one.
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
Don't get me wrong here, because I do believe that certain primary beliefs have greater validity than others, and that there is an overarching truth. All I wished to demonstrate were that the secular methods of problem-solving cannot provide a mode of discernment to distinguish between defective and valid primary beliefs.
We've so far barely touched the surface of a vast area of epistemology which, very literally, approaches the boundaries of where our minds can take us.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 I assume by secular methods you mean reason, logic and the consideration of empirical evidence. As I said before we agree that, neither logic, reason nor experience can provide absolute truth. That does not demonstrate, as you wished, that logic, reason, and evidence can not distinguish between plausible ideas and utter nonsense. Epistemology is a rich and interesting subject. Insisting on absolute knowledge is pointless.
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@estragon9
"That does not demonstrate, as you wished, that logic, reason, and evidence can not distinguish between plausible ideas and utter nonsense."
These precepts are not capable of validating themselves. How do you propose that they are capable of validating other primary principles?
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 Epistemology is used to understand how we distinguish between justified belief and opinion (or faith). If you apply epistemology in an extreme way and conclude that nothing is justified (even epistemology) you may. However, if you do that the conversation can go nowhere. It's back to the weather again.
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 There is a boundary between what we can absolutely know and what we can know with uncertainty. This boundary lies very close nothing. That is, there is little to nothing we can know absolutely. Its a big mistake to believe that everything on the uncertainty side of boundary is equally uncertain. Uncertainty can often be quantified and compared, while some beliefs do not even pretend to offer any support in logic or evidence.
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
"conclude that nothing is justified"
My opinion was that our reliance on absolutes raises interesting philosophical and metaphysical considerations, a pathway I've not yet elaborated on. I have never stated that such dependencies render everything meaningless.
Have you noted how, to consider an opinion and articulate it in words, you've already subjected yourself to a system of absolute precepts? You've used primary faith-based precepts to undermine the validity of those same precepts.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@estragon9
Our perception is pervaded by this neurobiological mandate to seek associations, and thus, to seek derivations and causes. It is impossible to prove that the nature of these perceived associations are truly representative of mechanics within the real world. Therefore, a secularist must assume, as a matter of faith, that these tendencies are representative, if he is to apply critical thought within a scientific context.
My position is that we are obligate absolutists/doctrinalists.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 "absolutists"
By this standard nothing can be proven. Logic can prove nothing because it has no foundation other than logic itself. . Only logic can be used to support logic. That's circular an invalid. The last statement is ironic because it is using logic to show that logic is unreliable. Therefore I can't even make a non-contradictory statement including this one. So I think we agree, as I have said before. No knowledge is absolute.
estragon9 1 year ago
Respond to this video... This Nihilism if I understand the term. It's seems any conversation around it should last about 10 seconds. It goes like this. Our senses are unreliable, logic is unreliable, our feelings are unreliable, any hardwiring of the brain is unreliable, therefore we can know nothing or be certain of anything. Everyone agrees, the conversation ends and you talk about the weather.
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 Arguing for causation based on observation is not circular. It is inductive. If we have observed an effect followed by a cause a 100 times do we have a rational reason to believe it will happen on the 101st time? No, not based on strict logic. Do we have a rational reason it will not happen. No, not in any sense. Would you think it rational to stick your head in front of a 2 ton pendulum because induction cannot be rationally argued?
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
The principles of causality, logic and mathematics are interesting in that, culturally, they have remained historically uniform with only minor variations, whereas there have been wide variations in uptake of other precepts.
My belief is that these tendencies derive from neurobiology. Causality/logic has similarities to neurologic processes that posit association of concepts/perceptions by hierarchical juxtaposition or by fusion. ie. a system seemingly designed to seek causal patterns.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
"a world of chaos with no order or uniformity ... that is not the world we live in." "causation based on observation is not circular"
It is circular reasoning if a system of precepts mandates that higher perception of real world phenomena follow specific predetermined patterns. If we are creedally, or even neurobiologically, driven to seek patterns in perception and cognition, how sure are we that these tendencies accurately reflect the real world?
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@estragon9
To "accept scientific understanding as it is today" even on the assumption that we know nothing as a baseline, requires a foundation of such non-empirical faith-based assumptions.
If such primary principles are non-empirical, and, in fact, unilaterally determine the very standards of evidence, then what rationale dictates the choice of theism over atheism, or vice-versa; or choice of logic, mathematics, causality, uniformitarianism or naturalism?
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 Agrippa's Trilemma is a great summary of the problem. Thanks for clueing me in to it. I've given it a lot of thought since we last spoke. Agrippa points out that none of the 3 alternatives is completely satisfactory but most would say an axiomatic approach is at least of use. I would agree with that and would add that it can be applied with some level of certainly but not absolute certainty. Axiomatic systems can be effectively applied to symbolic logic and mathematics.
estragon9 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 Axiomatic systems have their limits though even in pure logic and mathematics. Bertrand Russell and his contemporaries showed this but I have to acknowledge that I can only parrot back what they say right now. I am trying to learn and understand these limits. Tarski, Popper, Godel.
Russell and Bronowski have tried to put things back into some sort of working order but again we have to settle for a less than consistent system of logic.
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
I didn't agree with either of these guys. I think the premise fails. The causes science observe are those of transformation not creation from nothing. Craig uses equivocation. Furthermore we do not observe a cause for every effect. We can't attribute a cause to the location of any given photon hitting a screen placed in front of a slit for example. Why do we believe everything has a cause?
estragon9 1 year ago
"We can't attribute a cause to the location of any given photon hitting a screen placed in front of a slit for example."
I think this is less about the validity of the principle of causality, and more to do with uncertainty of the precise mechanics of causation in a specific situation where scientific understanding is limited.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41. I used to think that too, but to maintain that position you have to reject Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. I think Einstein rejected it, but it has become a well established concept in modern physics. Quantum mechanics has been confirmed in many experiments. It does not state that we simply lack understanding of the underlying mechanism but rather that uncertainty is built into the fabric of nature itself.
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@estragon9
Those are some interesting points, and I agree that observations in quantum physics are motivating us to reassess certain derivative precepts in logic, but I think you're still fixated on the mechanics of causation rather than looking into the broader principle of causality.
The natural laws, whether they be quantum or classical, with or without "intrinsic" uncertainties in terms of our observations, still constitute causal mechanisms.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
"The causes science observe are those of transformation not creation from nothing."
To argue semantics in terms of the core of your argument here, the theistic premise of a primary cause to the universe is not technically a "creation from nothing" because God is the source of the creation. A true analogy with a "creation from nothing" would be the universe existing as a primary cause unto itself, which would be a logical fallacy and a breach of the principle of causality.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 I am focused on the mechanics of causation because of the current trend of using scientific observations to support philosophical arguments. Observations of cause in the physical world are specific cases of general causation. They can not legitimately be used to support the idea of God creating the universe.
estragon9 1 year ago
With regard to uncertainty: We not only make observations of reality that are imprecise and uncertain, we make observations of random phenomena. The emission of a proton from a potassium atom is a random event. We can assign no cause. The idea of cause arises from common experience and habit of thinking, but it is not absolute. The strict notion of causation can not be logically defended. It is usually just accepted without justification.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9
I think you'll understand my point if you appreciate a broader understanding of causation. The "table" example of causation given in the later part of this video is a good example, which illustrates Aristotle's observations of cause comprising material, formal, efficient and teleological components.
The same can be applied to your example. Although no cause can be attributed to the precise time of emission, there are many more components to this mechanic than the temporal aspect.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 I understand that there is a broader context of the notion of causation. A better word though would be explanation. And I am not asserting that radioactive decay has no explanation, I think it does. I am giving an example of an observed event that has no observed cause. I'll grant it should be more specific. Photon emission is a temporal event in which no temporal cause is observed. Aristotle and Newton would have been troubled by this because it undermines a central axiom.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9
"The idea of cause arises from common experience and habit of thinking, but it is not absolute."
I agree with your point here, though in a slightly different perspective. The principle of causality is an axiom which underlies much of critical thinking, forming the core of the very paradigms with which we interpret phenomena. You're right to say it's unproven, because in a very real sense, people use it as a primary basis to validate evidence in the first instance.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 I agree that cause is considered an axiom and scientists get uncomfortable when it's questioned. "God doesn't throw dice" was roughly Einstein's comment. Bohr's reply was "Stop telling God what to do".
I think the search for a cause to any effect very much drives science. (at least curiosity about the explanation does). Let's look at an example of how cause and effect is used, as you say, to validate evidence. What are you thinking there?
estragon9 1 year ago
I alluded to the idea earlier that I don't believe quantum level observations to be acausal, and that limited understanding prevents deterministic explanations on a comprehensive per-modality basis.
The fact that these seemingly random observations are "walled in" by causally robust mechanisms, and that determinism may be "recovered" through simple changes in paradigm (eg. wave function as true reality) suggest, teasingly, of an Occam's razor solution to address these discrepancies.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 I understand that position but I don't' hold it to be true. I describe your belief as universal determinism (made famous by Laplace). It means you must necessarily reject Heisenberg and the probability interpretation of the electron wave function. If those are not true it creates a large gaps in our understanding of the atom. Do I understand your position correctly?
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
"It means you must necessarily reject Heisenberg and the probability interpretation of the electron wave function."
I don't necessarily reject these models. They are accurate to whatever observations can be made within current paradigms. My opinion was that the paradigms themselves need to be reassessed, maybe even at a root level, before a comprehensively deterministic model for quantum physics can be formulated.
But I would agree that this is highly speculative, fanciful, some may argue.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 Or possibly what needs to change is our understanding of cause and effect. Perhaps universal determinism not tenable. What we hold as axiomatic could be false. By and large science has ignored the fact that logic has undermined it's foundations. It relies on induction which can not be logically supported. Nevertheless, we have cell phones and satellites. The practical application of reason over absolute proof.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9
"Perhaps universal determinism not tenable."
I'm not entirely discounting the notion.
My reason for proposing that we adhere to universal causality stems from the ideas I've stated earlier: That observed uncertainties in quantum physics seem to operate in isolation within a framework of clearly deterministic mechanisms, and that simple changes in paradigm can abrogate observed uncertainties.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 fascinating discussion, I've learned something from it. Its my belief (I have to use that word) that the causal relationships we see in at the macroscopic level are not isolated from the random processes of the micro world but rather they arise from it. If you heat one end of an iron rod it will cause the temperature at the other to rise. The random motion of atoms at the hot end causes them to bang into adjacent atoms transferring the heat. Can't explain in 500 chars.
estragon9 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 I wanted to add that if you believe that there is an underlying deterministic mechanism that would explain electron behavior then you reject the uncertainty principle. It maintains that the exact position of the electron CAN NOT be known if we have any information regarding its momentum. If does not claim to be an approximation. I think you do necessarily reject it.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9
"I think you do necessarily reject it."
Though you're claiming duplicity, or maybe ambivalence, on this issue, I would still argue otherwise. My reasoning for this is that, in many instances, it is helpful to have two functional paradigms in concurrence. Newtonian physics, for example, provides practical solutions to problems within certain parameters, whereas the theories of relativity allow us to address cosmologic problems at an altogether different level.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 We can apply Newton's laws with the knowledge that they only work under special circumstances. (to put a man on the moon, but not to explain the orbit of mercury). Einstein's laws are more generally true but harder to apply. (And Einstein will one day be shown to be not completely true in general). Newton is a special case of Einstein. Heisenberg is not a special case of determinism. When can remain open, but one day we will have to choose.
estragon9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@estragon9
"Heisenberg is not a special case of determinism."
That's the beauty of the all-encompassing nature of paradigms. We have no idea how the Heisenberg principle will shine under a new analytical light.
If there is indeed a fully causal model/paradigm for quantum physics, we have no idea what form it will take, and whether or not a derivative form of the Heisenberg equation will be incorporated as part of that theory.
Speculative arguments either way, though.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@estragon9
"how cause and effect is used, as you say, to validate evidence"
This pertains to the notion of foundationalism and the philosophical problem of Munchhausen's trilemma. That we need a framework of primary principles as a core standard before we even begin to conceive of notions such as proof or evidence. As these precepts formalise the very standards of evidence, to then use evidence to validate these principles is logical fallacy by circular reasoning.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 You're way over my head on this one. I''l have to read up. I will say now that these precepts must somehow be consistent with our experience. Why do we assert that an event must be caused? The foundations of our logic must arise in part from our experience.
estragon9 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41 Ok Munchhausen's trilemma is not as mind boggling I thought. The answer is easy. We can't prove things in science. We can not meet the standard of proof held in foundationalism. Science does not give us absolute truth, absolute certainty or absolute knowledge. We have to settle for second best: We observe order, we seek to create a predictive model, and we strive to craft the most rational and consistent model we can. We then test our model empirically to see if it holds.
estragon9 1 year ago
@estragon9
"The foundations of our logic must arise in part from our experience."
This is what I used to think, but apparently not. Logical axioms, certain mathematical axioms, and the principles of causality, don't actually seem to derive empirically in any sense but seem to operate as primary precepts. They form the fabric of higher perception and decision making, making them primary to our experience of the world, and the validation of our notions such as evidence, reality and truth.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
@Calenfeyn41
If such axioms were indeed empirical, they would not be axioms.
Some refer to the notion of "self-evidence": The notion that a concept is so obvious, so simple and fundamental that no alternative need be considered - hardly a scientific or a philosophical explanation. The truth is, there is vast existential scope for alternative mechanisms of logic and mathematics, and no real evidence to suggest that our current tendencies accurately reflect the true mechanics of the universe.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
"Science does not give us absolute truth"
Foundationalism refers to proof, and that ultimately we need to fall back to absolutes.
Its deeper implications are that the human mind cannot operate at all without an absolutistic base. ie. a presupposed set of absolute standards, critical in formalising "lower" perception as "higher" perception and eventually decision-making. There are a panoply of such faith-based presuppositions in the typical mind, the majority of which we are not even aware of.
Calenfeyn41 1 year ago
google Doe's Account
4Wammer 1 year ago
@4Wammer So evidence of an afterlife with people in it has been discovered by the LHC but for some reason their is not any record in any science journal about this discovery.
I might first believe the Earth quakes and zombies in Matthew yet not even the other gospels made an account of this event.
gusb232 1 year ago
I believe G-d created the world, just how He said He did.
I don't think there's life on other planets, because i bet G-d just created the rest of the stars and planets in the universe just for "decoration".
I mean... wouldn't you feel bored under a big blank sky?
Plus, the stars and planets are shouting out, "Give glory to the Creator! Give glory to the Creator!"
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Dont you think maybe g-d was would also get borded with just life on one planet.
Just last summer nasa discovered amnio acids on an interstellar comet.
I dont think finding the first exobiotic life during our life time is out of reach if it exists.
Certainly its a possiblity, that would make your conjecture about what kind of 'decoration' g-od likes ; even more silly.
gusb232 2 years ago
@gusb232
As far as we know, the G-d told us ahead of time, "Eve is the mother of all living."
Perhaps made A LOT, A LOT, & A LOT of stars, planets & galaxies not only because His love for us is indescribable, but also that we should give glory to Him.
I don't think "wouldn't G-d get bored with just one planet", does that assume that there is no G-d, or your thinking is higher than G-d's?
I do not say things like "G-d is G-d - deal with it" - I would say you ought to do a bit more studying.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
'I don't think "wouldn't G-d get bored with just one planet", does that assume that there is no G-d, or your thinking is higher than G-d's?"
NO, Im Saying by using your concept of g-d ( not sure which god that is) That we might equaly expect g-d to become bored with on type of decoration over another
'G-d is G-d' would be a true statement this says nothing about what G-d is, or if this G-d exists I guess you think YHWH is G-d?
Still not sure why you say G-d and not god?
gusb232 2 years ago
@gusb232; Within Jewish tradition it is not accepted to say 'God'. It is expected that one not say His name at all, to refrain from saying it in vain, or writing it in vain for this matter; so therefore, the Jews say 'G-d', and not 'God'.
dimic 2 years ago
@dimic , But G-d's name is not God, is it.
IN the bible YHWH and the people in it refer to other gods, so this word is a generic term for any deity.
gusb232 2 years ago
@gusb232; If God did create life on other planets, it wouldn't deter Christian beliefs, or belief in a God of Deistic nature at all. Considering Christianity doesn't specifically say there is "no life" on other planets, so therefore it wouldn't damage the belief systems of intelligent Christians.
dimic 2 years ago
@dimic Right, It dont think life on other planets is as detrimental to christianity as many people think. Most becuase since Aliens wouldnt be humans it would be much easier to say they didnt have souls in need of salvation or have souls at all.
gusb232 2 years ago
@dimic ON a side note, My mother is a christian, and she believes in ET life, but she thinks they would be basicly angels that are going to be bringing the message of jesus with them.
gusb232 2 years ago
That 2nd guy they interviewed moves his hands around way too much. Very goofy fellow.
AsTheDaysOfNoahWere 2 years ago
True I have to give it to Craig for being the better orator.
Though I do disagree with the brunt of his argument.
I dont believe that 'nothing' can exist, or if that is even meaningful to say.
Just because we can point to where we know more or less the current state of the universe and its laws began, does not mean there was not another state of existance the caused or is the explaination for the universe as we see it.
still Why only call this explaination a personal god ?
gusb232 2 years ago
I don't agree with anyone who says there is no God because of personal supernatural experiences with God that have happened to my friends and family. Time is running short and God is doing many out of the ordinary things in these last days. I opened up my mind to God and asked Him to reveal Himself to me and that, He sure did. People arguing about the existence God to each other is useless. What will be their argument when they stand face to face with Him? That is the question.
AsTheDaysOfNoahWere 2 years ago
You do realize that is not an argument, it is a purely defensive apologetic and a defense that you do not accept when made my most of the worlds population that believe god has revealed conflicting personal experiences. And rightly so We shouldn't accept personal testimony uncritically, personal revelation is necessarily first person.
Its my position that any claims about god requiring us to believe a particular set of silly stories in order for us not to tortured forever, Are not from god.
gusb232 2 years ago
'What will be their argument when they stand face to face with Him?'
the question we must first ask is Which god would that be and who can we know?
Why judge YHWH , Allah, or the fsm to be god, all are equaly unsuported by evidence.
Why assume a perfect deity would be so petty as to torture us for not calling it the right name. when it seems most people that have ever lived never even had the opportunity to love your particular god, What will you god say to them?
gusb232 2 years ago
great video. I liked what the narrator said near the end. about the universe never needing a first cause. in ekpyrotic universe theory it says that colliding branes can trigger explosions similar to those in the big bang theory. So, in a way the universe causes itself to exist, or rather the laws of the universe causes other universes to exist. it's hard to explain in few words.
HaleyMary 2 years ago
@HaleyMary; If a universe was to cause itself to exist, it would have to exist before it could cause itself to exist; so therefore your explanation of the universe is self-contradictory, and absurd.
dimic 2 years ago
@dimic " it would have to exist before it could cause itself to exist"
NO Somthing may have had to exist 'before' ( if before is even a viable term when we are talking about the nature of time and causality)
But We this would not be the universe as we we know it.
Also Im not sure it even makes sense to say nothing can exist.
Sure there may be noncontingent things that led to our universe but claiming to know what these things are, is a streach.
gusb232 2 years ago