what does the board think of the Kalam or Leibnizian cosmological arguments?

mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
what does the board think of the Kalam or Leibnizian cosmological arguments?

I have searched the website for articles in response to the Kalam, Leibnizian, or even Thomist cosmological arguments, but I haven't found any. So I will ask you guys, how would you guys respond to these 2 arguments for the existence of God?

Kalam argument:

A: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its beginning to exist

B: The Universe began to exist

Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause.

Leibnizian argument:

A: Whatever exists has an explanation for its existence, either by an external explanation or by the necessity of its own nature

B: If the universe exists, then its explanation is God

C: The Universe exists

Therefore God exists.

The reason that these give evidence for God is because whatever caused the universe (let's remember that this term can be interchangeably used with "Temporal existence" or "temporality) cannot exist spatially or temporally. There are 3 lines of evidence that the cause is therefore God

1: Richard Swinburne points out that there are 2 types of causal explanations, personal and scientific. Since something which exists atemporally and non-spatially is out of the realm of science, it therefore follows by induction that the cause of the universe is a personal cause

2: If the necessary and sufficient preconditions for the cause of the universe are timeless, then it follows that the effect of this cause would be timeless. But we know that whatever caused the universe' beginning did so a finite amount of time ago. The only way to escape this dilemma would be to posit that a conscious free agent chose to cause the universe

3: Finally, There are only 2 objects which can possibly exist timelessly and non-spatially and they are disembodied minds and abstract objects (like numbers). Since abstract objects cannot cause anything, it therefore follows by induction that the cause of the universe is a disembodied mind.

 

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
In what way are these two

In what way are these two arguments different from the general cosmological argument? The first merely states that all creations exist because of a creator, yet amazingly enough posits the ultimate creator doesn't require one.

The second completely skips over part of the second premise. The example of an external explanantion (god) but the nessecity of the universe existing of it's own nature is completely ignored.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
They are retarded. David

They are retarded. David Mills refuted the Kalam argument greatly in the latest edition of Atheist Universe. Basically unlike the Cosmological it begs the question twice instead of once. The Swinburne one gives no evidence disembodied minds can possibly exist.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:They are

MOD EDIT:

 

Oh noes!

 

Your post was so void of content it imploded, dude!

 

 

Spam and antagonization are against the forum rules, chuck. Keep it up and you'll likely find yourself shown to the door.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Wrong

mig_killer2 wrote:
I have searched the website for articles in response to the Kalam, Leibnizian, or even Thomist cosmological arguments, but I haven't found any. So I will ask you guys, how would you guys respond to these 2 arguments for the existence of God?

They are retarded.

mig_killer2 wrote:

Kalam argument:

A: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its beginning to exist

B: The Universe began to exist

Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause.


Congratulations, your point? You have logically proven that the universe has a cause, I don't see how that cause has to be or is even hinted at being God. This might not even be true. You now need to prove that the universe began to exist and didn't simply transition into its current form from some other form in which the physical laws are different.

mig_killer2 wrote:

Leibnizian argument:

A: Whatever exists has an explanation for its existence, either by an external explanation or by the necessity of its own nature

B: If the universe exists, then its explanation is God

C: The Universe exists

Therefore God exists.


Point B offers no explanation for itself at all. If it were true, then point C would be a correct response to point B. You are missing a few conditions, once you have them you will have a complete argument. Until then, quit wasting our time.

mig_killer2 wrote:

The reason that these give evidence for God is because whatever caused the universe (let's remember that this term can be interchangeably used with "Temporal existence" or "temporality) cannot exist spatially or temporally. There are 3 lines of evidence that the cause is therefore God

Or it could exist somewhere that has a different set of Physical Laws or sense of Space and Time.

mig_killer2 wrote:

1: Richard Swinburne points out that there are 2 types of causal explanations, personal and scientific. Since something which exists atemporally and non-spatially is out of the realm of science, it therefore follows by induction that the cause of the universe is a personal cause

Really, why is it outside of the realm of science? Perhaps it is just ouside our current understanding, over the horizon as it were. Prove we will never be able to study the existence that may be external to the universe.

mig_killer2 wrote:

2: If the necessary and sufficient preconditions for the cause of the universe are timeless, then it follows that the effect of this cause would be timeless. But we know that whatever caused the universe' beginning did so a finite amount of time ago. The only way to escape this dilemma would be to posit that a conscious free agent chose to cause the universe

Why? Why does it have to be conscious? Why can it not be a non-conscious force or dimension that has a different sense of time?

mig_killer2 wrote:

3: Finally, There are only 2 objects which can possibly exist timelessly and non-spatially and they are disembodied minds and abstract objects (like numbers). Since abstract objects cannot cause anything, it therefore follows by induction that the cause of the universe is a disembodied mind.

Prove that those are the only two timeless and non-spatial entities.
Prove that disembodied minds exist
Prove that abstract objects cannot cause anything
Prove that the above hold true not only in our universe but all of the possible existences that may exist beyond our universe.
Alternatively, prove that it holds true to the existence that does exist beyond our universe. This will of course require that you prove the existence of the existence beyond our universe.

Seriously. This is essentially the fifth time I have said this recently. Your inane problems with the birth of the universe only exist if you hold to the old sense of time as a linear progression from past to future instead of a dimension of this existence just like length and mass. Why is it so hard for you idiots to understand this point?

And also, as has been said, explain why I cannot use these arguments on your fancy pants god.

chuckg6261982 wrote:
I have to give you credit. If I had a face like yours, I would NEVER have posted on my avatar for the world to see.

You are one of the ugliest people I have ever seen.


Trolling, how quaint. Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion or are you simply going to try and distract us from the other idiot's clearly retarded arguments?

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius

Sinphanius wrote:
Congratulations, your point? You have logically proven that the universe has a cause, I don't see how that cause has to be or is even hinted at being God. This might not even be true. You now need to prove that the universe began to exist and didn't simply transition into its current form from some other form in which the physical laws are different.

How is the belief that "the universe began to exist and simply transitioned into its current form from some other form in which the physical laws are different" anymore scientific than the belief that the universe was created by an intelligent being? 
 

 

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Why couldn't the universe

Why couldn't the universe have always existed but only been in it's current form since the big bang? I'll ignore your asshat trolling comments for now.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Why

MOD EDIT:

Your post ASPLODE!

 

chuck, you need to review the rules.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
OK you're just an asshat

OK you're just an asshat troll. I rejected the idea of a god when I realized it made no sense. The burden of proof is on the theist to prove a god exists. Even if you could prove it was created by "an intelligent being" why couldn't it have been Thor or Vishnu rather than Jehovah?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982

chuckg6261982 wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Why couldn't the universe have always existed but only been in it's current form since the big bang? I'll ignore your asshat trolling comments for now.

Why couldn't the universe have been created by an intelligent being?

You rejected God when you looked in the mirror and realized that you have the appearance of a baboon.

Because you can't intelligently define such a being?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
SinphaniusThey are retarded.

Sinphanius wrote:
They are retarded.

I dont think they would have recieved so much attention if they were truly retarded.

Sinphanius wrote:
Congratulations, your point? You have logically proven that the universe has a cause, I don't see how that cause has to be or is even hinted at being God.

I actually develop this one below.

Sinphanius wrote:
This might not even be true. You now need to prove that the universe began to exist

The notion of an infinite temporal past is mathematically impossible.

Sinphanius wrote:
and didn't simply transition into its current form from some other form in which the physical laws are different.

the statement "whatever begins to exist has a cause" is simply a reaffirmation of the first principle of metaphysics. to deny this simple premise is worse than magic.

Sinphanius wrote:
Point B offers no explanation for itself at all.

Correct, but I develop this further below.

Sinphanius wrote:
If it were true, then point C would be a correct response to point B. You are missing a few conditions, once you have them you will have a complete argument. Until then, quit wasting our time.

once again I developed this argument below.

Sinphanius wrote:
Or it could exist somewhere that has a different set of Physical Laws or sense of Space and Time.

This is nothing more than begging the question. but the statement "something cannot exist temporally or spatially outside of the spacetime continuum" is about as true as "all bachelors are not married"

Sinphanius wrote:
Really, why is it outside of the realm of science? Perhaps it is just ouside our current understanding, over the horizon as it were.

actually it is by definition outside hte realm of science. Science cannot deal with anything that is atemporal, non-spatial, and unobservable. Something which is atemporal and non-spatial is certainly unobservable.  

Sinphanius wrote:
Prove we will never be able to study the existence that may be external to the universe.

Simple, that which is outside of temporal existence is unobservable. it is outside the jurisdiction of science really.

Sinphanius wrote:
Why? Why does it have to be conscious? Why can it not be a non-conscious force or dimension that has a different sense of time?

there is no "different sense of time" outside of time. furthermore, the reason is must be conscious is because the necessary and sufficient conditions for causing the universe are timeless. If this were so, it follows that the effect would be timeless. but we know that whatever caused the universe did so a finite amount of time ago.

Sinphanius wrote:
Prove that those are the only two timeless and non-spatial entities.

to say that there are other timeless and non-spatial entities which could have caused the universe is begging the question and essentially falsifies metaphysical naturalism. furthermore I would go on and suggest that anything besides those things is simply logically incoherent.

Sinphanius wrote:
Prove that disembodied minds exist

The Kalam and Leibnizian arguments do not assume that disembodied minds exist, but merely prove that they exist.

Sinphanius wrote:
Prove that abstract objects cannot cause anything

Numbers, laws of logic, equations etc. dont cause anything.

Sinphanius wrote:
Prove that the above hold true not only in our universe but all of the possible existences that may exist beyond our universe.

that argument is simply a red herring which does not escape the vicious infinite regress which is necessary to preserve metaphysical naturalism. Furthermore, if the many-worlds hypothesis is true then we should observe either a smaller universe or one with more entropy.

Sinphanius wrote:
Alternatively, prove that it holds true to the existence that does exist beyond our universe.

This is just begging the question to assert the possibility of this.

Sinphanius wrote:
This will of course require that you prove the existence of the existence beyond our universe.

it would necessitate no such thing.

Sinphanius wrote:
Seriously. This is essentially the fifth time I have said this recently. Your inane problems with the birth of the universe only exist if you hold to the old sense of time as a linear progression from past to future instead of a dimension of this existence just like length and mass.

The B-theory of time is bankrupt in that it denies a properly basic belief. I doubt that you have any epistemic grounds for embracing b-theory.

Sinphanius wrote:
Why is it so hard for you idiots to understand this point?

Because tense is a properly basic belief.

Sinphanius wrote:
And also, as has been said, explain why I cannot use these arguments on your fancy pants god.

what?

Sinphanius wrote:
Trolling, how quaint. Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion or are you simply going to try and distract us from the other idiot's clearly retarded arguments?
well to be fair, Mattshizzle is ugly as hell. I certainly would hate God if he made me THAT ugly.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


Luckhuda
Luckhuda's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982

chuckg6261982 wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:
Congratulations, your point? You have logically proven that the universe has a cause, I don't see how that cause has to be or is even hinted at being God. This might not even be true. You now need to prove that the universe began to exist and didn't simply transition into its current form from some other form in which the physical laws are different.

How is the belief that "the universe began to exist and simply transitioned into its current form from some other form in which the physical laws are different" anymore scientific than the belief that the universe was created by an intelligent being? 

He was merely pointing out that there is a burden of proof - i.e you make the positive claim (god did it) - so prove it to us, or at the very least point out why the alternatives aren't still in play

 

He was one of those men who think that the world can be saved by writing a pamphlet. - Benjamin Disraeli


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Hasn't mig also been an

Hasn't mig also been an asshat troll since he's been here?


chuckg6261982
TheistTroll
Posts: 78
Joined: 2008-11-29
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:OK you're

MOD EDIT:

 

Kaboom!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:I have

mig_killer2 wrote:

I have searched the website for articles in response to the Kalam, Leibnizian, or even Thomist cosmological arguments, but I haven't found any. So I will ask you guys, how would you guys respond to these 2 arguments for the existence of God?

Kalam argument:

A: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its beginning to exist

B: The Universe began to exist

Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause.

The only physical referent which strictly raises the question of 'beginning to exist' is matter/energy.

Everything else we perceive as a physical entity is formed by re-arrangement of pre-existing matter-energy, so the question there is the different one of why does matter-energy change physical state and position?

Quantum experiments strongly suggest that physical events involving differences of energy state of around the Planck scale are unpredictable beyond the statement of a precise probability of occurrence within any specified time-period - raising the question of just what 'causes' them to occur at the particular time they do?

What 'causes' an nucleus of Uranium-238 to change into a nucleus of Thorium-234 and a nucleus of Helium-4, with a probability of 50%, at some arbitrary time within the next 4.468 billion years?

The 'cause' of the 'Big Bang' need logically be no more that such a cause.

The only class of physical 'entity' which has been indirectly inferred to begin to exist in the strict sense, as distinct from forming out of a redistribution of existing matter, are the proposed temporary virtual particle pairs which are hypothesised to permeate space.

Whether the Big Bang was the outcome of some interaction of stuff in some 'metaverse' is the subject of debate in Cosmology. As is whether it is even meaningful to think of time in our current context before the Big Bang, especially if it was a 'true' singularity.

All that stuff was to make it clear that the concepts attached to propositions A and B are way too simplistic in terms of modern understanding of reality, so the conclusion doesn't really represent actual useful knowledge. It may or may not be true, in some sense. Certainly this argument in itself is at best a trivial tautology.

Quote:

Leibnizian argument:

A: Whatever exists has an explanation for its existence, either by an external explanation or by the necessity of its own nature

B: If the universe exists, then its explanation is God

C: The Universe exists

Therefore God exists.

A just restates in a slightly different form, the first proposition of the previous one, apart from the incoherent concept of something "necessarily" existing because of what it is.

B Is a simple non-sequitur, or else simply defines the word "God" as a label applied to "whatever caused the Universe to come to exist", which makes the conclusion a circular argument.

Quote:

The reason that these give evidence for God is because whatever caused the universe (let's remember that this term can be interchangeably used with "Temporal existence" or "temporality) cannot exist spatially or temporally. There are 3 lines of evidence that the cause is therefore God

1: Richard Swinburne points out that there are 2 types of causal explanations, personal and scientific. Since something which exists atemporally and non-spatially is out of the realm of science, it therefore follows by induction that the cause of the universe is a personal cause

Unjustified assertions. 'Personal' causes are actions triggered by a sequence of mental events in a mind, which is a process manifested by the collective effect of the interactions of many billions of cells in a brain, so could in principle at least, be traced back to large number of individual neuronal interactions, with such actions being also affected by current sensory data coming in, and the effect of stored patterns in memory being 'read out' (recalled), etc. So in effect when a conscious decision affects a sequence of events, the ultimate cause becomes diffused through the entire life history and space of experience of the individuals involved.

Other events which appear to be the very direct result of a chain of clearly identifiable, simple physical interactions are much easier to see as 'scientific', but there is no solid justification for assuming that at the most fine-grained level there is any thing other than physical interactions involved, the difference being in the pattern of interactions involved, which is very, very different in the two cases.

Quote:

2: If the necessary and sufficient preconditions for the cause of the universe are timeless, then it follows that the effect of this cause would be timeless. But we know that whatever caused the universe' beginning did so a finite amount of time ago. The only way to escape this dilemma would be to posit that a conscious free agent chose to cause the universe

Naked assertion - quantum uncertainty knocks a massive hole in this assumption. You also make naive assumptions about the possible different ways in which 'time' may manifest in multidimensional environments. IOW the alternatives to our current observed space-time reality are much greater than assumed here, so this argument is just naive and out of date. This is the only argument which even comes close to an argument for the 'cause' being in anyway analogous to a conscious agent. It still only justifies the most elementary level of 'consciousness', let alone anything of transcendent scale. An unconscious chaotic process would serve equally well.

But even without the Quantum concepts, if some effect was 'caused' immediately, this does not contradict the assumption of timelessness, whatever that ultimately means. Surely, in a truly timeless realm, it is meaningless to think of choosing a time to cause the universe. What is happening here is an incoherent attempt to discuss a totally speculative scenario which is so far beyond our comprehension that it collapses into empty semantics.

Quote:

3: Finally, There are only 2 objects which can possibly exist timelessly and non-spatially and they are disembodied minds and abstract objects (like numbers). Since abstract objects cannot cause anything, it therefore follows by induction that the cause of the universe is a disembodied mind.

Finally, more unjustified assumptions. We actually have no indication whatever that 'minds' can be completely independent of highly structured material objects. No argument is presented for 3. The assertion of 'possibility' is not based on any any actual evidence, ie something other than naked intuition, which cannot by itself have any truth value.

With the insights from modern science, from Physics to Neuro-science, we realize that there are infinitely many more plausible scenarios than described here.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Apologies for any strange

Apologies for any strange disappearances of posts. After an edit of my post, when I went back to the forum, it looked like I had ended up duplicating my post instead of just editing it, so I deleted one copy, and they both disappeared!

Luckily I had done my precautionary Select-ALL Copy ritual so I was able to restore it.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Hasn't mig

MattShizzle wrote:

Hasn't mig also been an asshat troll since he's been here?

That depends on your definition of asshat troll. I don't have a problem with any theist as long as they have a genuine desire to learn something and/or actually have a meaningful discussion with us. At the very least, they should be mature enough to respect everyone on the forum. Chuck, as he stated himself, is just here to "dance."

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Sinphanius

mig_killer2 wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:
They are retarded.

I dont think they would have recieved so much attention if they were truly retarded.

Two words: Paris Hilton.

mig_killer2 wrote:
the statement "whatever begins to exist has a cause" is simply a reaffirmation of the first principle of metaphysics. to deny this simple premise is worse than magic.

Metaphysics is important why? I mean, what has metaphysics done for us lately? And are its first principles really so solid that they would be taken as seriously as, say, the theory of gravity?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Chuck, as

butterbattle wrote:

Chuck, as he stated himself, is just here to "dance."

Not a very good dancer, though, is he?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
chuckg6261982

chuckg6261982 wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:
Congratulations, your point? You have logically proven that the universe has a cause, I don't see how that cause has to be or is even hinted at being God. This might not even be true. You now need to prove that the universe began to exist and didn't simply transition into its current form from some other form in which the physical laws are different.

How is the belief that "the universe began to exist and simply transitioned into its current form from some other form in which the physical laws are different" anymore scientific than the belief that the universe was created by an intelligent being? 
 

 

 

Uhhhhh because science cannot detect design in nature. Can you design a scientific test that measures anything about how god designed the universe? If you can, creationism has a powerful new ally.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Bob has done a fine job of

 Bob has done a fine job of explaining some of the current science behind TBB.  I'm not qualified to address that, but I can point out that the reason these arguments get so much attention is ignorance.  Pure unadulterated ignorance.  Please realize that the existence of knowledge doesn't have anything to do with the dispersal of knowledge.  That is, just because somebody knows the answer to something, it doesn't follow that everyone does or even should.  Cosmology is really hard.  Theoretical physics, astrophysics, quantum mechanics -- these are all very difficult disciplines that don't lend themselves easily to simple explanations.

Unfortunately, everybody seems to get their panties in a bunch about how the universe started.  So, you have maybe a few thousand people in the world who are truly capable of making guesses but are essentially incapable of explaining why these guesses are possible or probable to everybody else.  Everyone else is unsatisfied with not knowing, so they do the best with what they have -- ignorance.

Thus, the popularity of the Kalam argument, which was logically refuted ten minutes after it was invented.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

Metaphysics is important why? I mean, what has metaphysics done for us lately?

how about provide the foundation for scientific knowledge?

HisWillness wrote:
And are its first principles really so solid that they would be taken as seriously as, say, the theory of gravity?

yes, moreso actually

{ MOD: edited for missing close quote }

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Mig, typically, when one

 Mig, typically, when one makes such a claim, one then explains the justification for it.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2

mig_killer2 wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Metaphysics is important why? I mean, what has metaphysics done for us lately?

how about provide the foundation for scientific knowledge?

No, you have that reversed.

A metaphysics must be supported by an epistemology. The epistemology comes before the metaphysics, and is more fundamental.

Science is an epistemology. Therefore, science gives us a metaphysics, not the other way 'round.

Quote:

HisWillness wrote:
And are its first principles really so solid that they would be taken as seriously as, say, the theory of gravity?

yes, moreso actually

In what way?

And if first principles apply to the universe, why will they not apply to God? I mean, without special pleading.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2

mig_killer2 wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Metaphysics is important why? I mean, what has metaphysics done for us lately?

how about provide the foundation for scientific knowledge?

Actually you are probably partially correct, in that it predates the scientific approach to understanding reality, which initially and inevitably was based on concepts arising within the discourse of metaphysics.

I tend to see the relation of science to metaphysics as somewhat like the relationship between alchemy and chemistry. IOW the scientific discourse has largely overtaken and subsumed metaphysics, apart from the most abstract juggling of obsolete concepts.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:mig_killer2

BobSpence1 wrote:

mig_killer2 wrote:

how about provide the foundation for scientific knowledge?

Actually you are probably partially correct, in that it predates the scientific approach to understanding reality, which initially and inevitably was based on concepts arising within the discourse of metaphysics.

I tend to see the relation of science to metaphysics as somewhat like the relationship between alchemy and chemistry. IOW the scientific discourse has largely overtaken and subsumed metaphysics, apart from the most abstract juggling of obsolete concepts.

My major objection to this is the word "foundation." If he'd said, "How about providing the framework that gave birth to science?" then I'd have to agree. But to say that metaphysics is the foundation of science is about like saying the Titanic was the foundation for an artificial reef.

Which works, I guess, when I put it like that.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I definitely agree with

I definitely agree with nigel, Science now provides the grounds, the basic understanding of the properties of reality, which metaphysics and philosophy apply their arguments and specualtions to.

Metaphysical arguments which don't take at least the most well-established data and theories from Science as their raw input are guarranteed  to lead to irrelevant conclusions.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

mig_killer2 wrote:

how about provide the foundation for scientific knowledge?

Actually you are probably partially correct, in that it predates the scientific approach to understanding reality, which initially and inevitably was based on concepts arising within the discourse of metaphysics.

I tend to see the relation of science to metaphysics as somewhat like the relationship between alchemy and chemistry. IOW the scientific discourse has largely overtaken and subsumed metaphysics, apart from the most abstract juggling of obsolete concepts.

My major objection to this is the word "foundation." If he'd said, "How about providing the framework that gave birth to science?" then I'd have to agree. But to say that metaphysics is the foundation of science is about like saying the Titanic was the foundation for an artificial reef.

Which works, I guess, when I put it like that.

I agree.

(Your post appeared while I was composing my previous one Smiling )

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 E.O. Wilson has written a

 E.O. Wilson has written a book about this very topic.  I'm only about halfway through it, but he goes to great lengths to explain the transition from pre-scientific man to scientific man, and has given (in my opinion) a very lucid argument for placing science not only at the foundation of metaphysics, but also as that which gives rise to the humanities.  Yes... that includes the liberal arts.

For those who might not know, E.O. Wilson literally wrote the book on sociobiology.  As far as I know, it's still the definitive textbook on the subject.  

[EDIT:  Yeah... I suppose you'd like to know the name of the book, eh?  Consilience.]

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


mikedot48
mikedot48's picture
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Disembodied Minds + Infinities

mig_killer2 wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:
Prove that disembodied minds exist

The Kalam and Leibnizian arguments do not assume that disembodied minds exist, but merely prove that they exist.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but is this not circular logic? You're basically saying that d. minds are proven BECAUSE IT IS one of only two things that can exist outside of time and space. But this begs the question that minds can be disembodied, which you assume without evidence. (Furthermore, it begs the question that minds are one of the things that can exist outside of time.)

In the debate between Phil F. and Jeffrey Lowder, Lowder presented evidence that the mind IS dependent on the physical brain. In other words, minds can't exist without physical parts.

Assuming actual infinities are impossible, your god must have had a first thought. What caused that first thought if not nothing?

"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." -FFRF


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Correct me if I'm

 

Quote:
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but is this not circular logic? You're basically saying that d. minds are proven BECAUSE IT IS one of only two things that can exist outside of time and space. But this begs the question that minds can be disembodied, which you assume without evidence. (Furthermore, it begs the question that minds are one of the things that can exist outside of time.)

In the debate between Phil F. and Jeffrey Lowder, Lowder presented evidence that the mind IS dependent on the physical brain. In other words, minds can't exist without physical parts.

Here's where there's a serious problem with this kind of debate.  Any kind of metaphysical discussion must justify itself epistemologically.  That is, just because it's metaphysics, you don't get to just skip over the foundation of knowledge.  This is part of what Bob was saying earlier.  Without epistemology, you cannot form a coherent thought about metaphysics since you cannot justify any of your words as having meaning!

As for the brain and "mind" there's a presumption inherent in any of these arguments.  You see, science is justified epistemologically and logically.  Science tells us that a mind is something that arises from a brain, which is a physical entity.  Science gives us no foundation for belief in the mind as anything other than what we have evidence for.  In other words, we have no epistemological right to make any statement whatsoever about disembodied minds because "disembodied mind" is literal nonsense!  I know this is hard for some people to grasp, but it's a serious problem.  "Mind" is defined as "embodied" in the only existing coherent definition of the word that matters to this discussion.  To say "disembodied mind" is literally the same kind of error as saying "married bachelor."

So any argument positing the existence of a disembodied mind fails before it even gets out of the starting gate.  Circular or not, the very concept is nonsensical, and lacking any coherent epistemological foundation for an alternate "thing" that will be called "mind" which can have the property of "disembodied," we must cease all discussion for lack of coherence and meaning.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The idea of a mind "outside

The idea of a mind "outside time and space" or at least some 'higher' analogue of time and space, doesn't make sense.

Thinking implies a sequence of ideas, so something corresponding to 'time' is required, and requires some content, something to think about, which is going to be extremely constrained without something corresponding to an environment within which the mind resides, which implies an an analogue of space existing beyond the entity 'thinking'.

IOW without time and space, or some higher-dimensional versions, we have no change, and no extension, which is as close to nothing as makes no difference, except possibly as the raw, minimal 'something' for an active reality to spontaneously emerge from, a la Big Bang.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:how about

mig_killer2 wrote:
how about provide the foundation for scientific knowledge?

Bob and Nigel have both formally refuted this, but I think you were responding to my less-than-formal approach anyway, so I won't ask that kind of precision from you. Scientific knowledge comes from repeated experiment. 

mig_killer2 wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
And are its first principles really so solid that they would be taken as seriously as, say, the theory of gravity?

yes, moreso actually

I have to ask why. I just don't know how else to address that statement.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:No, you

nigelTheBold wrote:

No, you have that reversed.

A metaphysics must be supported by an epistemology. The epistemology comes before the metaphysics, and is more fundamental.

Science is an epistemology. Therefore, science gives us a metaphysics, not the other way 'round.

talk about mental gymnastics! No dude, metaphysical statements SUPPORT SCIENCE. There is no scientific support for metaphysical statements like "there are other minds besides my own" or "there is an external world". Seriously nigel, learn just a little bit about the philosophy of science.

nigelTheBold wrote:

In what way?

in the fact that they are asserted throughout all scientific laws and theories held to by a consensus of scientists.

nigelTheBold wrote:
And if first principles apply to the universe, why will they not apply to God? I mean, without special pleading.

Since when did I say that the first principle of serious metaphysics does not apply to God?

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:mig_killer2

BobSpence1 wrote:

mig_killer2 wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Metaphysics is important why? I mean, what has metaphysics done for us lately?

how about provide the foundation for scientific knowledge?

Actually you are probably partially correct, in that it predates the scientific approach to understanding reality, which initially and inevitably was based on concepts arising within the discourse of metaphysics.

I tend to see the relation of science to metaphysics as somewhat like the relationship between alchemy and chemistry. IOW the scientific discourse has largely overtaken and subsumed metaphysics, apart from the most abstract juggling of obsolete concepts.

No mr. Bobspence, I do not mean provide a foundation like alchemy laid the foundations for modern chemistry or nephrology provided the foundations for modern psychology and psychiatry, I mean that in order to know anything from science you must make philosophical and metaphysical assumptions. The statements "There are other minds besides my own" or "There is an external world" or "I am thinking about science" are metaphysical statements completely unsupported and unsupportable by science. But in order to know ANYTHING from science one must assume these principles.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
First off the bat, I would

First off the bat, I would like to thank you for taking the time to conduct a thorough analysis of my presentation of the KCA and LBA, and I would also like to thank you for maintaining civility unlike some other members of this forum.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The only physical referent which strictly raises the question of 'beginning to exist' is matter/energy.

Everything else we perceive as a physical entity is formed by re-arrangement of pre-existing matter-energy, so the question there is the different one of why does matter-energy change physical state and position?

I should have pointed out that these are metaphysical statements. Simply put, being does not come from nonbeing unless you believe in magic. Secondly we really have to ask oursevles, if things, like the universe, can really begin to exist uncaused, then why doesn't anything and everything pop into existence? As far as universal subjective and objective sentient experience can tell, being always comes from being, but not from nonbeing. Every single day we observe being coming from being, but not being coming from nonbeing.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Quantum experiments strongly suggest that physical events involving differences of energy state of around the Planck scale are unpredictable beyond the statement of a precise probability of occurrence within any specified time-period - raising the question of just what 'causes' them to occur at the particular time they do?

I think I should point out the 3 levels on which the Quantum mechanics argument against premise 1 certainly fails to evade the Kalam argument

1: There is no consensus backing the uncaused nature of these phenomena. Some scientists, like David Bohm, have proposed deterministic models for quantum fluctuations
2: Virtual particles do not come from nothing, but rather pre-existing energy
3: finally, this entire objection is a giant red herring for quantum fluctuations do not transcend temporal existence. However, temporal existence is the very thing which began to exist. To say that quantum fluctuations are responsible for the beginning of the universe is a gross missapplication of Quantum theory.

BobSpence1 wrote:
What 'causes' an nucleus of Uranium-238 to change into a nucleus of Thorium-234 and a nucleus of Helium-4, with a probability of 50%, at some arbitrary time within the next 4.468 billion years?

I dont know, but its hard to say that because we currently do not know the cause of Uranium-238's decay into Thorium is hardly enough evidence to show that alpha decay is purely uncaused.

BobSpence1 wrote:
The 'cause' of the 'Big Bang' need logically be no more that such a cause.

here is the problem, the causes and effects which you speak of don't transcend space.

BobSpence1 wrote:
The only class of physical 'entity' which has been indirectly inferred to begin to exist in the strict sense, as distinct from forming out of a redistribution of existing matter, are the proposed temporary virtual particle pairs which are hypothesised to permeate space.

but they are not examples of being coming from nonbeing.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Whether the Big Bang was the outcome of some interaction of stuff in some 'metaverse' is the subject of debate in Cosmology. As is whether it is even meaningful to think of time in our current context before the Big Bang, especially if it was a 'true' singularity.

bringing up the multiverse at THE VERY BEST refutes the teleological argument for the existence of God, not the cosmological arguments. Bringing up the multiverse of course is just a half-hearted attempt at escaping the vicious infinite regress brought on by positing a truly beginningless temporal existence.

BobSpence1 wrote:
All that stuff was to make it clear that the concepts attached to propositions A and B are way too simplistic in terms of modern understanding of reality, so the conclusion doesn't really represent actual useful knowledge. It may or may not be true, in some sense. Certainly this argument in itself is at best a trivial tautology.

I have thus far shown your objections to be false unfortunately. The kalam argument is certainly more than a tautology.  

BobSpence1 wrote:
A just restates in a slightly different form, the first proposition of the previous one, apart from the incoherent concept of something "necessarily" existing because of what it is.

How is that incoherent? Suppose for the sake of argument that temporal existence really did exist infinitely into the past and somehow escapes the vicious infinite regress. Would temporal existence not then exist by its own nature?

BobSpence1 wrote:
B Is a simple non-sequitur, or else simply defines the word "God" as a label applied to "whatever caused the Universe to come to exist", which makes the conclusion a circular argument.

I of course develop this argument further below in my discussion on the nature of the first cause and why it must be a mind. Since the explanation of the universe must be external to the universe, it must be God for the reasons I showed below.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Unjustified assertions. 'Personal' causes are actions triggered by a sequence of mental events in a mind, which is a process manifested by the collective effect of the interactions of many billions of cells in a brain, so could in principle at least, be traced back to large number of individual neuronal interactions, with such actions being also affected by current sensory data coming in, and the effect of stored patterns in memory being 'read out' (recalled), etc. So in effect when a conscious decision affects a sequence of events, the ultimate cause becomes diffused through the entire life history and space of experience of the individuals involved.

Here's the problem, as I noted below, non-physical entities causing anything are simply outside the jurisdiction of science. Now do you deny that personal explanations do not exist? Does the explanation "I am typing this message to refute your counter-arguments" not therefore exist? Surely such a belief is properly basic and does not need anything in the way of evidence for someone to be fully rational in holding to it.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Other events which appear to be the very direct result of a chain of clearly identifiable, simple physical interactions are much easier to see as 'scientific', but there is no solid justification for assuming that at the most fine-grained level there is any thing other than physical interactions involved, the difference being in the pattern of interactions involved, which is very, very different in the two cases.

again, we are dealing with non-physical and atemporal entities. These are simply outside the realm of science and must be discussed using metaphysics (some would go further and say that we need to discuss this in terms of theology)

BobSpence1 wrote:

Naked assertion - quantum uncertainty knocks a massive hole in this assumption.

once more, quantum phenomena do not transcend temporal existence.

BobSpence1 wrote:
You also make naive assumptions about the possible different ways in which 'time' may manifest in multidimensional environments. IOW the alternatives to our current observed space-time reality are much greater than assumed here, so this argument is just naive and out of date.

To say that this somehow undercuts my argument and not provide evidence for it is pretty serious display of epistemological gymnastics. the reality of tense and temporal becoming is a properly basic belief.

BobSpence1 wrote:
This is the only argument which even comes close to an argument for the 'cause' being in anyway analogous to a conscious agent. It still only justifies the most elementary level of 'consciousness', let alone anything of transcendent scale. An unconscious chaotic process would serve equally well.

again, if it is an unconscious process, then it does not escape the dilemma of the fact that we know that the necessary and sufficient conditions for causing the universe are timeless and at the same time acted a finite amount of time ago. WTF? how can one hope to escape this dilemma without positing a free agent as the cause of the universe?

BobSpence1 wrote:
But even without the Quantum concepts, if some effect was 'caused' immediately, this does not contradict the assumption of timelessness, whatever that ultimately means. Surely, in a truly timeless realm, it is meaningless to think of choosing a time to cause the universe.

Nobody of course is saying this.

BobSpence1 wrote:
What is happening here is an incoherent attempt to discuss a totally speculative scenario which is so far beyond our comprehension that it collapses into empty semantics.

to someone who has not done enough research into metaphysics it might seem so, but not to someone who knows a thing or 2 about metaphysics and the philosophy of science.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Finally, more unjustified assumptions. We actually have no indication whatever that 'minds' can be completely independent of highly structured material objects.

The kalam argument however proves the existence. Concievability implies provability.

BobSpence1 wrote:
No argument is presented for 3. The assertion of 'possibility' is not based on any any actual evidence, ie something other than naked intuition, which cannot by itself have any truth value.

Concievability implies provability as I note above.

BobSpence1 wrote:
With the insights from modern science, from Physics to Neuro-science, we realize that there are infinitely many more plausible scenarios than described here.

not quite.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:First off

mig_killer2 wrote:

First off the bat, I would like to thank you for taking the time to conduct a thorough analysis of my presentation of the KCA and LBA, and I would also like to thank you for maintaining civility unlike some other members of this forum.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The only physical referent which strictly raises the question of 'beginning to exist' is matter/energy.

Everything else we perceive as a physical entity is formed by re-arrangement of pre-existing matter-energy, so the question there is the different one of why does matter-energy change physical state and position?

I should have pointed out that these are metaphysical statements. Simply put, being does not come from nonbeing unless you believe in magic. Secondly we really have to ask oursevles, if things, like the universe, can really begin to exist uncaused, then why doesn't anything and everything pop into existence? As far as universal subjective and objective sentient experience can tell, being always comes from being, but not from nonbeing. Every single day we observe being coming from being, but not being coming from nonbeing.

Normal conservation of matter/energy precludes any macro-scale object popping into existence. Well, ok  not absolutely, but constrained by the uncertainty principle, the probability would be incredibly small, it would have to disappear again within an incredibly short time, unless a rather large amount of energy applied in a very specific way.

So the fact that we don't observe such things happening is entirely to be expected, of course.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Quantum experiments strongly suggest that physical events involving differences of energy state of around the Planck scale are unpredictable beyond the statement of a precise probability of occurrence within any specified time-period - raising the question of just what 'causes' them to occur at the particular time they do?

I think I should point out the 3 levels on which the Quantum mechanics argument against premise 1 certainly fails to evade the Kalam argument.

1: There is no consensus backing the uncaused nature of these phenomena. Some scientists, like David Bohm, have proposed deterministic models for quantum fluctuations
2: Virtual particles do not come from nothing, but rather pre-existing energy

Not exactly.

"Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in quantum mechanics, devised by John Wheeler in 1955. The foam is supposedly the foundations of the fabric of the universe,[1] but it can also be used as a qualitative description of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances of the order of the Planck length. At such small scales of time and space the uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws."

Quote:

3: finally, this entire objection is a giant red herring for quantum fluctuations do not transcend temporal existence. However, temporal existence is the very thing which began to exist. To say that quantum fluctuations are responsible for the beginning of the universe is a gross missapplication of Quantum theory.

Speculating about what may be the 'reality' which encompasses the temporal/spatial ground-state of 'our' existence is just that, pure speculation, and in severe danger of being yet another of those dreaded infinite regressions.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
What 'causes' an nucleus of Uranium-238 to change into a nucleus of Thorium-234 and a nucleus of Helium-4, with a probability of 50%, at some arbitrary time within the next 4.468 billion years?

I dont know, but its hard to say that because we currently do not know the cause of Uranium-238's decay into Thorium is hardly enough evidence to show that alpha decay is purely uncaused.

Strictly speaking, the decay event is not uncaused, since it requires that the energy of the intact original nucleus is slightly higher than the products of the decay, but it requires a small temporary increase of energy to pass thru the initial phase of the decay event. Quantum theory implies that there is a finite possibility that such barriers can be crossed, which is manifest as a definite probability of the event actually occurring within a specified time period, as I described. It is the timing of a specific decay event which appears to be purely random with a precisely defined probabilty.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
The 'cause' of the 'Big Bang' need logically be no more that such a cause.

here is the problem, the causes and effects which you speak of don't transcend space.

But they do establish that our intuitions about 'cause' and 'effect' don't map well to the realities of the Quantum world.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
The only class of physical 'entity' which has been indirectly inferred to begin to exist in the strict sense, as distinct from forming out of a redistribution of existing matter, are the proposed temporary virtual particle pairs which are hypothesised to permeate space.

but they are not examples of being coming from nonbeing.

Ok, the basic question remains then did the 'ground-state' of the vacuum, or some meta-version of it always exist, or did something in some other 'realm' give rise to it?

The 3 statememts of the Kalam you listed amount to nothing more than a restatement of this question.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Whether the Big Bang was the outcome of some interaction of stuff in some 'metaverse' is the subject of debate in Cosmology. As is whether it is even meaningful to think of time in our current context before the Big Bang, especially if it was a 'true' singularity.

bringing up the multiverse at THE VERY BEST refutes the teleological argument for the existence of God, not the cosmological arguments. Bringing up the multiverse of course is just a half-hearted attempt at escaping the vicious infinite regress brought on by positing a truly beginningless temporal existence.

God only 'escapes' the infinite regress problem brought on by positing that 'being cannot come from nonbeing'  by naked assertion, not by logic.

Extrapolations from actual science do not require infinite past duration or infinite causes to give rise to the Universe, just a pre-existing minimal 'field', of minimal strucure.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
All that stuff was to make it clear that the concepts attached to propositions A and B are way too simplistic in terms of modern understanding of reality, so the conclusion doesn't really represent actual useful knowledge. It may or may not be true, in some sense. Certainly this argument in itself is at best a trivial tautology.

I have thus far shown your objections to be false unfortunately. The kalam argument is certainly more than a tautology.  

No, you have said nothing to refute that.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
A just restates in a slightly different form, the first proposition of the previous one, apart from the incoherent concept of something "necessarily" existing because of what it is.

How is that incoherent? Suppose for the sake of argument that temporal existence really did exist infinitely into the past and somehow escapes the vicious infinite regress. Would temporal existence not then exist by its own nature?

Adding the phrase "by its own nature" adds nothing to the observation that something exists indefinitely, unless it is just a quaint way to say it is something that does not need to be created by something else.

I see no 'infinite regress' problem with an indefinite past.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
B Is a simple non-sequitur, or else simply defines the word "God" as a label applied to "whatever caused the Universe to come to exist", which makes the conclusion a circular argument.

I of course develop this argument further below in my discussion on the nature of the first cause and why it must be a mind. Since the explanation of the universe must be external to the universe, it must be God for the reasons I showed below.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Unjustified assertions. 'Personal' causes are actions triggered by a sequence of mental events in a mind, which is a process manifested by the collective effect of the interactions of many billions of cells in a brain, so could in principle at least, be traced back to large number of individual neuronal interactions, with such actions being also affected by current sensory data coming in, and the effect of stored patterns in memory being 'read out' (recalled), etc. So in effect when a conscious decision affects a sequence of events, the ultimate cause becomes diffused through the entire life history and space of experience of the individuals involved.

Here's the problem, as I noted below, non-physical entities causing anything are simply outside the jurisdiction of science. Now do you deny that personal explanations do not exist? Does the explanation "I am typing this message to refute your counter-arguments" not therefore exist? Surely such a belief is properly basic and does not need anything in the way of evidence for someone to be fully rational in holding to it.

'Personal explanations' are how we express consciously what we experience whne we make decisions and perform purposeful actions, and as such, they exist of course.

There are experiments which are at least strongly suggestive that this conscious experience of feeling we are making a decision at that point is an illusion, a confabulation of our brain generated by that sequence of neuronal interactions I previously described. What is very well established is that our introspection is not a reliable source of data about just what is going on in our brains.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Other events which appear to be the very direct result of a chain of clearly identifiable, simple physical interactions are much easier to see as 'scientific', but there is no solid justification for assuming that at the most fine-grained level there is any thing other than physical interactions involved, the difference being in the pattern of interactions involved, which is very, very different in the two cases.

again, we are dealing with non-physical and atemporal entities. These are simply outside the realm of science and must be discussed using metaphysics (some would go further and say that we need to discuss this in terms of theology)

Quote:

2: If the necessary and sufficient preconditions for the cause of the universe are timeless, then it follows that the effect of this cause would be timeless. But we know that whatever caused the universe' beginning did so a finite amount of time ago. The only way to escape this dilemma would be to posit that a conscious free agent chose to cause the universe.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Naked assertion - quantum uncertainty knocks a massive hole in this assumption.

once more, quantum phenomena do not transcend temporal existence.

Hmm, I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say here, based on an earlier presentation of a somehat similar attempt by someone else to justify the necessity that a conscious free agent was involved. I was responding to the argument which I have seen that for a process to start at an arbitrary time in an indefinite unchanging timespan requires an agent that can make a free will decision to do it 'now'.

So here you are saying that the 'cause' arose from a timeless realm - Ok. Then the 'clock' started running, time passed, and we exist at a point where our universe has been 'running' for about 14 billion years ago. What is the dillemma you are referring to?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
You also make naive assumptions about the possible different ways in which 'time' may manifest in multidimensional environments. IOW the alternatives to our current observed space-time reality are much greater than assumed here, so this argument is just naive and out of date.

To say that this somehow undercuts my argument and not provide evidence for it is pretty serious display of epistemological gymnastics. the reality of tense and temporal becoming is a properly basic belief.

I maintain you have not provided evidence for your metaphysical assumptions. To resolve this would require more thorough examination of one or more of your individual arguments.

Certainly we have concepts of past present and future, and change thru time, they are certainly basic beliefs.

But Special and General Relativity point to the possibility that the reality of soace-time does not actually match these concepts all that well

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
This is the only argument which even comes close to an argument for the 'cause' being in anyway analogous to a conscious agent. It still only justifies the most elementary level of 'consciousness', let alone anything of transcendent scale. An unconscious chaotic process would serve equally well.

again, if it is an unconscious process, then it does not escape the dilemma of the fact that we know that the necessary and sufficient conditions for causing the universe are timeless and at the same time acted a finite amount of time ago. WTF? how can one hope to escape this dilemma without positing a free agent as the cause of the universe?

I still don't see your logic here. You will need to spell this out so I can see exactly what assumptions you are basing this 'dilemma' on.

Is there a problem in your world-view in a Timeless agent (whatever the hell that means) spinning off an entity which is effectively a 4-dimensional bubble of space-time?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
But even without the Quantum concepts, if some effect was 'caused' immediately, this does not contradict the assumption of timelessness, whatever that ultimately means. Surely, in a truly timeless realm, it is meaningless to think of choosing a time to cause the universe.

Nobody of course is saying this.

BobSpence1 wrote:
What is happening here is an incoherent attempt to discuss a totally speculative scenario which is so far beyond our comprehension that it collapses into empty semantics.

to someone who has not done enough research into metaphysics it might seem so, but not to someone who knows a thing or 2 about metaphysics and the philosophy of science.

As someone who has been reading and following science and discussions of the ultimate implications of the insights of science for a few decades, after growing past an early fascination with Philosophy, I see you as lacking in insight and understanding into subjects which subsume metaphysics and philosophy.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Finally, more unjustified assumptions. We actually have no indication whatever that 'minds' can be completely independent of highly structured material objects.

The kalam argument however proves the existence. Concievability implies provability.

BobSpence1 wrote:
No argument is presented for 3. The assertion of 'possibility' is not based on any any actual evidence, ie something other than naked intuition, which cannot by itself have any truth value.

Concievability implies provability as I note above.

Conceivability merely implies something which we can express in terms our finite brains can attach some meaning to.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
With the insights from modern science, from Physics to Neuro-science, we realize that there are infinitely many more plausible scenarios than described here.

not quite.

Depends how you classify the variations....


 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:talk about

mig_killer2 wrote:

talk about mental gymnastics! No dude, metaphysical statements SUPPORT SCIENCE. There is no scientific support for metaphysical statements like "there are other minds besides my own" or "there is an external world". Seriously nigel, learn just a little bit about the philosophy of science.

This debate comes up frequently. Okay, maybe not that frequently, but I last saw this about a year ago (with a gentleman named Marty Fields), only presented in a much more logical, and more well-thought-out presentation.

Basically, you are wrong.

The application of the scientific method makes only 3 assumptions, none of the equating to "there are other minds besides my own." One of them is "there is an external world," however. But to say that these assumptions are not supported by science is to misunderstand the epistemology of science, which supports the metaphysics.

Before I get to that, let me reiterate: you cannot have a metaphysics without an epistemology. Period. Your assumptions in the metaphysics must be supported by a logical framework that is capable of describing the knowledge of that metaphysics. Otherwise, it is speculation. If you start with a metaphysics and work towards an epistemology, you will discover nothing, other than an internally-consistent (and entirely incorrect) epistemology to support an internally-consistent (and entirely incorrect) metaphysics. The history of philosophy is littered with the dessicated skeletons of metaphysics propped up by poor epistemologies: Aristotle's physics came up in a discussion recently, in which his epistemology was, "It seems right to me," and which led to completely incorrect conclusions in his metaphysics.

Now, to the 3 assumptions of the epistemology of science, and how the epistemology supports those 3 assumptions:

1) Reality is observable.

2) Reality is consistent.

3) Reality is coherent.

I used to have a 4th, but I forget what it is. It seems unimportant now, anyway, as these 3 sum it up.

Let's take those one at a time.

1) Reality is observable.

Although all three are essential, this is the most essential. This assumption is necessary, or we might as well be "mind in a vat," as presuppositionalist ironically proposed in another thread.

This assumption is really two assumptions in one: that the universe is real, and that we are able to objectively observe reality. Although we can't completely disallow the "mind in a vat" proposal, we can at least show that we can objectively observe reality. This is supported by the fact that our observations of reality are repeatable. We get the same results now as we did 100 years ago.

2) Reality is consistent.

The laws that govern the universe here and now apply equally well to the universe of 13 billion years ago, or 13 billion light years away "now." This isn't as easily supported as the "reality exists and is observable." However, the structures we observe from 13 billion years ago seem to be familiar objects: galaxies. This supports the idea that the laws of physics that govern the universe now are the same as they were not long after the birth of the universe. This provides quite a bit of supporting evidence that the universe is consistent.

3) The universe is coherent.

The scientific method assumes that the laws of the universe work together to form all the known processes of the universe. They naturally fit together, and a complete understanding of these fundamental laws would constitute a complete understanding of the universe. You will find no contradictions within those laws. They fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, complementing each other to provide a complete picture of the nature of reality.

There is an even more optimistic hope: that there are a very few laws (or even a single law), simple and elegant, that describes all the variety of reality.

This is the hardest of the three propositions to support; not because we have evidence against this supposition, but because we won't know for sure until we have complete knowledge of reality.

So far, our ontology indicates that the universe is coherent. Really, our ontology is incomplete, and we have no way to judge how far along we are to complete understanding. From the looks of it, we could be very close; or, we could be very far away.

For the most part, data from our observations of reality fit well within our ontology. When we discover something that doesn't fit well (such as the observed wave/particle duality of matter, which gave birth to quantum mechanics), it usually extends our knowledge into areas of which we were previously entirely ignorant. So far, contradictions among our concepts have always indicated new areas of ignorance, and incomplete understanding, rather than actual contradictions within the fundamental processes of the universe.

---------------------------------------------------

These three assumptions alone provide the framework for the epistemology of science. I would argue that they form the framework for any epistemology worth the study. The great thing about science is, the more observation we do, the more data we gather, the more we suss out the workings of the universe by analyzing the data, and testing our thoughts about the data, the more we prove that those three assumptions are correct.

If 1) turned out to be incorrect, then all epistemology dies, and all we're left with is metaphysics ("making shit up" ). If 2) turns out to be incorrect, we're equally screwed. (This doesn't apply to localized inconsistencies; for instance, we know nothing about the origin of the universe, and so the laws of physics may very well have been completely different during the first few femtoseconds of the universe. We hope we can apply our current knowledge and future knowledge to that event, but it might prove difficult to figure out what really happened.)

If 3) turns out to be incorrect, we will have to seriously reconsider our understanding of the universe. However, as long as it's consistently incoherent, the application of the scientific method may very well survive. It's hard to predict, as the problem-space is infinite.

What's cool about this is, the scientific method is equally applicable to our assumptions as it is to every other field of study. And in that way, the metaphysics of science is completely dependent on, and supported by, the epistemology of science.

I guess I see where you're coming from, though. If either of these three turn out to be incorrect, the epistemology of science is screwed, as well. But as I said, if either of these are incorrect, all epistemologies are screwed.

And that leads us to God. If you introduce an all-powerful God into the equation, 2) is invalidated, as any interference by God into the current universe renders it inconsistent, thereby demolishing any hope we might have of understanding the universe.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
And if first principles apply to the universe, why will they not apply to God? I mean, without special pleading.

Since when did I say that the first principle of serious metaphysics does not apply to God?

It's fundamentally implicit in the cosmological argument. "The universe began to exist; therefore God." The cause of "God" must address the effect of "God." However, the first cause of God is unaddressed. You said the first principle didn't apply to God as soon as you proposed a cosmological argument. Without the assumption that first cause doesn't apply to God, the cosmological argument becomes impotent.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"I hereby endorse nigel's

"I hereby endorse nigel's response."

Good stuff.

Hard to think of much to add.

I think the idea of consistency amd coherence should be assumed to apply to any hypothetical supernatural realm, otherwise, by exactly the same basic argument, we can't actually justify any reasoning about that realm. IOW even the 'thoughts of God' should follow a cause-effect chain, otherwise we are back to chaos. The basic regression problem of postulating that everything requires a cause 'except God' is not addressed except by naked assertion.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
I'd like to join Bob in

I'd like to join Bob in endorsing Nigel's framing of these ideas. This part is especially important:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Before I get to that, let me reiterate: you cannot have a metaphysics without an epistemology. Period. Your assumptions in the metaphysics must be supported by a logical framework that is capable of describing the knowledge of that metaphysics. Otherwise, it is speculation. If you start with a metaphysics and work towards an epistemology, you will discover nothing, other than an internally-consistent (and entirely incorrect) epistemology to support an internally-consistent (and entirely incorrect) metaphysics. The history of philosophy is littered with the dessicated skeletons of metaphysics propped up by poor epistemologies: Aristotle's physics came up in a discussion recently, in which his epistemology was, "It seems right to me," and which led to completely incorrect conclusions in his metaphysics.

Knowing and understanding this salient point makes a discussion of metaphysics much more grown-up, and much less imagination-based.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
infinite regress

mig_killer2,

Why do you think that an infinite regress is less probable than God?

Many people believe that the Universe will continue forever in an infinite progress of cause and effect.

Many people also assume that the Universe has always existed in an infinite regress of cause and effect.

Thomas Aquinas thought that an infinite series was impossible, but he was wrong, because he did not understand the mathematics of infinite series.

Infinite series have been understood for at least 400 years and I do not know any mathematical problem with infinite regress.

The mathematician David Hilbert showed that you could not perform some functions on some infinite sets of real things, but he did not show that an infinite regress was a problem.

Do you have any evidence that an infinite regress is not possible?

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
First I would like

First I would like acknowledge that BobSpence1 and various other people on this thread have already completely demolished  mig_killer2's arguments, and that there is nothing new I can really add.


That said I still want to say a few things.  

mig_killer2 wrote:

how can one hope to escape this dilemma without positing a free agent as the cause of the universe?

 You've haven't even made a convincing argument that there really is a dilemma in the first place.


mig_killer2 wrote:

Science cannot deal with anything that is atemporal, non-spatial, and unobservable.

Science can deal with anything that affects the material universe.  The only reason science wouldn't be able to answer the question of god is if god did nothing to affect the material world, or if god for some reason intentionally hid all of his/her/their action from scientific inquiry.

mig_killer2 wrote:


Simple, that which is outside of temporal existence is unobservable. it is outside the jurisdiction of science really.

Just because something can’t be observed directly doesn't mean that its affects on other things can't be observed. 

mig_killer2 wrote:


there is no "different sense of time" outside of time. furthermore, the reason is must be conscious is because the necessary and sufficient conditions for causing the universe are timeless.

How would you know what happened outside of time?  Have you ever been outside of time?  How could consciousness even exist in a place without time?  The only example of consciousness we have to study (namely ourselves) seems to exist because of various continuously repeating processes.  If our brain stopped doing what its doing all the time we(consciousness) would no longer exist. 

mig_killer2 wrote:


non-physical entities causing anything are simply outside the jurisdiction of science.

Again, anything that affects the material universe is within the jurisdiction of science. 

mig_killer2 wrote:


again, we are dealing with non-physical and atemporal entities. These are simply outside the realm of science and must be discussed using metaphysics (some would go further and say that we need to discuss this in terms of theology)

Even if something is beyond science, you have yet to establish that metaphysics can prove the existence of anything outside the realm of the human mind.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I often wonder why my

 I often wonder why my criticisms go unanswered.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism