Different Kinds of Reasoning - Scientific Method vs Faith

[remez]

You seem overly dependent on definitions to comprehend anything

Your denials are rationally dependent on them as well.

God’s eternal simply because he’s defined to be eternal. The definition can only reveal what people have imagined that God is, it can never logically necessitate anything.

Context …thread question… are reason and faith two difference ways of reasoning. In the added context of a Christian God. The conversation advance to providing reasons for a belief in God, because I objected to the notion that all belief in God is not without reason. I was then challenge to provide such reason.
Now that we have started you are in protest of one of the most prevalent attributes of the Christian God. He is eternal. Now if you don’t accept this fine. You are free to rationally believe that finite Gods don’t exist. Not only are you free to do so, I will agree with you. But this context is of the Christian God. It is your rejection that is arbitrary not my definition.

What if God really did exist but human’s definitions had got it wrong and God is actually a temporal being, a creation of yet other gods?

Sounds Greek to me. (sorry ?)
But actually it would amount to a logical impossibility. Because ………………?
Something would still have to be the necessary, eternal, self-existent, first cause.

All the various creation myths contain the basic gist of how things have beginnings.

Yes, but of those that exist, which of the three “isms” is the best explanation. A necessary eternal creator that transcends the universe, a contingent finite god/s or a contingent universe that magically self-created out of nothing, no god/s

And why do some humans assume that something existing is more remarkable than if there were nothing?

Exactly. I didn’t think you understood. Here is the reason. If nothing (not anything) ever actually did exist then there would still be nothing. But since something does exist then what is the best explanation of its existence. We do observe things (not nothing) that exist so what is the best explanation of their existence.

We cannot have an infinite regress. So what got it all started? What is the unmoved mover, the first cause, the necessary entity, the best explanation of existence?

Because something exists there must be something necessary. Something that is eternally self-existing not self-creating. It is impossible for the necessary entity not to exist or else nothing (not anything) would now exist.

For thousands of years the two main rational concepts of this necessary entity were the universe and an eternal creator. About hundred years ago our understanding of the universe changed substantially. Our best scientific understanding now is that the universe is not this necessary entity but is itself contingent. Thus at the moment, leaving only the notion of the self-existing eternal creator as the best explanation of the universe. That is the debate?

That is a reason one may have for rational belief in an eternal God. If a believer holds this understanding then his faith has reasons supported by scientific evidence. Which was my main contention to start with? Faith may be based upon reasons supported by scientific evidence.

Is there a compelling reason or just a rut in the brain that makes it seem “obvious”?

Is there a compelling reason you don’t see the importance of this issue or is it just a bad arrangement of chemicals in your brain?

Observation trumps logic.

Seriously? Observe you need logic to understand what you observe. The scientific method itself is a logical structure of inquiry.

We cannot know how reality is by using words and logic, we have to look too.

GOOD LOGIC.

An argument can be both perfectly logical if it’s consistent with itself yet wrong too if one or more of the premises are wrong.

A good logical argument must have true premises, the conclusion must follow from the premises by the rules of logic and the premises must be more plausible than the opposites.

You sum up "P" "A" and "T" too easily, too self-servingly, with “P thinks x, A thinks y, and T thinks z” in a way it's easy to make your proclamation about who's right and who's wrong.

If you claim my caricatures to be straw man then we should step back and mutually reason a valid definition of terms. My x, y and z were attempts the exhaustively reflect the options on the table. Please show me where they were incorrect to the context of the issue we were discussing. If you can show me where I was wrong then I will adjust. But let me point out, despite your earlier denouncements of petty definitions, you must now see they are important or else you would be complaining about them.

There's absolutely nothing incompatible between the universe having a beginning (of whatever sort it might have had) and a disbelief in God.

Exhaustive list of explanation. The universe is;

Illusion
Self-caused
Self-existing
Caused externally by some entity that is self-existing.

If you concede that the universe had a beginning then illusion, self-existence are and self-creation are rationally removed as possibilities of explanation. Leaving only an external self-existing cause.

Now please explain how atheism and an eternal, self-existing external cause are compatible.

I really want to understand you. I can’t see where they are compatible in anyway.

And also, one can be not-theist and not-metaphysical-naturalist too.

I’m willing to hear you out on this. How do the ideologies of a non-theistic, not-metaphysical-naturalist differ from anyone in my “ism” list? And? How would they explain a universe that has a beginning?

“I don’t know” is the only honest answer for now about “where’d it all come from?” You have a hard time dealing with it, and blame us for it. If you have other things to say about God, then it’s time to move on because this turkey of a cosmological argument is dead.

Blame …….NO.
Challenge your refutation ……………….yes.

Your skepticism alone does not refute the cosmological argument as you have stated. It’s only a statement of incredulity. In the face of an argument you must show where to premises are wrong and that you have not done. Your death announcement is without reason until you have done so.

I’m not blaming you. I’m just not willing to accept your skepticism on blind faith. Ironic?

 

[remez]

Remez: you seem to have to misunderstandings: about the complexity of a god and about the "laws of logic" so I start with those issues.

Really pay attention. You asserted that an explanation must be simpler than the effect it is trying to explain.

1) an (eternal) god is an extremely complex entity which is actually harder to explain than a universe so stating "god did it" leaves you with the much harder problem of explaining why there is a god.

I then challenged you with……………..

How so? It’s your assertion defend it. I’m really curious to your reasons why this is criterion is remotely reasonable? Ex….allow me to name an effect, let’s say a book. Now the cause is an author. Compare the complexities of the cause and effect, and then explain to me why what you claim above is reasonable.

And you responded with proof that supported MY refutation of your reasoning. You really did.

That system (author -> book) requires an entire universe to exist: The author is the result of a process that has been going on since the BigBang, an enormously complex process involving huge amounts of atoms in staggeringly complex combinations over billons of years.

And here is the best part …you concluded I was right …… that you were wrong.

And more: The author is immensly more complex than the book.

Thank you.

 

[remez]

3) there is no evidence that the universe as a whole must have a cause. There is no logic contradition in assuming that universe just started to exist.

You are using the laws of logic to dismiss the laws of logic. How is that logical?

I do not dismiss any "laws of logic". i just note the obvious: assuming that universe started involves no logical contradiction…..

You again just entirely dismissed the law of causality.

Observe ….. You said there is no evidence that the universe must have a cause while at the same time asserting the universe had a beginning.

Now………..

Law of casualty states for every effect there is a preceding cause. Think about it.

If the universe began to exist then the universe is and effect. Think about it.

So logic demands the universe has a cause. Think about it.

Get it?

The fact that the universe began to exist means it had a external cause.

 

[Juma]

And here is the best part …you concluded I was right …… that you were wrong.

Sorry if it went over your head.

The point was that your example sucks, not that is ok for an explanation to state something more complex to explain something else. We already have 1) observation of human writers, 2) explanation for where humans comes from (evolution) and 3) a complex milieu where it is possible: the universe.

Without any of this "a human wrote it" would suck as anvexplanation.

But you are prepared to call "a god" an explanation without having any explanation of where this god comes from.

beleiving that all presents comes from santa is not nearly as stupid as that.

 

[Juma]

3) there is no evidence that the universe as a whole must have a cause. There is no logic contradition in assuming that universe just started to exist.

You are using the laws of logic to dismiss the laws of logic. How is that logical?

I do not dismiss any "laws of logic". i just note the obvious: assuming that universe started involves no logical contradiction…..

You again just entirely dismissed the law of causality.

Observe ….. You said there is no evidence that the universe must have a cause while at the same time asserting the universe had a beginning.

Now………..

Law of casualty states for every effect there is a preceding cause. Think about it.

If the universe began to exist then the universe is and effect. Think about it.

So logic demands the universe has a cause. Think about it.

Get it?

The fact that the universe began to exist means it had a external cause.

1) Remember that time itself started with the universe. There is no "before the universe". So there cannot have been a cause.
2) "cause and effect" is no physical law, it is metaphysics. There is one law though and that is that IF there is a cause it must occur before the effect. But since time started when the universe did so...
3) Quantum mechanics shows that there are plenty of uncaused events.

And: even if there was a cause, causing our universe to be, there is no reason to call it a god.

 

[hyzer]

Exactly. Because time started with the universe, it can be said that the universe has always existed.

See, we can all play the semantics game . . . . But words do not a god make.

 

[Malintent]

Depends on what you mean by everything.

our observable universe

It is the point in time as far back as we can measure this universe... and it was small. VERY VERY VERY small.

Yes and that is as far as we can go with natural investigation because nature disappears at that singularity. Actually it’s just beginning. It’s too obvious to ignore.

incorrect. Look out over the ocean. see where your vision just stops? that is the end of everything... there is nothing beyond that... cause you can't see it. right?

Try this ..... why can’t we measure any further back?
Likely you’ll say the laws of nature breakdown. Then why do they “breakdown”?
Where do the laws of nature come from?

"breakdown" is one word that can be used with an audience that isn't trying to 'win' a debate through the definition of words quoted out of context. In this context, I think the best way to describe why we cannot measure any further back is because we lack the tools to do so.

If you accept that the body of science is not trying to tell you that the universe had a beginning that started with some 'explosion', which they are not, then you will have to reexamine your thought process. If you do that, what do you find about your argument?

Then why did Hawking’s and others just write a books proclaiming their own theories on how the universe began?

well, I read "a brief history of time" as well as "baby universes and black holes" by Hawkins quite some time ago. "Began" is nice simple word for the nice simple people that read off the best sellers list.. he was talking about "how the universe came to be as we see it today"... which is a little more complicated than, "began". Quote the author specifically, in context, if I have missed something there.

What if you re-examine the obvious beginning and all its implications?

It is not at all obvious to me at all... in fact, with the cyclical seasons, constant cycles of life, death, the simple circular paths of orbiting bodies, and pretty much EVERYHTING I see around me, ALL speaks to a foundational principle of eternal existence through repeating cycles. THIS instance of our universe may very well been the infinity + 1 version... with infinity next versions just waiting for the Big Freeze to trigger the next Big Bang as the fabric of spacetime is stretched to some physical limit of emptiness.

 

[DBT]

Yes, most certainly I do, but there is a limit. It is not the case that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence in every case. That was my point only.

In a case where evidence has not found for the existence of something, presumably it may be hidden, it is not justified to form a belief/conviction that the article in question does indeed exist. You can postulate its existence, God, gods, nature spirits or whatever, but conviction is not justified.

As it stands, the evidence for the existence of a Creator of the Universe is not only hidden, but the apparent natural development of the Universe works against the proposition of a Creator.

We consider an “inflationary era” as part of the history of our expanding universe yet we have no evidence for it.

It's an explanatory model that has neither been confirmed or disproved. It's a work in progress.

Proposing a Creator is not a better solution. There is no evidence for it. Nor is it a good explanatory model. It's a 'solution' that's far more complex than the problem it seeks to solve. It explains nothing, just passes the problem along to....''it was magic that did it''

 

[Malintent]

our observable universe

It is the point in time as far back as we can measure this universe... and it was small. VERY VERY VERY small.

Yes and that is as far as we can go with natural investigation because nature disappears at that singularity. Actually it’s just beginning. It’s too obvious to ignore.

incorrect. Look out over the ocean. see where your vision just stops? that is the end of everything... there is nothing beyond that... cause you can't see it. right?

Try this ..... why can’t we measure any further back?
Likely you’ll say the laws of nature breakdown. Then why do they “breakdown”?
Where do the laws of nature come from?

"breakdown" is one word that can be used with an audience that isn't trying to 'win' a debate through the definition of words quoted out of context. In this context, I think the best way to describe why we cannot measure any further back is because we lack the tools to do so.

If you accept that the body of science is not trying to tell you that the universe had a beginning that started with some 'explosion', which they are not, then you will have to reexamine your thought process. If you do that, what do you find about your argument?

Then why did Hawking’s and others just write a books proclaiming their own theories on how the universe began?

well, I read "a brief history of time" as well as "baby universes and black holes" by Hawkins quite some time ago. "Began" is nice simple word for the nice simple people that read off the best sellers list.. he was talking about "how the universe came to be as we see it today"... which is a little more complicated than, "began". Quote the author specifically, in context, if I have missed something there.

What if you re-examine the obvious beginning and all its implications?

It is not at all obvious to me at all... in fact, with the cyclical seasons, constant cycles of life, death, the simple circular paths of orbiting bodies, and pretty much EVERYHTING I see around me, ALL speaks to a foundational principle of eternal existence through repeating cycles. THIS instance of our universe may very well been the infinity + 1 version... with infinity next versions just waiting for the Big Freeze to trigger the next Big Bang as the fabric of spacetime is stretched to some physical limit of emptiness.

Lol, this inspired my wife to name one of her impressionist acrylic paintings 'The Physical Limit of Emptiness'. Sort of speaks to the art, the poetry, and the beauty derived from our Universe, despite the absence of some omniscient being conducting it all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Law of casualty states for every effect there is a preceding cause. Think about it.

If the universe began to exist then the universe is and effect. Think about it.

So logic demands the universe has a cause. Think about it.

Get it?

The fact that the universe began to exist means it had a external cause.

Human experience is rather limited in scale and time.

If you're driving towards me at 90 mph, and i'm driving towards you at 90 mph, our experience shows us that from my POV, you're approaching at 180 mph.

But if we're doing 90% of the speed of light, then you do NOT appear, to me, to be approaching at 180% of the speed of light. Think about it.

Not about the math for relativity. Just about how what seems logical and natural to us from our experiences doesn't necessarily apply to conditions well outside of our experience.

If Causality is a law within the universe as we know and understand it, that does not mean that the same laws apply to conditions external to the universe. Whatever the conditions were at the universe's forming, they may not be subject to the same logical assumptions that apply here and now.

 

[DBT]

''The fact that the universe began to exist means it had a external cause.''

The Universe may be a closed system, an open system, a part of a larger system (multiverse of some description, quilted mulitverse, branes, etc) or something else entirely. Perhaps a super civilization has been running countless simulated universes (probablility wave collapse/observer experience), however unlikely this is. Who knows.

We don't know.

But to all appearances,the Universe has formed and evolved through natural processes, governed by the characteristics of matter/energy.

There is no evidence to suggest Creation by a supernatural enitity.

Hence holding a conviction in the existence of a Supernatural Entity is not justified.

 

[abaddon]

Hence holding a conviction in the existence of a Supernatural Entity is not justified.

And it’s "blind faith" precisely because the reasons for “trusting” that God exists require so many distortions of reason. Much that theists present as "premises" are mere assertions.

 

[remez]

Hence holding a conviction in the existence of a Supernatural Entity is not justified.

And it’s "blind faith" precisely because the reasons for “trusting” that God exists require so many distortions of reason. Much that theists present as "premises" are mere assertions.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you missed post 101. If you did see it and ignored it, then your charges here are groundless and dishonest.

Happy New Year

 

[remez]

The point was that your example sucks, not that is ok for an explanation to state something more complex to explain something else. We already have 1) observation of human writers, 2) explanation for where humans comes from (evolution) and 3) a complex milieu where it is possible: the universe.

Without any of this "a human wrote it" would suck as anvexplanation.

First I like your intelligently designed reasoning and will shelf it for right now.

Second evolution tells us where humans come from. We are yet again looking for an origin. Please explain how evolution explains the origin of human life? Wait to save you time I will continue the regress back to the “biological singularity”, abiogenesis, life form non-life. Because ultimately that’s where humans came from, Right?

So how does evolution explain life from non-life?

But you are prepared to call "a god" an explanation without having any explanation of where this god comes from.

No.
Happy New Year

 

[remez]

The Universe may be a closed system, an open system, a part of a larger system (multiverse of some description, quilted mulitverse, branes, etc) or something else entirely. Perhaps a super civilization has been running countless simulated universes (probablility wave collapse/observer experience), however unlikely this is. Who knows.

We don't know.

And as long as there are wild speculations out there opposing the obvious you skeptics can hide in the idk gap. It’s a weak epistemology IMO. There is this Planck gap where skeptics ignore the logical notion that’s where our nature began to exist, and choose to illogically cling to our materialistic naturalism and assert from our time perspective that the laws broke downs so we don’t know what happened. But whatever it was, it was natural.

It’s your philosophical commitment to naturalistic materialism that limits your investigation and you will forever be lost in the gap. Nature could not create itself. This is not a God of the gaps fallacy. I’m claiming that the scientific evidence directly infers a beginning. With you right here, I’m not even trying to establish it was the Biblical God. I’m rationally trying to show how the supernatural (not fantasy) is reasonably plausible.
Skeptics are claiming by blind (idk) faith against reason that the idk Planck gap must be filled by nature. It is a nature of the gaps fallacy.

But to all appearances,the Universe has formed and evolved through natural processes, governed by the characteristics of matter/energy.

Hold on…… what do you mean by formed? Beginning?
Where did the matter and energy come from?
Did they magically create themselves?
The affirmative position of that last question requires more faith than I have right now.

There is no evidence to suggest Creation by a supernatural enitity.

My singular focus here (specifically that comment) is the logical existence of the supernatural…………
Most reasonably nature is an effect. The cause had to be something beyond nature and that would be supernatural.
Now by supernatural I’m simply describing that which is reasonably beyond nature.
Not to be confused with fantasy which is that which is beyond reason.

Happy New Year

 

[remez]

You can postulate its existence, God, gods, nature spirits or whatever, but conviction is not justified.

As it stands, the evidence for the existence of a Creator of the Universe is not only hidden, but the apparent natural development of the Universe works against the proposition of a Creator.

Here’s the catch, science doesn’t say anything scientists do. We are both looking at the same evidence. I see (not blind faith) the “natural development” of the universe as strong evidence that God does exist. You claim that you see it differently. So what is the difference in our assumptions and epistemologies that cause us to see it differently?

It's an explanatory model that has neither been confirmed or disproved. It's a work in progress.
Proposing a Creator is not a better solution.

Just to be clear here I think it’s a very plausible model (inflation era) and I was not indicating it was the model or God. I think the model most plausibility illustrates the details of that creation era.

It's a 'solution' that's far more complex than the problem it seeks to solve.

1) How is God more complex?
2) There are many reasonable ways to judge an explanation good or bad. How does your misuse of this one criterion eliminate all other criterion like as explanatory scope and power?
3) Requiring that one needs to explain the explanation before it can be judged as the best explanation would lead to an infinite regress.
4) By way of refutation … it’s obvious that intelligence is the best explanation of designed effects. Author explain books.

It explains nothing, just passes the problem along to....''it was magic that did it''

It explains many things. In the context here, since the universe is contingent then the necessary explanation describes God and he is also fits the conditions of the cause of the universe that began to exist?
Nature creating itself is the stuff of magic. Especially that quantum creation out of nothing interpretation.
Again we are looking at the same evidence so what is the difference?
Is it your assumption of materialistic naturalism that limits your investigations?
Why is your interpretation correct?
Happy New Year

 

[remez]

Yes and that is as far as we can go with natural investigation because nature disappears at that singularity. Actually it’s just beginning. It’s too obvious to ignore.

incorrect. Look out over the ocean. see where your vision just stops? that is the end of everything... there is nothing beyond that... cause you can't see it. right?

I’m certainly not an empiricist. We rationally can reason beyond the empirical. Now we certainly can reason beyond the extent of our sight from shore that there is an end to the ocean. We can just as certainly reason beyond our naturalistic means that there is an end (beginning) to our nature.

I think the best way to describe why we cannot measure any further back is because we lack the tools to do so.

Tools? You lack the object of what you are researching…… nature itself. You still have the tool of reasoning.
You have no more nature. So you have no more science. See that is the limit of nature and science. To be believe you can find this answer naturally is having a blind faith in nature. A nature of the gaps reasoning.
In the face of evidence you asserting it just had to be nature.

It is not at all obvious to me at all... in fact, with the cyclical seasons, constant cycles of life, death, the simple circular paths of orbiting bodies, and pretty much EVERYHTING I see around me, ALL speaks to a foundational principle of eternal existence through repeating cycles.

Then you have to ignore the opposing science evidence that our expansion rate is accelerating and that the material density of the universe is nowhere near the quantity needed to reverse this acceleration. Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin’s math indicates that the universe certainly had a starting point ……………

………… A cyclic universe runs into the second law of thermodynamics, which says that any system left to itself eventually reaches the state of maximum disorder, called thermal equilibrium. So if the universe were cyclic, then in every cycle, the disorder in the universe would increase. Eventually the universe would reach this thermal equilibrium state, which is a totally featureless mixture of everything—this is not what we see around us.
One hypothesis about a cyclic universe avoids this problem of thermodynamics, though. There are models of a cyclic universe in which the volume grows in every cycle. This way, the universe expands and contracts, but contracts to a larger volume than in the previous cycle. So even though disorder increases, disorder per unit volume doesn’t change.
That’s possible, but then our 2003 theorem poses a problem because if the volume of the universe grows, then there must have been a beginning. So the cyclic universe scenario doesn’t avoid a beginning either. ……..

- See more at: http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning#sthash.y2ueZpNW.dpuf

Your obvious model requires a blind faith in the face of some pretty stiff evidence. But by all means keep looking. I’m still fascinated by the notion of perpetual motion.

Happy New Year

 

[remez]

If you're driving towards me at 90 mph, and i'm driving towards you at 90 mph, our experience shows us that from my POV, you're approaching at 180 mph.
But if we're doing 90% of the speed of light, then you do NOT appear, to me, to be approaching at 180% of the speed of light.

Understood.
Remember….
Steven Wright ….. If you are in a spaceship that is traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on the headlights, does anything happen?
Or….
What’s the speed of dark?

Not about the math for relativity. Just about how what seems logical and natural to us from our experiences doesn't necessarily apply to conditions well outside of our experience.

“just about how what” unclear. My guess………..
Yes, but my contention is that the limits of logic, math, and nature are different.

If Causality is a law within the universe as we know and understand it, that does not mean that the same laws apply to conditions external to the universe. Whatever the conditions were at the universe's forming, they may not be subject to the same logical assumptions that apply here and now.

Sorry I’m not trying to be picky. Truly I want to understand you.
I can’t make out your If-Then structure.
Are you asserting that the law of causality (or logic as a whole) only affects physical objects inside our space-time?

Happy New Year

 

[remez]

3) there is no evidence that the universe as a whole must have a cause. There is no logic contradition in assuming that universe just started to exist.

You are using the laws of logic to dismiss the laws of logic. How is that logical?

I do not dismiss any "laws of logic". i just note the obvious: assuming that universe started involves no logical contradiction…..

You again just entirely dismissed the law of causality.

Observe ….. You said there is no evidence that the universe must have a cause while at the same time asserting the universe had a beginning.

Now………..

Law of casualty states for every effect there is a preceding cause. Think about it.

If the universe began to exist then the universe is and effect. Think about it.

So logic demands the universe has a cause. Think about it.

Get it?

The fact that the universe began to exist means it had a external cause.

1) Remember that time itself started with the universe. There is no "before the universe". So there cannot have been a cause.
2) "cause and effect" is no physical law, it is metaphysics. There is one law though and that is that IF there is a cause it must occur before the effect. But since time started when the universe did so...
3) Quantum mechanics shows that there are plenty of uncaused events.

And: even if there was a cause, causing our universe to be, there is no reason to call it a god.

Just notice I missed this post. Out of time right now. I'll get to it next year.

Happy New Year.

 

[Juma]

First I like your intelligently designed reasoning and will shelf it for right now.

And i will shelf this discussion until you answer the post.