The Causal God Gambit

[Juma]

What scientist says that there ii is an apparent design? And most important: why? What are their arguments?

Scientists sats a lot of silly things, it is their arguments for what they say that are really interesting.

So bring forth the evidence.

Francis Collins for one. He believes in God and guided evolution.


In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins wrote that scientific discoveries were an "opportunity to worship" and that he rejected both Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief, he wrote, was theistic evolution or evolutionary creation, which he preferred to call BioLogos. He wrote that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell".^[64] He appeared in December 2006 on The Colbert Report television show and in a March 2007 Fresh Air radio interview to discuss this book.^[65][66] In an interview with D. J. Grothe on the Point of Inquiry podcast he said that the overall aim of the book was to show that "one can be intellectually in a rigorous position and argue that science and faith can be compatible", and that he was prompted to write the book because "most people are seeking a possible harmony between these worldviews [science and faith], and it seems rather sad that we hear so little about this possibility.<sup>[67]


Needless to say, he offers no real proof for his assertion, but he is also no friend to creationists.</sup>

Thus he not a scientist in the field. Fail.
Next.

 

[Learner]

Sorry but the last paragraph doesnt make sense.
Are you trying to say that what we know about fields and particles is "just a theory"?

Guessing beyond what is currently and limitedly known would be science fiction. What does observing the "behaviour" of fields and particles tell you - no design intention is possible or other ?

 

[Learner]

What scientist says that there ii is an apparent design? And most important: why? What are their arguments?

Scientists sats a lot of silly things, it is their arguments for what they say that are really interesting.

So bring forth the evidence.

I mean't was 'Natural design' without intention.

 

[Juma]

What scientist says that there ii is an apparent design? And most important: why? What are their arguments?

Scientists sats a lot of silly things, it is their arguments for what they say that are really interesting.

So bring forth the evidence.

I mean't was 'Natural design' without intention.

That is an contradiction.
"Design" means that something is created according to a plan. You cannot have design without intention.

 

[Juma]

Sorry but the last paragraph doesnt make sense.
Are you trying to say that what we know about fields and particles is "just a theory"?

Guessing beyond what is currently and limitedly known would be science fiction. What does observing the "behaviour" of fields and particles tell you - no design intention is possible or other ?

It tells me what I already told you: our everyday life cannot be changed by any other force than the well know four forces: electromagnetic, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravitation.

 

[Learner]

That is an contradiction.
"Design" means that something is created according to a plan. You cannot have design without intention.

I would agree with you with the actual definition of the word , but used here in regards to something that looks like a design is similar to using the word "selection" in "natural selection".

 

[Learner]

It tells me what I already told you: our everyday life cannot be changed by any other force than the well know four forces: electromagnetic, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravitation.

Not disagreeing with your above but there is some limitation in knowing entirely about these forces.

 

[Juma]

It tells me what I already told you: our everyday life cannot be changed by any other force than the well know four forces: electromagnetic, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravitation.

Not disagreeing with your above but there is some limitation in knowing entirely about these forces.

What limitation?

 

[Juma]

That is an contradiction.
"Design" means that something is created according to a plan. You cannot have design without intention.

I would agree with you with the actual definition of the word , but used here in regards to something that looks like a design is similar to using the word "selection" in "natural selection".

Not similar at all. A selection doesnt not need intention. Something can be selected entirely by chance.
Selection simply means that something remains and something else doesnt according to some rule.

 

[remez]

I get the non-theistic "cause" thing and that it's deductive logic and not "just theism" or "blind faith".

Thank you. That is what I have been trying to show.

#1 the universe had an absolute beginning. That means all space, matter, time, energy, material, nature came into existence at the beginning of the universe. If you can grant that (even just for sake of investigation) then we can follow to #2.

Granted for the sake of investigation.

Understood. And I’ll try to be brief.

Given #1 It follows that the universe has an external cause. Conceptual analysis allows us to establish a number of incredible properties that such an entity must possess. For the cause of time and space, this entity must logically transcend time and space and thus exist timelessly and spacelessly at least without the universe. Thus this entity must be changeless and immaterial, because timelessness entails changelessness and changelessness implies immateriality. Therefore the transcendent cause must be beginningless and uncaused, since there cannot be and infinite regress of causes. (Ockham’s Razor) Of course this entity must be incredibly powerful, because it created the universe without any material cause.

So we have uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, personal cause of the universe.

Go on to where you connect the eternal and necessary cause to the "non-theistic" personal agency bit that can't be an immaterial object and so has to be minded and all that.

This is very brief, any point of course can be reasoned out further as you desire.

I offer these three traditional arguments for the personhood of the first cause.

First: There are two types of causal explanation. Scientific explanations in regards to mechanism and personal explanations regarding personal agency and volition. You know the classic scenario…. If I come into the kitchen and notice that the teapot is in full whistle. Seeking explanation I ask “Why is the water boiling?” My responder could of course provide a scientific explanation of heat…conduction….kinetic energy…water molecules vibrate…etc. Or my responder could respond “I wanted to make some tea.” The first response provides a scientific explanation the second provides a personal explanation. Overtly, each is a legitimate type of explanation. Depending on the context it would be inappropriate to give one rather than the other. Note the context with regards to the initial state of the universe, there actually can be no scientific explanation, because was nothing natural before it so it cannot be explained in terms of operating laws and initial conditions. It can only be explained by a personal agent and his volition.

Second: The personal agency of the cause of the universe is implied by its immateriality and timelessness. The only entities we know of that have those properties are abstract objects or minds. But abstract objects do not cause anything. Thus the transcendent cause of the universe must be a mind.

Third: Only a free agent could explain the origin of a temporal effect with a beginning from a changeless, timeless cause.

Your thoughts?

 

[Juma]

Given #1 It follows that the universe has an external cause.

No. It doesnt.
The universe could oscillate in time. Time is a property of the universe.

Conceptual analysis allows us to establish a number of incredible properties that such an entity must possess.

Entity? There is nothing that points to an entity.

For the cause of time and space, this entity must logically transcend time and space and thus exist timelessly and spacelessly at least without the universe.

Just outside our time and space dimensions.

Thus this entity must be changeless and immaterial, because timelessness entails changelessness and changelessness implies immateriality.

Therefore the transcendent cause must be beginningless and uncaused, since there cannot be and infinite regress of causes. (Ockham’s Razor)

That is not valid use of ockhams razor. Infinite regress of causes is not a complicating factor.

Of course this entity must be incredibly powerful, because it created the universe without any material cause.

Or simply triggered a chain reaction in its own universe...

First: There are two types of causal explanation. Scientific explanations in regards to mechanism and personal explanations regarding personal agency and volition.
You know the classic scenario…. If I come into the kitchen and notice that the teapot is in full whistle. Seeking explanation I ask “Why is the water boiling?” My responder could of course provide a scientific explanation of heat…conduction….kinetic energy…water molecules vibrate…etc. Or my responder could respond “I wanted to make some tea.” The first response provides a scientific explanation the second provides a personal explanation. Overtly, each is a legitimate type of explanation. Depending on the context it would be inappropriate to give one rather than the other. Note the context with regards to the initial state of the universe, there actually can be no scientific explanation, because was nothing natural before it so it cannot be explained in terms of operating laws and initial conditions. It can only be explained by a personal agent and his volition.

Sorry, I just fell of my chair laughing.
This is so silly. If there are no operating laws and initial conditions then there are definitely no personal agent...

Second: The personal agency of the cause of the universe is implied by its immateriality and timelessness. The only entities we know of that have those properties are abstract objects or minds. But abstract objects do not cause anything. Thus the transcendent cause of the universe must be a mind.

Minds are not immaterial and definitely not timeless.

Third: Only a free agent could explain the origin of a temporal effect with a beginning from a changeless, timeless cause.

1. an agent can not since an agent is not timeless.
2. The supposition of an free agent is not an explanation it is an added complication: how do you explain the agent? (Ockham stabs you in the back)

 

[remez]

Juma
Your challenges there post 291, are meaningless for you are out of context ONCE AGAIN.

But more importantly, in your last post to me you concluded that reasoning by theists is wrong because they are theists. I’m willing to leave it at that with you. OK?

 

[Juma]

Juma
Your challenges there post 291, are meaningless for you are out of context ONCE AGAIN.

Out of context? How? Because I assumed you where actually trying to present valid arguments?

in your last post to me you concluded that reasoning by theists is wrong because they are theists.

No, i did not. I said that your argument was faulty because it resided on subjective values. Even theist are, theoretically, able to provide valid arguments.
Even if you seem to have a long way to go...

 

[remez]

Out of context?

The part you ignored…………

I get the non-theistic "cause" thing and that it's deductive logic and not "just theism" or "blind faith".

Thank you. That is what I have been trying to show.

#1 the universe had an absolute beginning. That means all space, matter, time, energy, material, nature came into existence at the beginning of the universe. If you can grant that (even just for sake of investigation) then we can follow to #2.

Granted for the sake of investigation.

Understood. And I’ll try to be brief.

Your objections were still aimed at #1 and we moved on to #2.
The context of #2 was given #1.

 

[abaddon]

... Note the context with regards to the initial state of the universe, there actually can be no scientific explanation, because was nothing natural before it so it cannot be explained in terms of operating laws and initial conditions. It can only be explained by a personal agent and his volition.

"Explained", you say.

Second: The personal agency of the cause of the universe is implied by its immateriality and timelessness. The only entities we know of that have those properties are abstract objects or minds. But abstract objects do not cause anything. Thus the transcendent cause of the universe must be a mind.

"Entities we know of" you say.

Third: Only a free agent could explain the origin of a temporal effect with a beginning from a changeless, timeless cause.

Your thoughts?

"Origin" you say.

How does saying "free agent" make a temporal effect, a beginning, happen within a non-place that has no time?

You're using concepts derived from the universe and applying them in your transcendent spaceless, timeless un-world. Your transcendence is merely abstract concepts describing the universe made even more abstract so you can use concepts dependent on context (the universe) outside of that context.

Your transcendent realm should have no frame of reference at all. But it does: the universe. The universe is supposed to be contingent upon your un-world when it's entirely the other way around. You can pretend to escape the universe conceptually but you cannot do it actually.

 

[Juma]

Juma
Your challenges there post 291, are meaningless for you are out of context ONCE AGAIN.

But more importantly, in your last post to me you concluded that reasoning by theists is wrong because they are theists. I’m willing to leave it at that with you. OK?

The part you ignored…………

I get the non-theistic "cause" thing and that it's deductive logic and not "just theism" or "blind faith".

Thank you. That is what I have been trying to show.

#1 the universe had an absolute beginning. That means all space, matter, time, energy, material, nature came into existence at the beginning of the universe. If you can grant that (even just for sake of investigation) then we can follow to #2.

Granted for the sake of investigation.

Understood. And I’ll try to be brief.

Your objections were still aimed at #1 and we moved on to #2.
The context of #2 was given #1.

All my comments comply with#1.
Now go back and read my objections again.

 

[Learner]

It tells me what I already told you: our everyday life cannot be changed by any other force than the well know four forces: electromagnetic, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravitation.

You are assuming that a force "equal" to that of the known forces is the argument to cause any change - this may sound a little misleading to the perspective. But I agree in the context that to change these forces would no doubt cause effect and be hazardous to everyday life.

Altering the very laws of physic itself, changing the behaviour of the very known forces would be a different method all together without the need of another like force.

What limitation?

Soley to Know only how forces behave is the limit so far.

 

[remez]

... Note the context with regards to the initial state of the universe, there actually can be no scientific explanation, because was nothing natural before it so it cannot be explained in terms of operating laws and initial conditions. It can only be explained by a personal agent and his volition.

"Explained", you say.

Of the two..... science or agency. Only agency remains given #1.

Second: The personal agency of the cause of the universe is implied by its immateriality and timelessness. The only entities we know of that have those properties are abstract objects or minds. But abstract objects do not cause anything. Thus the transcendent cause of the universe must be a mind.

"Entities we know of" you say.

How about "the only alternatives we know of" ? This is common ground.

Third: Only a free agent could explain the origin of a temporal effect with a beginning from a changeless, timeless cause.

"Origin" you say.

Given #1.

How does saying "free agent" make a temporal effect, a beginning, happen within a non-place that has no time?

??? Saying "free agent" does not "make" anything?

You're using concepts derived from the universe and applying them in your transcendent spaceless, timeless un-world.

If by "un-world" you mean transcendent cause, then yes of course I am. That's how forensic reasoning works.

Your transcendence is merely abstract concepts describing the universe made even more abstract so you can use concepts dependent on context (the universe) outside of that context.

Not sure what you mean by "Your transcendence". Are you referring to my conceptual ANALYSIS or are you referring to the actual transcendent CAUSE?

The rest of the sentence is unclear as well. Please clarify.

Your transcendent realm should have no frame of reference at all.

Why?

The universe is supposed to be contingent upon your un-world when it's entirely the other way around.

Again I'm reasoning your term "un-world" to mean transcendent cause. If I'm wrong on that please clarify.

Yes the universe is contingent upon its transcendent cause. How are you reading that this is the other way around? That is how forensic science works. Fossils are contingent upon the creature that created them. But examining the fossil for clues to identify that creature does not render the creature contingent to the fossil.

You can pretend to escape the universe conceptually but you cannot do it actually.

Not sure what you mean by "escape the universe". Or why you think I'm actually trying to do that?

I'm analyzing the scene of an event to determine characteristics of its cause. I'm not trying to escape the scene.

 

[Juma]

You are assuming that a force "equal" to that of the known forces is the argument to cause any change - this may sound a little misleading to the perspective. But I agree in the context that to change these forces would no doubt cause effect and be hazardous to everyday life.

Altering the very laws of physic itself, changing the behaviour of the very known forces would be a different method all together without the need of another like force.

What limitation?

Soley to Know only how forces behave is the limit so far.

If you starts ponding gods that changes the laws of nature at will thrn you have left science altogehher,
Then you only have magic...

 

[Kharakov]

It does (predicts that our universe began to exist)? AFAIKnew, it traces spacetime/matter+/+energy back to where classical physical models break down, and doesn't include ideas about events prior to the Planck epoch.

You are conflating the theories known extension of knowledge back to one single Planck second with a fundamental prediction of the theory.

I'm not sure what you mean by that- the BBT traces things back to where they can't be traced by current models, and sort of sweeps the eternity before spacetime expansion under the rug (it doesn't really "sweep it under the rug"- but it (the BBT) doesn't address where current models have singularities (or mathematical infinities)).

The BGV also adds to that prediction by asserting that any universe which is on average expanding can not be past eternal.

AFAICT it says that spacetime has a singularity point from which it began to expand. That doesn't mean that some other spacetime didn't exist from which this spacetime began to expand from. The seed for this spacetime quantum tunneled from another spacetime and started expansion... BB.

Tell me what would you expect the evidence to look like......If the entire universe actually began to exist at that Planck second?

Tell me what you would expect the evidence to look like.... If the entire universe actually began to exist last Tuesday, with all histories intact?

What if the universe is entirely different every Tuesday, changing past histories, but we ALWAYS remember the new histories that start on the new Tuesday?

I'm telling you. That's exactly what is happening. I have proof. Try to find any evidence that history does not extend beyond last Tuesday. You cannot- it is because all the history began to exist last Tuesday.

How would that evidence look any different from what we actually have right now?

It doesn't matter. It won't last past Tuesday, unless it's an illusion that it existed before next Tuesday.

AFAICT, the BGV theorem doesn't address cyclical systems in which energy/disorder decreases or increases due to various self adjustments between cycles of universal expansion- it just assumes that "universal cycle resets" always result in the subsequent universal cycle having greater entropy than the one before it.

Perhaps you can inform me as to why scientists "assume" the entropy increases.

Well, that's what they see everywhere. However, they don't really spend a lot of time probing singularities, so they don't know what happens when one is born (well, at least I'm not informed about theories that successfully describe singularities).

Provide some actual actual scientific evidence for your speculation and I'll give it a serious look.

How? It's all speculation until the FSM extends a noodley appendage.

Thus any model attempting to extend a material existence beyond the singularity is less plausible.

Why? The singularity (ok, smaller than Planck length) is where classical physical models break down. They (classical theories) break down when energy density is over a certain amount (think black holes). Doesn't mean there isn't some form natural law governing things.

Yes it does. Natural laws end at nature. No nature no natural laws.

Well, I had Vilenkin quoted as saying something along the lines of "before the BB there where still the laws of GR and QM", but I can't find it now. Mehh...

The main point I was making is that the KCA assumes a beginning to the universe, and there might not be one (unless you define the universe as everything except God and/or nature).

First, I consider the universe to be all of nature, meaning all of physical reality.

Secondly, p2 STATES that the "universe began to exist" and it is philosophically and scientifically SUPPORTED. Your disingenuous phraseology of "the KCA assumes a beginning to the universe " infers that no support has been provided. That is certainly not the case, as evidenced by the fact, that we have been debating this support for over a month.

Umm, there is no support for that. Spacetime expansion began, that doesn't mean this is the originating spacetime, it doesn't mean that there aren't other spacetimes that began to expand, etc.

Vilenkin, of the BGV theorem, speaks of the multiverse sometimes, and sometimes talks about quantum tunneling causing spacetime to begin to expand. Doesn't really mean that the universe began, it means our spacetime began to expand.


Keep in mind that a scientifically advanced culture living in an eternal universe could create a new universe. Not that we are getting there... but... you know, as long as we are speculating wildly...