Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on April 07, 2020, 02:34:38 PM
-
When asked why people believe in god(s)free rather than God a laddie answered
''Evidence or reasoning for god(s)-free''
What then is the evidence and sound reasoning for life the universe and everything being gods free?
-
When asked why people believe in god(s)free rather than God a laddie answered
''Evidence or reasoning for god(s)-free''
What then is the evidence and sound reasoning for life the universe and everything being gods free?
You have the ability to pack a lot of wrong into so few words: I suppose that is a skill of sorts.
Reasoning for life in the universe: you, me, hamsters, whales and camels (and many many more).
Reasoning for "everything being gods free": no idea, since as far as I can see that isn't a claim anyone is actually making. Since the weather is getting warmer, Vlad, please take care with matches given all that straw you seemingly surround yourself with.
-
You have the ability to pack a lot of wrong into so few words: I suppose that is a skill of sorts.
Reasoning for life in the universe: you, me, hamsters, whales and camels (and many many more).
Reasoning for "everything being gods free": no idea, since as far as I can see that isn't a claim anyone is actually making. Since the weather is getting warmer, Vlad, please take care with matches given all that straw you seemingly surround yourself with.
Yawn
-
When asked why people believe in god(s)free rather than God a laddie answered
''Evidence or reasoning for god(s)-free''
What then is the evidence and sound reasoning for life the universe and everything being gods free?
The claim is that there is a lack of evidence or reasoning for god(s), not necessarily a lack of god(s). You can falsify the claim by providing sound reasoning or objective evidence for one or other of the thousands of god claims.
-
When asked why people believe in god(s)free rather than God a laddie answered
''Evidence or reasoning for god(s)-free''
What then is the evidence and sound reasoning for life the universe and everything being gods free?
We’ve been posting on these boards and the BBC predecessors for decades and never once has a religionists presented any good evidence for their version - or any version - of a deity. The most parsimonious explanation of this is the hypothesis that these deities do not exist.
-
We’ve been posting on these boards and the BBC predecessors for decades and never once has a religionists presented any good evidence for their version - or any version - of a deity. The most parsimonious explanation of this is the hypothesis that these deities do not exist.
Nobody has put good reasons for any philosophical position on this board and never wants to be seen to be saddled with one. For the same length of time. This is just a tiny wee niche where the atheists hang and not a patch on the BBC predecessor.
-
Nobody has put good reasons for any philosophical position on this board
I just gave you a good reason not to believe in gods (well, not to believe in the particular gods that Christians and others claim exist).
-
When asked why people believe in god(s)free rather than God a laddie answered
''Evidence or reasoning for god(s)-free''
What then is the evidence and sound reasoning for life the universe and everything being gods free?
The onus is on believers to give evidence or arguments for the existance of a God or gods. In the absence of any, atheism wins by default. Occam's Razor, and all that.
-
The onus is on believers to give evidence or arguments for the existance of a God or gods. In the absence of any, atheism wins by default. Occam's Razor, and all that.
I agree. BTW it is existEnce, NOT existAnce! :P
-
The onus is on believers to give evidence or arguments for the existance of a God or gods. In the absence of any, atheism wins by default. Occam's Razor, and all that.
Occam's razor? How does that work? Occam's razor would have to state that the necessary in an observable universe of contingency is in the universe. Where is it? What is it?
-
Occam's razor? How does that work? Occam's razor would have to state that the necessary in an observable universe of contingency is in the universe. Where is it? What is it?
You keep on mumbling about necessity and contingency, where is the actual argument? What are its premises and what are the logical steps involved?
-
I agree. BTW it is existEnce, NOT existAnce! :P
Oops.
-
Occam's razor? How does that work? Occam's razor would have to state that the necessary in an observable universe of contingency is in the universe. Where is it? What is it?
Philosophically illiterate gibberish
-
Occam's razor? How does that work?
Stop sealioning.
-
I believe in 'Interninglesionians', anyone want to join my new belief?
May the forth be with you, ippy.
-
You keep on mumbling about necessity and contingency, where is the actual argument? What are its premises and what are the logical steps involved?
Any evidence for naturalism yet.
Necessity and contingency is just a matter of effect and explanation of an effect.
So either something is contingent or something is necessary. In a self explaining universe where all we observe is contingency, there has to have a necessary component somewhere.
It's fairly straight forward. If it's explanation is outside the thing itself then it is a contingent thing.
-
Any evidence for naturalism yet.
I'm not proposing it - ask somebody who is.
Necessity and contingency is just a matter of effect and explanation of an effect.
So either something is contingent or something is necessary. In a self explaining universe where all we observe is contingency, there has to have a necessary component somewhere.
It's fairly straight forward. If it's explanation is outside the thing itself then it is a contingent thing.
This is still incoherent. Once again: is there an actual argument somewhere?
-
Any evidence for naturalism yet.
All of science would like to have a word with you.
Necessity and contingency is just a matter of effect and explanation of an effect.
Got an explanation for God yet?
So either something is contingent or something is necessary. In a self explaining universe where all we observe is contingency, there has to have a necessary component somewhere.
What is the component of God that is necessary?
It's fairly straight forward. If it's explanation is outside the thing itself then it is a contingent thing.
Yes it is straight forward: all the arguments and objections you are making about the Universe can be applied to God also. So let's make the problem simpler by not postulating God at all.
-
All of science would like to have a word with you.Got an explanation for God yet?
What is the component of God that is necessary?
Yes it is straight forward: all the arguments and objections you are making about the Universe can be applied to God also. So let's make the problem simpler by not postulating God at all.
All of science is not a fraction of philosophical naturalism.
God is ALL necessary for the universe is what the proposal is.
This guff you keep spouting about things in the universe being contingent but the universe being necessary looks and probably is complete logical bollocks.
-
All of science is not a fraction of philosophical naturalism.
God is ALL necessary for the universe is what the proposal is.
This guff you keep spouting about things in the universe being contingent but the universe being necessary looks and probably is complete logical bollocks.
Gibberish, and a misrepresentation of what jeremyp has written.
-
God is ALL necessary for the universe is what the proposal is.
Why should we take this proposal at all seriously? Where is the actual argument for it?
-
Why should we take this proposal at all seriously? Where is the actual argument for it?
Since we are on the sound reasoning for god (s) free thread I am not obliged to give one here.
Please provide your sound reasoning.
-
Since we are on the sound reasoning for god (s) free thread I am not obliged to give one here.
Please provide your sound reasoning.
You started this thread because you misunderstood what I said. I am not arguing for god(s)-free, I'm proposing that the world is [evidence and reasoning for god(s)]-free.
You can falsify my proposal by providing reasoning or evidence for god(s).
-
You started this thread because you misunderstood what I said. I am not arguing for god(s)-free, I'm proposing that the world is [evidence and reasoning for god(s)]-free.
You can falsify my proposal by providing reasoning or evidence for god(s).
Stranger when asked for reasons for God(s)free......''I give you...….The world!!!''
How we all laughed. You have to do better than that chummy. Besides, you've just betrayed your naturalism.....in my humble opinion.
-
Stranger when asked for reasons for God(s)free......''I give you...….The world!!!''
How we all laughed. You have to do better than that chummy.
No - I haven't a clue what the hell you're on about. Can I have some of what you're smoking?
Besides, you've just betrayed your naturalism.....in my humble opinion.
How so? All I'm asking for is some reason to take any of the god stories seriously. Clearly you can't provide anything.
-
Stranger when asked for reasons for God(s)free......''I give you...….The world!!!''
How we all laughed. You have to do better than that chummy. Besides, you've just betrayed your naturalism.....in my humble opinion.
Quarantine isn't helping your 'ability' to make sense
-
Stranger when asked for reasons for God(s)free......''I give you...….The world!!!''
How we all laughed. You have to do better than that chummy. Besides, you've just betrayed your naturalism.....in my humble opinion.
..... 'the fuck you on about ? ???
-
Quarantine isn't helping your 'ability' to make sense
..... 'the fuck you on about ? ???
Two contrasting ways of saying the same thing.
-
Two contrasting ways of saying the same thing.
Walter and I are just 2 different masks.
-
God free. (https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2586453275/PrivateGodfrey_400x400.jpg)
-
When asked why people believe in god(s)free rather than God a laddie answered
''Evidence or reasoning for god(s)-free''
What then is the evidence and sound reasoning for life the universe and everything being gods free?
How can anyone offer evidence for the non-existence of something inadequately defined and insufficiently evidenced? The onus is on the claimant of 'gods' to justify their claim; until, and unless, that happens, the reasoning for 'god(s)-free' is that you've still not made a sufficient case.
O.
-
How can anyone offer evidence for the non-existence of something inadequately defined and insufficiently evidenced? The onus is on the claimant of 'gods' to justify their claim; until, and unless, that happens, the reasoning for 'god(s)-free' is that you've still not made a sufficient case.
O.
Not completely sure on this as atheism seems to proceed from philosophical positions such as philosophical naturalism and empiricism.
-
Not completely sure on this as atheism seems to proceed from philosophical positions such as philosophical naturalism and empiricism.
I'm not sure that it does - although I'm sure you could show your working on that if you wanted to - I think it tends to co-exist in people with that frame of mind. Empiricism doesn't have anything, directly, to say about gods, it says things about evidence and what we can presume based upon it. Anything that you want to presume based upon something other than evidence is beyond empiricism.
You've still come up with a definition of 'philosophical naturalism' for me to make any sort of informed commentary on what it might or might not imply.
O.
-
I'm not sure that it does - although I'm sure you could show your working on that if you wanted to - I think it tends to co-exist in people with that frame of mind. Empiricism doesn't have anything, directly, to say about gods, it says things about evidence and what we can presume based upon it. Anything that you want to presume based upon something other than evidence is beyond empiricism.
You've still come up with a definition of 'philosophical naturalism' for me to make any sort of informed commentary on what it might or might not imply.
O.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
-
I'm not sure that it does - although I'm sure you could show your working on that if you wanted to - I think it tends to co-exist in people with that frame of mind. Empiricism doesn't have anything, directly, to say about gods, it says things about evidence and what we can presume based upon it. Anything that you want to presume based upon something other than evidence is beyond empiricism.
You've still come up with a definition of 'philosophical naturalism' for me to make any sort of informed commentary on what it might or might not imply.
O.
I suspect Vlad is misinterpreting naturalism or even philosophical naturalism in practice, rather than theory, in the same manner he typically misinterprets atheism.
I suspect many people, including myself, will look at the world and recognise that there is overwhelming evidence for 'nature' and for natural and physical laws. As such we accept the world based on those natural and physical laws. By contrast there is no evidence for the supernatural - something that lies outside of the natural and physical laws and therefore I (and I suspect others) use a working assumption that natural and physical laws govern our world and our universe and that the supernatural does not exist. So call it pragmatic naturalism if you will - in other words until or unless evidence is provided for the supernatural I will presume it's non-existence and base my understanding with the world on the basis of natural and physical laws alone (for which there is overwhelming evidence).
So similar to atheism - I do not believe in the existence of god or gods because there is no credible evidence for their existence. Provide that evidence and I will change my opinion - likewise provide credible evidence for the supernatural and I will change my opinion on that too.
-
I suspect Vlad is misinterpreting naturalism or even philosophical naturalism in practice, rather than theory, in the same manner he typically misinterprets atheism.
I suspect many people, including myself, will look at the world and recognise that there is overwhelming evidence for 'nature' and for natural and physical laws. As such we accept the world based on those natural and physical laws. By contrast there is no evidence for the supernatural - something that lies outside of the natural and physical laws and therefore I (and I suspect others) use a working assumption that natural and physical laws govern our world and our universe and that the supernatural does not exist. So call it pragmatic naturalism if you will - in other words until or unless evidence is provided for the supernatural I will presume it's non-existence and base my understanding with the world on the basis of natural and physical laws alone (for which there is overwhelming evidence).
So similar to atheism - I do not believe in the existence of god or gods because there is no credible evidence for their existence. Provide that evidence and I will change my opinion - likewise provide credible evidence for the supernatural and I will change my opinion on that too.
I don't see what's pragmatic about what you have said. I think you are just trying to load up with virtue.
Unfortunately there are grey areas in naturalism for instance the origins of nature and things such as human morality which as a supposed evolved advantage is quite seriously undermined by what we can term immorality.
I think therefore the assumption of explanation of everything ultimately through physical laws is inferior to an investigation beyond them rather than leaving how oneself is out of any understanding.
-
Not completely sure on this as atheism seems to proceed from philosophical positions such as philosophical naturalism and empiricism.
Mine doesn't.
-
I don't see what's pragmatic about what you have said. I think you are just trying to load up with virtue.
Unfortunately there are grey areas in naturalism for instance the origins of nature and things such as human morality which as a supposed evolved advantage is quite seriously undermined by what we can term immorality.
I think therefore the assumption of explanation of everything ultimately through physical laws is inferior to an investigation beyond them rather than leaving how oneself is out of any understanding.
What is your method for investigation 'beyond physical laws'? And you will need as ever to define your terms more clearly because you use terms in a horrible mixed up , confused and vague fashion.
-
Not completely sure on this as atheism seems to proceed from philosophical positions such as philosophical naturalism and empiricism.
Don't think so: in my case it proceeds from encountering only unsound arguments for 'God' so that until such times as a sound argument for 'God' is ever presented then, for me, 'God' simply isn't a serious proposition
-
I don't see what's pragmatic about what you have said.
It is pragmatic as I base my understanding of the world on the things that evidence tells me exist. I am not concerned with things for which there is no evidence for their existence until or unless that evidence arises. That sounds pretty pragmatic to me.
-
I think you are just trying to load up with virtue.
In what way?
-
Unfortunately there are grey areas in naturalism for instance the origins of nature ...
Not really - the origins of nature are explained very well with reference to underpinning physical laws.
and things such as human morality which as a supposed evolved advantage is quite seriously undermined by what we can term immorality.
Human morality and immorality are human social constructs - they arise from the fact that humans (along with many other species) are social animals and that has evolutionary advantage for a species that isn't particularly physically strong but has highly developed neurobiology. And that is explained by natural laws, which are explained by underpinning physical laws.
-
I think therefore the assumption of explanation of everything ultimately through physical laws is inferior to an investigation beyond them rather than leaving how oneself is out of any understanding.
Fine - investigate 'beyond physical laws' all you like - come back to us when you have evidence that there is anything beyond physical laws because people have been searching for that for centuries and failed to provide any evidence. Indeed many things once considered to be supernatural (i.e. beyond physical laws) have, upon investigation, been proved to simply be phenomena governed by physical laws all along.
-
Fine - investigate 'beyond physical laws' all you like - come back to us when you have evidence that there is anything beyond physical laws because people have been searching for that for centuries and failed to provide any evidence. Indeed many things once considered to be supernatural (i.e. beyond physical laws) have, upon investigation, been proved to simply be phenomena governed by physical laws all along.
Nothing against laws Professor.
But where do the physical laws originate? and why are they the way that they are. Since they could have been different either in magnitude or actual nature they can hardly be viewed as necessary.
On what then, are they contingent?
-
But where do the physical laws originate?
I'm not sure that question makes any sense - until there were physical laws to define time and space, 'where' had no meaning.
and why are they the way that they are.
What reason do you have to think that there's a 'justification' - or the need for one - for natural laws?
Since they could have been different either in magnitude or actual nature they can hardly be viewed as necessary.
Could they? How do we know, in the absence of explanations for how they've come about?
On what then, are they contingent?
Don't know. Do you?
O.
-
Nothing against laws Professor.
But where do the physical laws originate? and why are they the way that they are. Since they could have been different either in magnitude or actual nature they can hardly be viewed as necessary.
On what then, are they contingent?
Classic god of the gaps stuff - I never said we understand everything about those physical laws - indeed we are learning more every day. But just because we don't understand everything does not mean that there is something beyond those laws. If you want to argue that there is something that sits outside of the parameters of those physical laws then go ahead and provide some evidence. Over the centuries many have tried - none have succeeded and all the while 'god of the gaps' guff has been proven to simply be manifestations of physical laws.
-
Classic god of the gaps stuff - I never said we understand everything about those physical laws - indeed we are learning more every day. But just because we don't understand everything does not mean that there is something beyond those laws. If you want to argue that there is something that sits outside of the parameters of those physical laws then go ahead and provide some evidence. Over the centuries many have tried - none have succeeded and all the while 'god of the gaps' guff has been proven to simply be manifestations of physical laws.
Not God of the gaps, Just the origin of the laws.
-
I'm not sure that question makes any sense - until there were physical laws to define time and space, 'where' had no meaning.
What reason do you have to think that there's a 'justification' - or the need for one - for natural laws?
Could they? How do we know, in the absence of explanations for how they've come about?
Don't know. Do you?
O.
Exactly - sadly Vlad seems to have no understanding or imagination - in his world everything needs a justification and must have been somehow 'created'.
But as you point out those physical laws fundamentally define time and space so the notion of before or after - of beyond or outside - those physical laws is non-sensical.
-
Not God of the gaps, Just the origin of the laws.
Origin is a concept predicated on a point in time - when something first emerged to appeared. But the physical laws define time so the very notion of origin is trumped by those physical laws.
It is a bit like asking where something that is infinite ends - is it a non-sensical question.
-
Exactly - sadly Vlad seems to have no understanding or imagination - in his world everything needs a justification and must have been somehow 'created'.
But as you point out those physical laws fundamentally define time and space so the notion of before or after - of beyond or outside - those physical laws is non-sensical.
Surely Tegmark is proposing something beyond physical laws namely mathematics and that all mathematical structures may have physicality. Based presumably on the uncanny success of maths in physics, an idea courtesy of the physicist Eugene Wigner.
-
Origin is a concept predicated on a point in time - when something first emerged to appeared. But the physical laws define time so the very notion of origin is trumped by those physical laws.
It is a bit like asking where something that is infinite ends - is it a non-sensical question.
So if the physical laws define time are they themselves eternal? In other words outside or beyond time and space or put perhaps more specifically, independent of time and space.
-
So if the physical laws define time are they themselves eternal? In other words outside or beyond time and space or put perhaps more specifically, independent of time and space.
But time and space are a manifestation of the physical laws - eternal is a temporal concept (i.e. to do with time) so you are are reading this the wrong way round as the very concept of 'eternal' is defined by those physical laws.
And no the physical laws aren't really independent of time and space because the latter are intrinsically defined by those physical laws.
-
But time and space are a manifestation of the physical laws - eternal is a temporal concept (i.e. to do with time) so you are are reading this the wrong way round as the very concept of 'eternal' is defined by those physical laws.
And no the physical laws aren't really independent of time and space because the latter are intrinsically defined by those physical laws.
In what way then are the physical laws dependent on that which they define?
-
In what way then are the physical laws dependent on that which they define?
Wrong way around - time and space are dependent on the physical laws.
-
Wrong way around - time and space are dependent on the physical laws.
But you said the physical laws were not really independent of time and space. How then are the physical laws dependent on time and space?
-
Surely Tegmark is proposing something beyond physical laws namely mathematics and that all mathematical structures may have physicality. Based presumably on the uncanny success of maths in physics, an idea courtesy of the physicist Eugene Wigner.
are you surrounded by prompt cards or something?
because i doubt you know anything of 'Tegmark's' work or understand it .
-
are you surrounded by prompt cards or something?
because i doubt you know anything of 'Tegmark's' work or understand it .
I doubt you know anything Walter.
-
But you said the physical laws were not really independent of time and space. How then are the physical laws dependent on time and space?
Independent means that two things are not linked.
Given that time/space are dependent on physical laws it is not correct to say that time/space and physical laws are independent - on the contrary they are inextricably linked as time/space are defined by and indeed a manifestation of those physical laws.
Do try to keep up Vlad.
-
Independent means that two things are not linked.
Given that time/space are dependent on physical laws it is not correct to say that time/space and physical laws are independent - on the contrary they are inextricably linked as time/space are defined by and indeed a manifestation of those physical laws.
Do try to keep up Vlad.
In what way are the physical laws dependent on their existence on time and space?
-
In what way are the physical laws dependent on their existence on time and space?
They aren't but that doesn't mean that time/space and physical laws are independent, which is what you asked.
Time/space and the physical laws which define them and which time/space are a manifestation of are clearly inextricably linked - i.e. they are not independent.
Claiming somehow that physical laws and time/space are independent is as non-sensical as claiming that gravity and the orbiting of the planets in our solar system are somehow independent.
-
They aren't
In what sense then do the laws exist if not in time and space? How do they exist separately (independent) of time and space?
-
In what sense then do the laws exist if not in time and space? How do they exist separately (independent) of time and space?
Because time and space are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.
-
Because time and space are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.
Yes we know time and space only exist because of the physical laws....You've said the existence of those physical laws is not dependent on time and space...In what manner can they therefore be said to exist?
-
I doubt you know anything Walter.
I know one thing Vlad;
you are incapable of learning how reality works .
-
Yes we know time and space only exist because of the physical laws....You've said the existence of those physical laws is not dependent on time and space...In what manner can they therefore be said to exist?
As opposed to something outside of space and time that you talk about existence even though that is temporal concept, as is 'thing'? Whenever you shoot yourself in the foot, you don't just shoot one foot but attach a neutron bomb to your foot and then set that off.
-
In what manner can they therefore be said to exist?
Which?
-
Which?
The physical laws. You said their existence is not dependent on time and space.
-
In what manner can they therefore be said to exist?
They exist because we can observe and measure the effects of those laws, their manifestation so to speak - including time and space.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
Working from that definition, I don't know many 'philosophical naturalists'. Speaking for myself, I don't rule out the possibility of something supernatural, but until and unless someone comes up with a) some compelling reason to accept the notion and b) some means by which it can be rationally investigated then I'm not going to incorporate the claims into my day to day understanding of reality.
I'm not ideologically opposed to the notion of something beyond the natural laws, I'm pragmatically concluding that I see no reason currently to include such notions in my world view. I suspect many atheists are in a similar position.
O.
-
Working from that definition, I don't know many 'philosophical naturalists'. Speaking for myself, I don't rule out the possibility of something supernatural, but until and unless someone comes up with a) some compelling reason to accept the notion and b) some means by which it can be rationally investigated then I'm not going to incorporate the claims into my day to day understanding of reality.
I'm not ideologically opposed to the notion of something beyond the natural laws, I'm pragmatically concluding that I see no reason currently to include such notions in my world view. I suspect many atheists are in a similar position.
O.
Pretty well exactly my point of view too - see my earlier post.
We need to coin the term 'pragmatic naturalists'.
-
They exist because we can observe and measure the effects of those laws, their manifestation so to speak - including time and space.
So we can only measure the effects but not the laws themselves. That still doesn't explain how they are not dependent on their existence on time and space. In what way can they said to exist apart from time and space then?
-
Working from that definition, I don't know many 'philosophical naturalists'. Speaking for myself, I don't rule out the possibility of something supernatural, but until and unless someone comes up with a) some compelling reason to accept the notion and b) some means by which it can be rationally investigated then I'm not going to incorporate the claims into my day to day understanding of reality.
I'm not ideologically opposed to the notion of something beyond the natural laws, I'm pragmatically concluding that I see no reason currently to include such notions in my world view. I suspect many atheists are in a similar position.
O.
I would just add that ;
'supernatural' cannot exist because if it has the ability to affect the universe then it is already part of nature by definition of 'natural'
-
So we can only measure the effects but not the laws themselves. That still doesn't explain how they are not dependent on their existence on time and space. In what way can they said to exist apart from time and space then?
are you asking in an attempt to learn or are you working towards making a point/statement ?
If its the latter do it now and save us wasting time .
-
So we can only measure the effects but not the laws themselves.
We know gravity exists on the basis of its effects - how it manifests on the behaviour of objects.
In fact there are vast numbers of things that we determine to exist on the basis of their measurable impact on our world.
That still doesn't explain how they are not dependent on their existence on time and space.
Time and space are measurable consequences of those physical laws, just as the measurable and predictable orbits of the planet in our solar system are a consequence of gravity as a physical law.
In what way can they said to exist apart from time and space then?
I didn't say they could - it was you who implied that time/space and physical laws were independent on each other. I on the other hand clearly stated their dependency - in other words that time/space time are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.
-
We know gravity exists on the basis of its effects - how it manifests on the behaviour of objects.
In fact there are vast numbers of things that we determine to exist on the basis of their measurable impact on our world.
Time and space are measurable consequences of those physical laws, just as the measurable and predictable orbits of the planet in our solar system are a consequence of gravity as a physical law.
I didn't say they could - it was you who implied that time/space and physical laws were independent on each other. I on the other hand clearly stated their dependency - in other words that time/space time are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.
Really? Try your Reply #59 Here you say they are not dependent on time and space for their existence.
-
Really? Try your Reply #59 Here you say they are not dependent on time and space for their existence.
You asked about their dependency and I have been very clear - in other words that time/space time are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws. Dependency doesn't have to be equally two way, but that doesn't mean there is no dependency.
Try this one - using one of those physical laws:
The orbiting of our planets around the sun is dependent on the laws of gravity.
However
The laws of gravity are not dependent on the orbiting of our planets around the sun.
It isn't rocket science ... well actually it is, as rocket science depends on the laws of gravity, although the laws of gravity do not depend on rocket science.
-
You asked about their dependency and I have been very clear - in other words that time/space time are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws. Dependency doesn't have to be equally two way, but that doesn't mean there is no dependency.
Try this one - using one of those physical laws:
The orbiting of our planets around the sun is dependent on the laws of gravity.
However
The laws of gravity are not dependent on the orbiting of our planets around the sun.
It isn't rocket science ... well actually it is, as rocket science depends on the laws of gravity, although the laws of gravity do not depend on rocket science.
Am I right in assuming that yoiu are in no way expecting a cogent dissertation on why you are wrong - except for the statement that God and his (blinkered) foillowers reject it because it denies God's input?
-
You asked about their dependency and I have been very clear - in other words that time/space time are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.
Yes we know that time and space are manifestations but if these laws are not dependent on there existence then for the umpteenth time in what sense are the laws existent The term manifestation doesn't get you far because the thing they are manifest from have a state of existence.
For the final time, in what state do the laws exist if not dependent on there existence on time and space?
-
Yes we know that time and space are manifestations but if these laws are not dependent on there existence then for the umpteenth time in what sense are the laws existent The term manifestation doesn't get you far because the thing they are manifest from have a state of existence.
For the final time, in what state do the laws exist if not dependent on there existence on time and space?
oh! you mean god made the laws and the universe obeys them
glad we got that sorted out ! FFS ::)
-
Yes we know that time and space are manifestations but if these laws are not dependent on there existence then for the umpteenth time in what sense are the laws existent The term manifestation doesn't get you far because the thing they are manifest from have a state of existence.
For the final time, in what state do the laws exist if not dependent on there existence on time and space?
I've already answered that - they exist because we can measure their impact and make reliable predictions about the world around us based on those laws.
As I've mentioned previously, your question is as non-sensical as asking how gravity can exist if it isn't dependent on the orbits of the planets.
The fundamental laws of physics sit above (in other words are more fundamentally) that things which are manifestations of those laws, including time, space, orbits of planets, design of rockets that allow them to escape from earth's gravitational pull etc etc.
-
I've already answered that - they exist because we can measure their impact and make reliable predictions about the world around us based on those laws.
Not really. I asked in what form they exist. The universe which presumably depends for it's existence on the laws of nature but not vica versa is comprised of space time and matter/energy. That is the form in which it exists. If the existence of the laws is not dependent on these for it's form then in what form does it exist? You have already let slip a bit of a clue. The laws themselves cannot be measured directly.
What manner then of natural thing cannot be measured directly? And if you can allow something which you cannot measure directly how can you then deny this property for, say, God?
As I've mentioned previously, your question is as non-sensical as asking how gravity can exist if it isn't dependent on the orbits of the planets.
No see above. If you can readily allow The laws themselves not to have physical properties or be dependent on there existence then you have no warrant to deny that in other things.
The fundamental laws of physics sit above (in other words are more fundamentally) that things which are manifestations of those laws, including time, space, orbits of planets, design of rockets that allow them to escape from earth's gravitational pull etc etc.
That is almost like saying 'God sits above his creation'...….but God is a spirit in heaven. Where and what are the laws then if not dependent on time, space, orbits of planets etc.etc?
-
The universe which presumably depends for it's existence on the laws of nature ...
Well actually laws of physics, but nonetheless, yup I agree.
but not vica versa
In other words the universe depends on the laws of physics - yup again I agree.
... is comprised of space time and matter/energy.
Which are themselves dependent on the laws of physics - space/time don't really exist outside the laws of physics in the same way are planetary orbits don't really exist outside of the laws of gravity (one of those fundamental laws of physics).
If the existence of the laws is not dependent on these for it's form then in what form does it exist?
You have already let slip a bit of a clue. The laws themselves cannot be measured directly.
They exist as a fundamental law of physics just as gravity does, or light or sound etc.
What manner then of natural thing cannot be measured directly?
Very few things are measured directly, or even experience directly - whether we measure temperature by the indirect change in resistance of a thermocouple, or detect light via chemical changes in the eye and neural transmission to the brain, these are indirect. But just because they are indirect doesn't mean they are inaccurate nor inconsistent, because the measurement systems are themselves based on fundamental physical phenomena and laws.
And if you can allow something which you cannot measure directly how can you then deny this property for, say, God?No see above. If you can readily allow The laws themselves not to have physical properties or be dependent on there existence then you have no warrant to deny that in other things.That is almost like saying 'God sits above his creation'...….but God is a spirit in heaven. Where and what are the laws then if not dependent on time, space, orbits of planets etc.etc?
Nope - because the difference is one of consistency and prediction.
So to take gravity as an example - I can use the fundamental laws of physics to predict the orbits of the planets. I can use (and people have) anomalies in planetary orbits to predict the presence of a more distant planet affecting gravity - and guess what, you find that planet. I can use those fundamental laws (and their indirect measurement) to design a rocket with its trajectory to leave earths orbit and be capture by the moon's orbit to allow astronauts to visit the moon.
Sure the measurement may be indirect, but the concepts and the laws can be verified through prediction and through the predictable function of engineering systems or identification of physical phenomena.
None of that can be attributed to a purported god - people have at times tried to base predictions, observations and outcomes on god, but guess what ... the earth is at the centre of the universe, the rocket crashes, the church congregation aren't protected by god's love from dying from COVID-19.
-
Well actually laws of physics, but nonetheless, yup I agree.
In other words the universe depends on the laws of physics - yup again I agree.
Which are themselves dependent on the laws of physics - space/time don't really exist outside the laws of physics in the same way are planetary orbits don't really exist outside of the laws of gravity (one of those fundamental laws of physics).
They exist as a fundamental law of physics just as gravity does, or light or sound etc.
Very few things are measured directly, or even experience directly - whether we measure temperature by the indirect change in resistance of a thermocouple, or detect light via chemical changes in the eye and neural transmission to the brain, these are indirect. But just because they are indirect doesn't mean they are inaccurate nor inconsistent, because the measurement systems are themselves based on fundamental physical phenomena and laws.
None of which answers my question. If not dependent on space time matter energy for existence, in what form do the laws exist?
Nope - because the difference is one of consistency and prediction.
You don't have to believe in God to realise that when asked for the form God takes a form(spirit) and a dimension(heaven) are offered.
We believe in the universe and that exists in the form of time/space matter and energy. so again, form and dimension
Since The laws are not dependent for existence on time/space matter and energy, what form does their existence take? So far your answer has been inadequate. As exemplified by this 'answer' when asked in what form the laws exist
They exist as a fundamental law of physics
So the laws exist as laws then......that of course is no answer.
-
You don't have to believe in God to realise that when asked for the form God takes a form(spirit) and a dimension(heaven) are offered.
We believe in the universe and that exists in the form of time/space matter and energy. so again, form and dimension
Since The laws are not dependent for existence on time/space matter and energy, what form does their existence take? So far your answer has been inadequate. As exemplified by this 'answer' when asked in what form the laws exist
So the laws exist as laws then......that of course is no answer.
Is this supposed to make any kind of sense Vlad!?!
-
Vlad's posts get more and more nonsensical! ::)
-
Is this supposed to make any kind of sense Vlad!?!
Yes when asked what form do The laws exist in you said they existed as laws.
That is no answer of course.
-
Vlad's posts get more and more nonsensical! ::)
OK then LR what sort of answer to the question 'what form do the laws of nature take' is 'They exist as laws'?
-
OK then LR what sort of answer to the question 'what form do the laws of nature take' is 'They exist as laws'?
tell you what ,Vlad you ask a question and then tell us what answer you want . Then we can all fuck off and leave you to it ::)
-
tell you what ,Vlad you ask a question and then tell us what answer you want . Then we can all fuck off and leave you to it ::)
Has no one told you that an answer which just uses the same words as the question is no answer?
OK then how do laws 'exist'. Show me a law? How big is it? How much does it weigh?
-
Has no one told you that an answer which just uses the same words as the question is no answer?
OK then how do laws 'exist'. Show me a law? How big is it? How much does it weigh?
a law is the name given to a set of rules which determine how some phenomena works /operates . Predictions can be made from said laws .
F=ma Newtons second law of motion
wiegh? dont be stupid !
-
a law is the name given to a set of rules which determine how some phenomena works /operates .
And how do they determine that phenomena?
-
And how do they determine that phenomena?
are you takin' the piss?
-
are you takin' the piss?
Just answer the question please.
-
Just answer the question please.
Methodological naturalism - which you accept. So given that any chance of you giving a methodology for your supernatural claims? You know the question you haven't answered despite being asked hundreds and hundreds of times? The one that you don't answer?
Are you trying to define the term 'boringly hypocritical' with your posts?
-
How much does it weigh?
Under which gravitation conditions.
Vlad - you do understand that the concept of weight isn't fixed but varies depending on the gravitational conditions. And that weight as a concept is entirely defined by, and dependent on fundamental physical laws, in this case F=MA
-
Just answer the question please.
Vlad'
there's a whole load of physics to learn before you can understand the answer and I'm not about to teach you , sorry .
-
Methodological naturalism - which you accept. So given that any chance of you giving a methodology for your supernatural claims? You know the question you haven't answered despite being asked hundreds and hundreds of times? The one that you don't answer?
Are you trying to define the term 'boringly hypocritical' with your posts?
What the laws exist as methodological naturalism? How does that work?
-
Under which gravitation conditions.
Vlad - you do understand that the concept of weight isn't fixed but varies depending on the gravitational conditions. And that weight as a concept is entirely defined by, and dependent on fundamental physical laws, in this case F=MA
You said the fundamental laws of nature do not depend on physics for their existence did you not. Have you changed your mind?
-
Vlad'
there's a whole load of physics to learn before you can understand the answer and I'm not about to teach you , sorry .
I'm sorry, I doubt you could teach me much even if you wanted to. Your sentiments are completely irrelevant to the question in any case.
-
Methodological naturalism - which you accept. So given that any chance of you giving a methodology for your supernatural claims? You know the question you haven't answered despite being asked hundreds and hundreds of times? The one that you don't answer?
Are you trying to define the term 'boringly hypocritical' with your posts?
I see, you think that when I say 'how do they determine that phenomena' I mean how do people determine it. I don't. I mean How do the laws themselves, which Prof Davey states have existence not dependent on phenomena, How do the laws themselves determine phenomena?
What ability do they have to do that?
If they are abstract like maths....How can they actually interact with the physical to cause the phenomena? If they are more than abstract in what form can they said to be existent?
-
I'm sorry, I doubt you could teach me much even if you wanted to. Your sentiments are completely irrelevant to the question in any case.
You don't appear to have the necessary brain cells to take on reasoned argument, which is sad.
-
You don't appear to have the necessary brain cells to take on reasoned argument, which is sad.
You have misunderstood the question as I believe Nearly Sane has. I have clarified in the previous post.
Your fallacy is ad Hominem...Your welcome.
-
I see, you think that when I say 'how do they determine that phenomena' I mean how do people determine it. I don't. I mean How do the laws themselves, which Prof Davey states have existence not dependent on phenomena, How do the laws themselves determine phenomena?
What ability do they have to do that?
If they are abstract like maths....How can they actually interact with the physical to cause the phenomena? If they are more than abstract in what form can they said to be existent?
Vlad
You seem to be thinking that the 'laws of physics' are written in tablets of stone somewhere - and that would be concrete thinking, so perhaps try considering them as being reliable descriptions of how certain phenomena appear to operate.
Those of us of a certain age may recall this well known example.
Sir Isaac Newton told us why an apple falls down from the sky.
And from this fact, it's very plain, all other objects do the same.
A brick, a bolt, a bar, a cup, invariably fall down, not up.
And every common working tool is governed by the self-same rule.
So when you handle tools up there, let your watchword be "Take Care".
If at work, you drop a spanner, it travels in a downward manner.
At work, a fifth of accidents or more, illustrate old Newton's law.
But one thing he forgot to add, the damage won't be half as bad
If you are wearing proper clothes, especially on your head and toes
These hats and shoes are there to save the wearer from an early grave.
So best feet forward and take care about the kind of shoes you wear.
It's better to be sure, than dead, so get a hat and keep your head.
Don't think to go without is brave; the effects of gravity can be grave
-
Vlad
You seem to be thinking that the 'laws of physics' are written in tablets of stone somewhere - and that would be concrete thinking, so perhaps try considering them as being reliable descriptions of how certain phenomena appear to operate.
Those of us of a certain age may recall this well known example.
Gordon. I am not the one who proposes that The laws of nature have an existence that does not depend on time and space. Professor Davey is. I am therefore pressing him on what he means by ''exist'' in various ways.
I appreciate you have a different viewpoint and thank you for expressing that.
-
I'm sorry, I doubt you could teach me much even if you wanted to.
Vlad, that is definitely one thing we can agree on .
Your confusion is fixed and immoveable
you would have to start again at physics from school age 12 up to at least 'o' level standard , but I doubt it would make any difference.
-
Vlad, that is definitely one thing we can agree on .
Your confusion is fixed and immoveable
you would have to start again at physics from school age 12 up to at least 'o' level standard , but I doubt it would make any difference.
No It is you who are confused.
We can test that by asking you to state what you think my argument is.
And talking of school age I think you may be the shiniest example of playground mentality this Board has.
-
we have got to get this satellite into orbit;
Vlad: ok, I'll do the wishing, hoping, and praying . I'm sure that will do it.
Rocket scientist: right, well I'll do the maths , physics and engineering then and build a rocket .
who do you think will be successful Vlad ?
-
No It is you who are confused.
We can test that by asking you to state what you think my argument is.
And talking of school age I think you may be the shiniest example of playground mentality this Board has.
your argument?
don't have a fuckin clue mate and I don't think you have either!
-
we have got to get this satellite into orbit;
Vlad: ok, I'll do the wishing, hoping, and praying . I'm sure that will do it.
Rocket scientist: right, well I'll do the maths , physics and engineering then and build a rocket .
who do you think will be successful Vlad ?
Can you point to where I've suggested anything like this. Like your usual malcontent atheist another caricature.
-
your argument?
don't have a fuckin clue mate
I knew we would get to it in the end.
-
I knew we would get to it in the end.
just to be clear , why not state your argument again for all of us Vlad.
thank you .
-
just to be clear , why not state your argument again for all of us Vlad.
thank you .
For what I am doing on this thread, this reply to Gordon, I think sums up my present purpose on this thread.
Reply #103
-
For what I am doing on this thread, this reply to Gordon, I think sums up my present purpose on this thread.
Reply #103
Your purpose is to wind everyone up by posting nonsense.
-
Your purpose is to wind everyone up by posting nonsense.
Oh dear....another Malcontent Atheist making caricatures.
-
For what I am doing on this thread, this reply to Gordon, I think sums up my present purpose on this thread.
Reply #103
Vlad
nope, still not clear . You might have something valuable to communicate but I (for one) don't know what it is.
-
You said the fundamental laws of nature do not depend on physics for their existence did you not. Have you changed your mind?
Nice diversionary tactic Vlad - in what way is this a response to my post, which I've provide below once again - can you response please to the non-sense of implying you should be able to 'weigh' the laws of physics to prove they exist, when weight itself is inherently determined by those very laws of physics:
'Under which gravitation conditions.
Vlad - you do understand that the concept of weight isn't fixed but varies depending on the gravitational conditions. And that weight as a concept is entirely defined by, and dependent on fundamental physical laws, in this case F=MA'
-
Vlad
nope, still not clear . You might have something valuable to communicate but I (for one) don't know what it is.
Things that are observed to exist, exist in time and space.....do you agree?
Professor Davey has said that the existence of The laws of nature does not depend on time and space.
I am trying to get from professor Davey, if they do not depend on time and space for their existence in what way can the Laws of nature be said to exist.
-
Oh dear....another Malcontent Atheist making caricatures.
I am stating a fact about your daft posts, which are verbal diarrhoea. ::)
-
You said the fundamental laws of nature do not depend on physics for their existence did you not. Have you changed your mind?
No I didn't - where exactly did I say that.
In fact I think I was very clear that the laws of nature are themselves determined by, and predicated on, those fundamental laws of physics.
-
I am stating a fact about your daft posts, which are verbal diarrhoea. ::)
You are just trying to derail this thread because you know I am asking atheists making claims for further details. Something atheism does not seem strong on.
-
No I didn't - where exactly did I say that.
« Reply #59
-
Things that are observed to exist, exist in time and space.....do you agree?
Professor Davey has said that the existence of The laws of nature does not depend on time and space.
I am trying to get from professor Davey, if they do not depend on time and space for their existence in what way can the Laws of nature be said to exist.
Vlad,
all that post shows is that you are so confused , you are 'not even wrong'!
-
Vlad,
all that post shows is that you are so confused , you are 'not even wrong'!
All this post shows is you have not read Davey's reply#59.
-
« Reply #59
No I didn't - indeed I never even mentioned the fundamental laws of nature at all in that post.
Here is reply 59 in its entirety:
'They aren't but that doesn't mean that time/space and physical laws are independent, which is what you asked.
Time/space and the physical laws which define them and which time/space are a manifestation of are clearly inextricably linked - i.e. they are not independent.
Claiming somehow that physical laws and time/space are independent is as non-sensical as claiming that gravity and the orbiting of the planets in our solar system are somehow independent.'
How on earth that fits with your claim that ' said the fundamental laws of nature do not depend on physics for their existence' is beyond me.
It may be more helpful to look at reply 41, where I do make a point about the connection between laws of nature and laws of physics:
'Human morality and immorality are human social constructs - they arise from the fact that humans (along with many other species) are social animals and that has evolutionary advantage for a species that isn't particularly physically strong but has highly developed neurobiology. And that is explained by natural laws, which are explained by underpinning physical laws.'
-
All this post shows is you have not read Davey's reply#59.
Nope - it shows you haven't read my reply 59, nor my reply 41.
-
You are just trying to derail this thread because you know I am asking atheists making claims for further details. Something atheism does not seem strong on.
That is a good one coming from you, who claims to have evidence but is yet to produce any. ::)
-
Things that are observed to exist, exist in time and space.....do you agree?
Professor Davey has said that the existence of The laws of nature does not depend on time and space.
I am trying to get from professor Davey, if they do not depend on time and space for their existence in what way can the Laws of nature be said to exist.
They don't exist in the same sense as physical entities. They are concepts, in our human brains, forming a model of how the universe appears to us.
The big difference between those laws and religious metaphysics is that we have arrived at those concepts through measurement and trial and error, they work for prediction within a useful scope, so we can constantly keep checking them or test suggested improvements.
Other metaphysics exist in a similar way, as concepts, but cannot be verified or falsified, it's not even clear what different people mean when they try to talk about them. They are fine ... and can be interesting - but not very useful.
-
They don't exist in the same sense as physical entities. They are concepts, in our human brains, forming a model of how the universe appears to us.
While I agree with that in part I wouldn't want to imply that physical laws only exist in our human brains. That doesn't seem to me to be true. As humans we may describe those laws in a particular manner, but gravity (for example) exists as a concept regardless of whether humans perceive it as such, name it as such and describe it as such. Indeed gravity is just as relevant to every other part of the universe as to earth, and just as relevant regardless of the presence or absence of life intelligent enough to be able to understand and describe the law.
-
The big difference between those laws and religious metaphysics is that we have arrived at those concepts through measurement and trial and error, they work for prediction within a useful scope, so we can constantly keep checking them or test suggested improvements.
The other big difference is in universality.
Religious metaphysics really has only relevance to a very specific time and place - so christianity may be seen as critically important to humans living on earth currently (and for the past 2000 years) but it is entirely irrelevant even to other species living on the same planet at the same time and is likewise completely irrelevant to the rest of the universe and over almost all the timescale of that universe.
Fundamental physical laws are universal - they hold and have relevance everywhere in the universe, for everything in the universe (not that most of those things are capable of recognising that relevance) and throughout time.
-
While I agree with that in part I wouldn't want to imply that physical laws only exist in our human brains. That doesn't seem to me to be true. As humans we may describe those laws in a particular manner, but gravity (for example) exists as a concept regardless of whether humans perceive it as such, name it as such and describe it as such. Indeed gravity is just as relevant to every other part of the universe as to earth, and just as relevant regardless of the presence or absence of life intelligent enough to be able to understand and describe the law.
what the prof. says 👍
-
Vlad,
has this thread educated you in any way or do you think it's just a load of opinions which can be dismissed ?
-
While I agree with that in part I wouldn't want to imply that physical laws only exist in our human brains. That doesn't seem to me to be true. As humans we may describe those laws in a particular manner, but gravity (for example) exists as a concept regardless of whether humans perceive it as such, name it as such and describe it as such. Indeed gravity is just as relevant to every other part of the universe as to earth, and just as relevant regardless of the presence or absence of life intelligent enough to be able to understand and describe the law.
Ah, yes ... sorry if I appeared to be trying to answer for you ... there are certainly differences between our outlooks... not practically wrt. to physics or science, but on metaphysics and any ultimate meaning to be gained from it subjectively.
Even our scientific model of gravity can be taken further - so gravity emerges from quantum information (eg per Vedral or Verlinde) ... and so on - but where does this end up?
-
Nope - it shows you haven't read my reply 59, nor my reply 41.
Let me remind you how you begin reply#59
In what way are the physical laws dependent on their existence on time and space?
They aren't...….
So if they are not dependent for their existence on time and space in what form do they exist.
So would you now like to retract that, qualify it or stand by it?
Others have found it easy to state that the existence of laws is in the mind. Others may say that they are observed patterns in the physical. That seems not to be what you are saying. My question stands.
-
While I agree with that in part I wouldn't want to imply that physical laws only exist in our human brains. That doesn't seem to me to be true.
Where and how do they exist then?
-
Vlad,
has this thread educated you in any way or do you think it's just a load of opinions which can be dismissed ?
Again you caricature me.
I am highly respectful of the opinions pressed and am particularly interested in Davey's thinking that the laws of nature do not just exist in people's minds.
I will risk it and say then that he invests the laws with existence in some reality and that this existence does not depend on time and space. So I want to know more of what the Prof means by this. I'm not really interested at this stage in phenomena inside time and space but this new reality which he proposes for the laws of nature.
-
Let me remind you how you begin reply#59
In what way are the physical laws dependent on their existence on time and space?
So if they are not dependent for their existence on time and space in what form do they exist.
So would you now like to retract that, qualify it or stand by it?
Others have found it easy to state that the existence of laws in in the mind. Others may say that they are observed patterns in the physical. That seems not to be what you are saying. My question stands.
Let me remind you of your comment in which you claimed I said that:
'... the fundamental laws of nature do not depend on physics for their existence'
You were talking about the relationship between the laws of nature and the laws of physics, not the relationship between time/space and the laws of physics.
In reply 59 I never mention the laws of nature so how can I be making a comment about their relationship to the laws of physics. So I suggest you retract reply 97 if you are relating this to my reply 59 which is completely silent on the laws of nature.
-
Where and how do they exist then?
Do you think that things exist only if perceived by a human brain - that seems rather arrogant to me.
-
Let me remind you of your comment in which you claimed I said that:
'... the fundamental laws of nature do not depend on physics for their existence'
You were talking about the relationship between the laws of nature and the laws of physics, not the relationship between time/space and the laws of physics.
In reply 59 I never mention the laws of nature so how can I be making a comment about their relationship to the laws of physics. So I suggest you retract reply 97 if you are relating this to my reply 59 which is completely silent on the laws of nature.
I see no difference between the laws of physics and the laws of nature.
-
Do you think that things exist only if perceived by a human brain - that seems rather arrogant to me.
I don't know how you draw that conclusion from my question. It's a straight question ''if not in the human mind or any mind, how and where do they exist?''
-
You were talking about the relationship between the laws of nature and the laws of physics
Surely they are the same thing?
-
Surely they are the same thing?
a rose is a rose by any other name !
-
a rose is a rose by any other name !
For biologists or gardeners, maybe not?
-
Surely they are the same thing?
Depends on how they are defined.
In my mind I was thinking of the laws of nature being more associated with the living world, in others words planet earth, which might not reasonably apply to, say a black hole. The laws of physics are more fundamental and universal covering everything - so you might say that a black hole complies with the laws of physics, but the laws of nature aren't really relevant. However evolutionary processes comply with the laws of nature, which are themselves based on the fundamental laws of physics.
In effect the notion that biology is a specialised branch of chemistry covering living things - which chemistry being a specialised branch of physics covering matter. Physics, and its laws being the most fundamental covering everything.
But I guess it depends on definitions.
-
I don't know how you draw that conclusion from my question. It's a straight question ''if not in the human mind or any mind, how and where do they exist?''
Vlad ,
as far as we can tell they exist within the universe and are only a description of how the observations made by humans are quantified .
An apple will fall towards earth (not sideways) every time whether anybody is there to see it or not . This also applies EVERYWHERE in the universe as far as we can tell , that's why we call it a law. AND no fucker anywhere knows why, YET.
INCLUDING YOU !
-
For biologists or gardeners, maybe not?
Don't start splitting rabbits ;)
-
Vlad ,
as far as we can tell they exist within the universe and are only a description of how the observations made by humans are quantified .
An apple will fall towards earth (not sideways) every time whether anybody is there to see it or not . This also applies EVERYWHERE in the universe as far as we can tell , that's why we call it a law. AND no fucker anywhere knows why, YET.
INCLUDING YOU !
Thank you for youropinion on how the laws exist.
I would like to hear more about how the professor thinks they exist.
-
Depends on how they are defined.
In my mind I was thinking of the laws of nature being more associated with the living world, in others words planet earth, which might not reasonably apply to, say a black hole. The laws of physics are more fundamental and universal covering everything - so you might say that a black hole complies with the laws of physics, but the laws of nature aren't really relevant. However evolutionary processes comply with the laws of nature, which are themselves based on the fundamental laws of physics.
In effect the notion that biology is a specialised branch of chemistry covering living things - which chemistry being a specialised branch of physics covering matter. Physics, and its laws being the most fundamental covering everything.
But I guess it depends on definitions.
Ok. So what you describe as the "laws of nature" I wasn't thinking of as being laws at all. There are fundamental laws which you have called the laws of physics and then everything else is just emergent behaviour.
For example, in chemistry, we have laws of valency which dictate how atoms combine with each other to form molecules, but this is just an emergent property of quantum electrodynamics which tells us how the electrons in atoms behave. And QED itself might have a more fundamental underpinning.
-
Thank you for youropinion on how the laws exist.
I would like to hear more about how the professor thinks they exist.
I'd like to hear more about how you think God exists.
-
I'd like to hear more about how you think God exists.
I think it far more interesting that an atheist like Professor Davey seems to be proposing that the Laws have an existence which is not dependent on time and space....when that is exactly what some theists say about God.
-
I think it far more interesting that an atheist like Professor Davey seems to be proposing that the Laws have an existence which is not dependent on time and space....when that is exactly what some theists say about God.
I think it is trivially true. Since the laws of physics govern the nature of time and space, it seems obvious to me that time and space are dependent on the laws of physics.
Now. Back to this god of yours. How do you explain its existence.
-
Thank you for youropinion on how the laws exist.
I would like to hear more about how the professor thinks they exist.
you are welcome however it is NOT my OPINION
-
I think it is trivially true. Since the laws of physics govern the nature of time and space, it seems obvious to me that time and space are dependent on the laws of physics.
Now. Back to this god of yours. How do you explain its existence.
Yes but are you still that the Laws depend on Time and space since it is IN time and space we are observing them?
If you now say that they have an existence which is not dependent on time and space then to argue that the laws can but nothing else can is i'm afraid one mother and father of a special plead.
-
Yes but are you still that the Laws depend on Time and space since it is IN time and space we are observing them?
If you now say that they have an existence which is not dependent on time and space then to argue that the laws can but nothing else can is i'm afraid one mother and father of a special plead.
oh! c'mon in english please
-
oh! c'mon in english please
Are you still of the opinion that the laws exist because they are observed in time and space. Or do you now agree with the prof that there existence is not dependent on time and space?
-
Are you still of the opinion that the laws exist because they are observed in time and space. Or do you now agree with the prof that there existence is not dependent on time and space?
Is is not more the case to say, Vlad, that the natural phenomena described by these laws, which are just humans articulating the principles involved, exist independently of being observed by humans - and existed before there were any humans to do any observing?
-
Is is not more the case to say, Vlad, that the natural phenomena described by these laws, which are just humans articulating the principles involved, exist independently of being observed by humans - and existed before there were any humans to do any observing?
Well I don't disagree with that and probably take part of that as read. The professor, though, has made the suggestion that the existence of the laws does not depend, not only on our observation of them but does not depend on time and space themselves!
-
Is is not more the case to say, Vlad, that the natural phenomena described by these laws, which are just humans articulating the principles involved, exist independently of being observed by humans - and existed before there were any humans to do any observing?
That's the phenomenon that exist independently of human observation but the laws are human constructs. Do I have that right?
-
Well I don't disagree with that and probably take part of that as read. The professor, though, has made the suggestion that the existence of the laws does not depend, not only on our observation of them but does not depend on time and space themselves!
how many straws have you got left Vlad?
Listen, I don't want to to destroy you or make you feel like a fool ,which is quite easy to do . I don't want you to feel bad about your crazy logic or your misunderstanding of reality especially in these stressful times so I'm going to stop my attack on you but only if you agree to learn some science and rid yourself of unevidenced nonsense you call religion
what do you say old chap?
-
how many straws have you got left Vlad?
Listen, I don't want to to destroy you or make you feel like a fool ,which is quite easy to do . I don't want you to feel bad about your crazy logic or your misunderstanding of reality especially in these stressful times so I'm going to stop my attack on you but only if you agree to learn some science and rid yourself of unevidenced nonsense you call religion
what do you say old chap?
I know quite a bit about science thank you but as I've said I have no interest here in the phenomena, just the notion that the Laws of physics have some existence independent of time and space.
-
Is is not more the case to say, Vlad, that the natural phenomena described by these laws, which are just humans articulating the principles involved, exist independently of being observed by humans - and existed before there were any humans to do any observing?
Indeed - there is little doubt that fundamental physical laws exist before there were humans observing them.
How do we know - well by good luck (and the limit to the speed of light) we can observe things which happened millions of years before humans arose on earth. All our observations of things happening in the distant reaches of the universe involve events which happened well before humans existed and still they comply with those self same fundamental laws of physics.
-
Indeed - there is little doubt that fundamental physical laws exist before there were humans observing them.
Sorry to spoil it but Gordon was saying the phenomena governed by the laws were existent prior to human observation and the laws themselves are just human descriptions.
-
Sorry to spoil it but Gordon was saying the phenomena governed by the laws were existent prior to human observation and the laws themselves are human constructs.
How we describe those laws are certainly human constructs but the fundamental principles are not - they exist outside of the need for human observations and definition and existed way before human existence.
The collapse of a star into a black hole in a distant part of our galaxy, that we might be able to observe now, happened way before humans existed. And although the star and black hole will, obviously, not decisive the physical laws in the way humans do they are still governed by those fundamental physical principles that we humans describe in terms of physical laws.
-
I know quite a bit about science thank you but as I've said I have no interest here in the phenomena, just the notion that the Laws of physics have some existence independent of time and space.
so you are looking for confirmation your god exists ? from the prof?
?
-
so you are looking for confirmation your god exists ? from the prof?
?
I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space let alone God.
-
I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space let alone God.
have you taken some reality pills or something ?
-
I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space
They're just laws of physics. They describe how we expect things work. They are refined or discarded when more accurate laws match the observations.
let alone God.
Which one?
-
I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space let alone God.
Do you know where they "sit" in relation to those?
-
I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space let alone God.
Not really - it has been pretty well universally accepted for a long while within the physics community that neither space nor time are fixed and unchanging, but are relative concepts determined by fundamental principles of physics. This was recognised as long ago as Newton for space, and more recently for time.
You know maybe some famous physicist might want to wrote a book about it aimed at the general public - maybe he could call it something snappy ... like 'A brief history of time'.
-
I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space let alone God.
Why does he need to demonstrate that the laws of physics “sit above” God? You might as well be concerned about whether they sit above the Great Green Arkelseizure.
Let’s demonstrate God exists before trying to find her place in reality, shall we.
-
Why does he need to demonstrate that the laws of physics “sit above” God? You might as well be concerned about whether they sit above the Great Green Arkelseizure.
Let’s demonstrate God exists before trying to find her place in reality, shall we.
Emphatically not. Let's establish philosophical naturalism using methodological naturalism first, then try to establish what the necessity in the universe is and whether the laws of nature really sit above physics by methodological naturalism....Go on chaps that should be easy. Instead though we get treated as per today to some half arsed shuffle between the laws of nature and the phenomena they describe.
-
Emphatically not. Let's establish philosophical naturalism using methodological naturalism first, then try to establish what the necessity in the universe is and whether the laws of nature really sit above physics by methodological naturalism....Go on chaps that should be easy.
If it is as easy as you say why don't you do it?
Save everyone else expending energy.
-
Emphatically not.
Why? Because you know you can't.
Let's establish philosophical naturalism using methodological naturalism first
No, let's not. These are just big words that you are using to obfuscate the fact that you have nothing.
-
Let's establish philosophical naturalism using methodological naturalism first...
Why? Who do you think believes in philosophical naturalism? You don't need to believe that the material world is definitely all there there is in order to observe that we currently have no reason to take concepts like gods at all seriously.
...then try to establish what the necessity in the universe is and whether the laws of nature really sit above physics by methodological naturalism....
Why do you think people need a complete philosophy of everything? What's wrong with admitting that we don't know? The laws of physics or nature are, in practical terms anyway, observed regularities in the way the universe behaves. Could they have been different if the universe was different or are they somehow more fundamental? Haven't got a clue.
-
I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space let alone God.
Time and space are defined by the laws (or, at least, by the phenomena that we describe using the laws) - without those constraints on activity time and space would not exist as they currently do. Therefore, time and space are dependent upon those laws.
Rather confusingly, however, we've no capacity to know if those laws came into existence at the same time, in which case they're both dependent on some extra-universal ruleset.
None of which, in any way, justifies asserting that there's a 'god' in the equation to need to stratify.
O.
-
Why? Who do you think believes in philosophical naturalism? You don't need to believe that the material world is definitely all there there is in order to observe that we currently have no reason to take concepts like gods at all seriously.
Most people around here are steeped in Philosophical Naturalism whether it's up to their necks or up to their waists.
-
Emphatically not.
Why not - you claim to be a theist, so it seems perfectly reasonable for you to be expected to demonstrate that god exists.
Let's establish philosophical naturalism using methodological naturalism first
Why - I don't think anyone on these MBs claims to be a philosophical naturalist so why should anyone be expected to demonstrate the veracity of a philosophy they don't subscribe to.
As I and others have pointed out given that we have overwhelming evidence of natural phenomena happening second by second based on physical laws that we can use to both predict what happens in the world and beyond and to engineer solutions to problems, it is perfectly reasonable to use those known natural phenomena as the basis for understanding our world. Pragmatic naturalism. That doesn't mean we categorically reject the notion that something might exist outside of those parameters (the supernatural or god) - but currently there is no evidence for the supernatural nor god. Therefore until or unless that evidence is produced I (and I suspect others) will work on an assumption of the natural phenomena and physical laws we know exist only. Come up with compelling evidence for supernatural or god and I will alter my view. But you don't seem to be bothered to try - see the first part of the post.
-
Most people around here are steeped in Philosophical Naturalism whether it's up to their necks or up to their waists.
No, thar's just you lying.
-
Most people around here are steeped in Philosophical Naturalism whether it's up to their necks or up to their waists.
Your evidence for this assertion is what, exactly?
-
Most people around here are steeped in Philosophical Naturalism whether it's up to their necks or up to their waists.
Really - I don't think I've ever heard someone here claim to be a philosophical naturalist - have you?
-
……………...in which case they're both dependent on some extra-universal ruleset.
None of which, in any way, justifies asserting that there's a 'god' in the equation to need to stratify.
O.
There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance here between 'an extra universal ruleset' and an 'extra universal ruler'.
-
Really - I don't think I've ever heard someone here claim to be a philosophical naturalist - have you?
The moment they defer to science and it's supposed success to justify a naturalistic slant to their views on the origins and provision of the universe and the so called 'apparent absence of God or the supernatural' they are appealing to philosophical naturalism. If philosophical naturalism was a smell they would be opening the windows by now.
-
The moment they defer to science and it's supposed success to justify a naturalistic slant to their views on the origins and provision of the universe and the so called 'apparent absence of God or the supernatural' they are appealing to philosophical naturalism. If philosophical naturalism was a smell they would be opening the windows by now.
Stop lying
-
The moment they defer to science and it's supposed success to justify a naturalistic slant to their views on the origins and provision of the universe and the so called 'apparent absence of God or the supernatural' they are appealing to philosophical naturalism. If philosophical naturalism was a smell they would be opening the windows by now.
Not really - I defy you to find anyone who doesn't nod to naturalism and science in the vast, vast majority of their lives - including you. When you get in your car and it works that is naturalism and science in action - when you type one of you tediously non-sensical posts on your computer and it appears on my computer that is naturalism and science in action - when you pick up food in the supermarket, grown on farms that is naturalism and science in action.
We all rely on naturalism and science all the time in all of our lives, including you Vlad. Or does your car run on supernaturalism, does your computer not work on the fundamental principles of physics, is your food conjured up by supernaturalism Vlad?
-
Not really - I defy you to find anyone who doesn't nod to naturalism and science in the vast, vast majority of their lives - including you. When you get in your car and it works that is naturalism and science in action - when you type one of you tediously non-sensical posts on your computer and it appears on my computer that is naturalism and science in action - when you pick up food in the supermarket, grown on farms that is naturalism and science in action.
We all rely on naturalism and science all the time in all of our lives, including you Vlad. Or does your car run on supernaturalism, does your computer not work on the fundamental principles of physics, is your food conjured up by supernaturalism Vlad?
Yet again we see the confusion between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
-
Philosophical naturalists.....
Can't justify Philosophical naturalism? Get the topic back onto methodological naturalism.....mix it up a little.
-
Yet again we see the confusion between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
But none of us claim to be philosophical naturalists, so why should any of us need to justify a philosophy we don't subscribe to.
And your comment:
'The moment they defer to science and it's supposed success to justify a naturalistic slant to their views on the origins and provision of the universe and the so called 'apparent absence of God or the supernatural' they are appealing to philosophical naturalism. If philosophical naturalism was a smell they would be opening the windows by now.'
Is actually just an appeal to methodological naturalism, which we all (including you) adopt, not to philosophical naturalism.
-
Not really - I defy you to find anyone who doesn't nod to naturalism and science in the vast, vast majority of their lives - including you. When you get in your car and it works that is naturalism and science in action - when you type one of you tediously non-sensical posts on your computer and it appears on my computer that is naturalism and science in action - when you pick up food in the supermarket, grown on farms that is naturalism and science in action.
Entirely irrelevant to the question whether there is a God or not.
-
Philosophical naturalists.....
Can't justify Philosophical naturalism? Get the topic back onto methodological naturalism.....mix it up a little.
Why not aim that point at a philosophical naturalist then?
Yet you clearly claim to be a theist - so let's see you practice what you preach. If you expect philosophical naturalists to justify their beliefs (reasonable view, but there aren't any philosophical naturalists here as far as I'm aware), you as a theist and super-naturalist need to demonstrate that both god and supernatural phenomena exist. If you aren't prepared to do that then you are a hypocrite pure and simple.
-
Entirely irrelevant to the question whether there is a God or not.
You're the theist - off you go - prove to us that god exists.
-
The moment they defer to science and it's supposed success to justify a naturalistic slant to their views on the origins and provision of the universe and the so called 'apparent absence of God or the supernatural' they are appealing to philosophical naturalism. If philosophical naturalism was a smell they would be opening the windows by now.
Unmitigated drivel. The existence of an unknown is not a justification to fill the gap with your favorite unjustified assumptions. The absence of a scientific explanation is not evidence for the supernatural. If you want to claim that the supernatural exists, you need to properly define the term and then provide a justification.
Asking for reasons to take claims seriously is not philosophical naturalism.
-
Why not aim that point at a philosophical naturalist then?
Yet you clearly claim to be a theist - so let's see you practice what you preach. If you expect philosophical naturalists to justify their beliefs (reasonable view, but there aren't any philosophical naturalists here as far as I'm aware)
Whereever people are starting from the assumption that there is only the natural that is philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is irrelevant since it does not provide evidence for that assumption. To mix them up and call the result ''naturalism'' avoids issues and is a piece of hand waving.
-
Whereever people are starting from the assumption that there is only the natural that is philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is irrelevant since it does not provide evidence for that assumption. To mix them up and call the result ''naturalism'' avoids issues and is a piece of hand waving.
Your posts are complete TWADDLE!
-
Whereever people are starting from the assumption that there is only the natural that is philosophical naturalism.
And who does that?
My starting assumption is a need for evidence to consider that something exists. I apply that to natural phenomena and physical laws and - ping - ample evidence for me to assume they exist and to base my understanding of the world on that assumption.
I apply the same to gods and supernatural phenomena and - uh oh - no evidence whatsoever for their existence so I choose not to make my understanding of the world on a presumption of their existence.
But as I've said on many occasions - if you, or anyone else, comes up with compelling evidence for the existence of gods or supernatural phenomena then I will change my current view and incorporate an assumption of their existence into my understanding of the world. So far that has not happened.
-
Philosophical naturalists.....
Can't justify Philosophical naturalism? Get the topic back onto methodological naturalism.....mix it up a little.
You just can't help lying.
-
Whereever people are starting from the assumption that there is only the natural that is philosophical naturalism.
Who do you have in mind, Vlad? You seem to be pouring petrol on your straw, so please be careful with matches.
Methodological naturalism is irrelevant since it does not provide evidence for that assumption. To mix them up and call the result ''naturalism'' avoids issues and is a piece of hand waving.
Only in your fevered imagination, Vlad.
-
There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance here between 'an extra universal ruleset' and an 'extra universal ruler'.
Not really. You can presume a ruleset from the fact we have rules, you can't presume a consciousness creating those rules you'd need to justify those claims.
O.
-
There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance here between 'an extra universal ruleset' and an 'extra universal ruler'.
In what way are the fundamental physical laws which govern the processes and behaviours we see in the universe 'extra universal' - quite the reverse they are inextricably linked to the universe and, in effect, define how that universe exists. They are part and parcel of the universe - which is a world (or a universe) away from being 'extra universal'.
-
Not really. You can presume a ruleset from the fact we have rules, you can't presume a consciousness creating those rules you'd need to justify those claims.
O.
It would be unreasonable not to propose one. Anything 'extra universal' which is unconscious has the same burden of proof since it proceeds from an extension of naturalism to outside (extra) to the universe.
-
It would be unreasonable not to propose one. Anything 'extra universal' which is unconscious has the same burden of proof since it proceeds from an extension of naturalism to outside (extra) to the universe.
Drivel
-
It would be unreasonable not to propose one. Anything 'extra universal' which is unconscious has the same burden of proof since it proceeds from an extension of naturalism to outside (extra) to the universe.
You can propose whatever you like. As I am not a proponent of 'philosophical naturalism' I am ever willing to listen to your arguments and evidence that there is such a consciousness. So far, you have given me nothing to go on. The words 'busted flush' spring to mind.
-
It would be unreasonable not to propose one. Anything 'extra universal' which is unconscious has the same burden of proof since it proceeds from an extension of naturalism to outside (extra) to the universe.
Anything extra-universal and conscious requires more of a burden of proof - you have to have not just the system in which it came to be, but also evidence of it. Occam's Razor, don't go adding unnecessary elements.
O.
-
It would be unreasonable not to propose one. Anything 'extra universal' which is unconscious has the same burden of proof since it proceeds from an extension of naturalism to outside (extra) to the universe.
Once you have reached the point of trying to discuss anything 'extra' or 'outside' the universe, there is no reasonable way to proceed - we can't agree on what words mean there or even if rules of logic apply.
-
You can propose whatever you like. As I am not a proponent of 'philosophical naturalism' I am ever willing to listen to your arguments and evidence that there is such a consciousness. So far, you have given me nothing to go on. The words 'busted flush' spring to mind.
In this particular context "busted flush"as in "down the toilet"?
-
Anything extra-universal and conscious requires more of a burden of proof - you have to have not just the system in which it came to be, but also evidence of it. Occam's Razor, don't go adding unnecessary elements.
O.
True - the notion that something has to be 'conscious' is so anthropomorphic and human-centric. It demonstrates an almost wilful lack of perspective. Consciousness is an important characteristic for humans, I get that, but in what way is consiousness important to a small asteroid orbiting a planet in a distant solar system that doesn't contain life - it isn't. But the fundamental laws of physics are just as important to that asteroid as they are to humans.
-
Anything extra-universal and conscious requires more of a burden of proof - you have to have not just the system in which it came to be, but also evidence of it. Occam's Razor, don't go adding unnecessary elements.
O.
A conscious extra universal ruler is the same number of extra universal rulers as an unconscious one
-
A conscious extra universal ruler is the same number of extra universal rulers as an unconscious one
Define what you mean by 'ruler' please.
-
Define what you mean by 'ruler' please.
An extra universal set of abstract laws cannot effect anything since they have no ability to realise those laws in any shape. We therefore need something that can translate that rule into a reality.
An unconscious ruler would be bound to other extra universal entities a consciousness would be free to produce something ordered. An unconscious ruler is preferABle to you guys as it effectively is just an extension of nature and not extra universal at all.
-
An extra universal set of abstract laws cannot effect anything since they have no ability to realise those laws in any shape. We therefore need something that can translate that rule into a reality.
An unconscious ruler would be bound to other extra universal entities a consciousness would be free to produce something ordered. An unconscious ruler is preferABle to you guys as it effectively is just an extension of nature and not extra universal at all.
I asked you to define what you mean by a 'ruler'.
You don't appear to have done so in this post. I'd be grateful if you would do so please.
-
I asked you to define what you mean by a 'ruler'.
You don't appear to have done so in this post. I'd be grateful if you would do so please.
Something which generates rules and is able to effect or actualise them.
A ruleset is an abstract thing so how does it actualise anything?
-
Something which generates rules and is able to effect or actualise them.
In which case I don't understand what you mean by an unconscious ruler - how could that thing unknowingly and unconsciously generate rules.
I don't think there is an suggestion that something generates the fundamental laws of physics - there is no suggestion that they are generated rather than they simply exist and actualise them.
So I cannot see what you mean by an unconscious ruler (using your definition) - but the notion of a conscious ruler makes sense in principle, but there is of course no evidence whatsoever that the laws of physics are generated, let alone by a conscious ruler.
-
In which case I don't understand what you mean by an unconscious ruler - how could that thing unknowingly and unconsciously generate rules.
Well...…..quite.
-
Well...…..quite.
Which means you comment:
'A conscious extra universal ruler is the same number of extra universal rulers as an unconscious one'
Is non-sense as there is no meaningful notion of an unconscious ruler. So on Occam's the notion of requiring a ruler to generate the fundamental laws of physics adds unnecessary complexity (and is completely unevidenced) and you add a further requirement of consciousness, which further falls foul of Occam and risks the naive notion that human's will create a solution which is human-like (consciousness being a peculiarly human-centric notion) rather than genuinely universal throughout time and space.
Plus, of course, there is no evidence whatsoever for a conscious ruler of the universe, and no requirement for one (except through non-sense god of the gaps arguments, which is simply an argument of ignorance).
-
An extra universal set of abstract laws cannot effect anything since they have no ability to realise those laws in any shape. We therefore need something that can translate that rule into a reality.
An unconscious ruler would be bound to other extra universal entities a consciousness would be free to produce something ordered. An unconscious ruler is preferABle to you guys as it effectively is just an extension of nature and not extra universal at all.
This is just you cherry-picking our experiences of the world and applying those bits you like to your little fantasy about something outside of the universe until you get the answer you desperately want. Everything we know about consciousness says that it can only exist in an ordered environment. Also consciousness by itself cannot do anything at all, it needs a functioning body.
There is no reason at all to think that consciousness comes before order, quite the reverse. We have no idea at all about what might be able to "actualize" the laws of physics or even any reason to think that something is needed to do so. This is simply an unknown that you want to populate with your favorite dragons and spirits god.
It's baseless daydreaming.
-
Which means you comment:
'A conscious extra universal ruler is the same number of extra universal rulers as an unconscious one'
Is non-sense as there is no meaningful notion of an unconscious ruler. So on Occam's the notion of requiring a ruler to generate the fundamental laws of physics adds unnecessary complexity (and is completely unevidenced) and you add a further requirement of consciousness, which further falls foul of Occam and risks the naive notion that human's will create a solution which is human-like (consciousness being a peculiarly human-centric notion) rather than genuinely universal throughout time and space.
Plus, of course, there is no evidence whatsoever for a conscious ruler of the universe, and no requirement for one (except through non-sense god of the gaps arguments, which is simply an argument of ignorance).
Occams razor depends on necessary entities. I think you need to demonstrate that a ruler isn't necessary to effect abstract rules and enforce them. Then of course there are issues around the chances of a viable universe.
Finally when Dawkins coined the phrase 'The Blind Watchmaker' atheism was taken up with a collective wetting of pants with joy and excitement. When I come up with 'The unconscious ruler' I am vilified.
-
Occams razor depends on necessary entities.
No, you are confused. Occam's razor says "do not multiply entities unnecessarily". That's a different meaning of "unnecessarily" to 'the opposite of "contingent"'.
I think you need to demonstrate that a ruler isn't necessary to effect abstract rules and enforce them. Then of course there are issues around the chances of a viable universe.
Physical laws are a kind of rule but there is no ruler that effects them.
Finally when Dawkins coined the phrase 'The Blind Watchmaker' atheism was taken up with a collective wetting of pants with joy and excitement. When I come up with 'The unconscious ruler' I am vilified.
The term "blind watchmaker" was just a metaphor for the fact that evolution has no direction or purpose. But then. you know that already.
-
Physical laws are a kind of rule but there is no ruler that effects them.
Any evidence for that?
-
No, you are confused. Occam's razor says "do not multiply entities unnecessarily". That's a different meaning of "unnecessarily" to 'the opposite of "contingent"'.
I wasn't thinking about contingency but entities which are necessary for an explanation.
When someone says therefore that a ruler is not necessary for an explanation how are they backing it up or are they misunderstanding and just going for the least number of entities rather than the least number of necessary entities?
-
When someone says therefore that a ruler is not necessary for an explanation how are they backing it up or are they misunderstanding and just going for the least number of entities rather than the least number of necessary entities?
If you have an explanation and there is no ruler mentioned in it, then a ruler is not necessary for that explanation.
-
When someone says therefore that a ruler is not necessary for an explanation how are they backing it up or are they misunderstanding and just going for the least number of entities rather than the least number of necessary entities?
You're getting the burden of proof wrong again. What is the reasoning or evidence that says that a ruler is necessary and that it can somehow exist in the absence of any rules governing it? If something as organised as a ruler can just exist for no reason and without meta-rules, why can't the universe do so by itself? If you can't answer that, it's just special pleading. You get as far as the answer you want and then arbitrarily stop asking questions.
-
Occams razor depends on necessary entities. I think you need to demonstrate that a ruler isn't necessary to effect abstract rules and enforce them.
Quite the reverse - under Occam if you wish to add additional complexity (a ruler) then the onus is on you to prove the necessity for a ruler. Unless or until you do under Occam the less complex situation is assumed, in other words no ruler.
-
If you have an explanation and there is no ruler mentioned in it, then a ruler is not necessary for that explanation.
Yes, what is your explanation for abstract rules effecting and affecting real situations?
-
Quite the reverse - under Occam if you wish to add additional complexity (a ruler) then the onus is on you to prove the necessity for a ruler. Unless or until you do under Occam the less complex situation is assumed, in other words no ruler.
It is not about complexity it is about adding unnecessary entities. If an entity is conscious, does that then count as two entities? I'm not sure it does.
-
It is not about complexity it is about adding unnecessary entities. If an entity is conscious, does that then count as two entities? I'm not sure it does.
Which is exactly what you are doing - adding an additional entity - a ruler. I see no reason why the laws of physics require a ruler so as far as I'm concerned it is an unnecessary additional entity. Under Occam it is for you to justify why this additional entity is necessary - in other words why the laws of physics require a ruler. Until and unless you do that Occam requires us to accept the reduced complexity, and fewer entity state where there is no ruler.
-
Yes, what is your explanation for abstract rules effecting and affecting real situations?
Why do you think a ruler is needed to explain physical law?
-
Which is exactly what you are doing - adding an additional entity - a ruler. I see no reason why the laws of physics require a ruler so as far as I'm concerned it is an unnecessary additional entity. Under Occam it is for you to justify why this additional entity is necessary - in other words why the laws of physics require a ruler. Until and unless you do that Occam requires us to accept the reduced complexity, and fewer entity state where there is no ruler.
You are asserting that I am adding an entity but that is not Occam. It's adding unnecessary entities.
You have to justify your positive assertion that a rule setting entity is unnecessary for rules.
I shall quote you in my justification for a rule maker.
In which case I don't understand what you mean by an unconscious ruler - how could that thing unknowingly and unconsciously generate rules.
So not only are you agreeing that rules are generated, and I would add enforced. You are agreeing that something that is unconscious maybe unable to unknowingly and unconsciously generate rules.
Rules therefore are therefore more likely to proceed from a personal source.
Whatever we are left with the mystery of how the Laws exist if not dependent on that existence on time and space and how the laws which look abstract manage to enforce themselves on matter.
-
You are asserting that I am adding an entity but that is not Occam. It's adding unnecessary entities.
You have to justify your positive assertion that a rule setting entity is unnecessary for rules.
Absolute non-sense.
Occam is typically stated as:
'Entities should not be multiplied without necessity' or
'The simplest solution is most likely the right one' or
'When presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions'
Occam places the onus on the person adding an entity OR proposing a solution which is not the most simple OR proposing a solution which does not include the fewest assumptions to justify that those entities, additional complexities or additional assumptions are necessary.
To suggest that the onus is on the person prosing the simplest solution with the least entities or assumptions to justify why there are not more entities/assumptions or greater complexities is the complete opposite of Occam.
In this case you are adding more entities (a ruler) a less simple solution (the need for a ruler) and one with greater assumptions (the requirement for a ruler) - therefore the onus is entirely on you to justify why those additional entities/assumptions/complexities are necessary. Over to you Vlad.
I would only have to justify my simpler solution under Occam if someone else were proposing an even simpler one again.
-
Absolute non-sense.
Occam is typically stated as:
'Entities should not be multiplied without necessity' or
'The simplest solution is most likely the right one' or
'When presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions'
Occam places the onus on the person adding an entity OR proposing a solution which is not the most simple OR proposing a solution which does not include the fewest assumptions to justify that those entities, additional complexities or additional assumptions are necessary.
To suggest that the onus is on the person prosing the simplest solution with the least entities or assumptions to justify why there are not more entities/assumptions or greater complexities is the complete opposite of Occam.
In this case you are adding more entities (a ruler) a less simple solution (the need for a ruler) and one with greater assumptions (the requirement for a ruler) - therefore the onus is entirely on you to justify why those additional entities/assumptions/complexities are necessary. Over to you Vlad.
I would only have to justify my simpler solution under Occam if someone else were proposing an even simpler one again.
But there are massive holes in your solution which so far comprises of a set of rules, which you yourself question whether they can arise unconsciously.....a set of rules that exist independently of time and space, capable of governing every particle and scintilla of matter in the universe with precision.
We are inevitably back to the question you have avoided since the start. In what manner do these rules exist not dependent on time and space? How do they govern what is in time and space and whether they are the last thing in the hierarchy apart from chance or a personal rule setter.
The key is in the puzzle of how you possibly think your solution is such.
-
But there are massive holes in your solution which so far comprises of a set of rules, which you yourself question whether they can arise unconsciously.....a set of rules that exist independently of time and space, capable of governing every particle and scintilla of matter in the universe with precision.
We are inevitably back to the question you have avoided since the start. In what manner do these rules exist not dependent on time and space? How do they govern what is in time and space and whether they are the last thing in the hierarchy apart from chance or a personal rule setter.
The key is in the puzzle of how you possibly think your solution is such.
This of yours is silliness squared, Vlad.
1. "every particle and scintilla of matter" will do what they do and the rules you speak of are a human provisional description of how "every particle and scintilla of matter" appears to operate - and "every particle and scintilla of matter" is blissfully unaware of these rules (or anything else for that matter).
2. These rules don't "govern" anything, Vlad: they just describe how phenomena apparently operate where, for some odd reason, you seem to think they are prescriptive.
-
This of yours is silliness squared, Vlad.
1. "every particle and scintilla of matter" will do what they do and the rules you speak of are a human provisional description of how "every particle and scintilla of matter" appears to operate - and "every particle and scintilla of matter" is blissfully unaware of these rules (or anything else for that matter).
2. These rules don't "govern" anything, Vlad: they just describe how phenomena apparently operate where, for some odd reason, you seem to think they are prescriptive.
For the second or third time Gordon the Professor himself proposed Laws of nature which had existence which was not dependent on time and space.
Since you have made many positive assertions regarding the nature of the laws though perhaps you might break the habit of a lifetime and start justifying them.
The idea that the laws may have an existence free of time and space is not unknown in science. Tegmark and others would say that the universe is just the physicalisation of mathematics and of course there is simulated universe theory too.
Where I am with you is that the professor has not managed to scotch your thesis that the laws are just observed physical phenomena so a proposal of extra universal laws is itself an unnecessary entity but then again I would ask you ''why are there rules which are so defined?'' and what about the unreasonable influence of mathematics on physics? a question posed about 60 years ago by Eugene Wigner.
-
The idea that the laws may have an existence free of time and space is not unknown in science. Tegmark and others would say that the universe is just the physicalisation of mathematics and of course there is simulated universe theory too.
Where I am with you is that the professor has not managed to scotch your thesis that the laws are just observed physical phenomena so a proposal of extra universal laws is itself an unnecessary entity but then again I would ask you ''why are there rules which are so defined?'' and what about the unreasonable influence of mathematics on physics? a question posed about 60 years ago by Eugene Wigner.
We don't actually know if the rules exist in some sense apart from them being human descriptions of how stuff behaves. However, if we say for the sake of argument that they do, then adding a rule maker doesn't make the whole situation any less mysterious. We wouldn't know in what way or why the rules existed or we wouldn't know in what way or why the rule maker existed. Hence the addition of the rule maker is unnecessary as it doesn't explain anything.
Yet again: the existence of an unknown is not a justification for you to populate it with your favourite myth and demand that others offer an alternative "explanation" if they don't agree. Your "explanation" has just as many unknowns as the problem you started with and the onus is on you to justify it, not on others to come up with alternatives.
-
For the second or third time Gordon the Professor himself proposed Laws of nature which had existence which was not dependent on time and space.
In which post(s)?
Since you have made many positive assertions regarding the nature of the laws though perhaps you might break the habit of a lifetime and start justifying them.
I've said that these 'laws' have been articulated by humans and that, I would have thought, is self-evident.
The idea that the laws may have an existence free of time and space is not unknown in science. Tegmark and others would say that the universe is just the physicalisation of mathematics and of course there is simulated universe theory too.
Sounds to me like you're just throwing ideas into a bowl and then mixing them up - a bit like Eton Mess.
Where I am with you is that the professor has not managed to scotch your thesis that the laws are just observed physical phenomena so a proposal of extra universal laws is itself an unnecessary entity but then again I would ask you ''why are there rules which are so defined?'' and what about the unreasonable influence of mathematics on physics? a question posed about 60 years ago by Eugene Wigner.
I'm not yet convinced that your portrayal of what Prof D said is correct, so it would be useful if you could cite the relevant posts, and even then I'm not sure what your key point is (and I suspect you don't either).
-
which you yourself question whether they can arise unconsciously
No I didn't - I never suggested that. I never questioned whether the fundamental laws of physics could arise unconsciously - I questioned your claim for the need of a ruler, and further questioned whether an unconscious ruler could actually be a ruler at all.
.....a set of rules that exist independently of time and space, capable of governing every particle and scintilla of matter in the universe with precision.
Nope I never said that either - I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former.
-
For the second or third time Gordon the Professor himself proposed Laws of nature which had existence which was not dependent on time and space.
Since you have made many positive assertions regarding the nature of the laws though perhaps you might break the habit of a lifetime and start justifying them.
The idea that the laws may have an existence free of time and space is not unknown in science. Tegmark and others would say that the universe is just the physicalisation of mathematics and of course there is simulated universe theory too.
Where I am with you is that the professor has not managed to scotch your thesis that the laws are just observed physical phenomena so a proposal of extra universal laws is itself an unnecessary entity but then again I would ask you ''why are there rules which are so defined?'' and what about the unreasonable influence of mathematics on physics? a question posed about 60 years ago by Eugene Wigner.
If I haven't asked this of you before Vlad I'm sure someone else is more than likely to have asked you, I was just wondering if you know the story about how the Dodo is supposed have become extinct.
Well the above I think is an accurate summing up of the direction all/any of your posts go, what is it you seem to be unable to grasp, no don't answer, had a look at this post and I know it's not worth it, just remember the Dodo Vlad.
Regards to you Vlad, ippy.
-
Vlad
Read Prof D's #231 - looks like you misunderstood.
-
No I didn't - I never suggested that. I never questioned whether the fundamental laws of physics could arise unconsciously - I questioned your claim for the need of a ruler, and further questioned whether an unconscious ruler could actually be a ruler at all.
Nope I never said that either - I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former.
See reply#59 You said there Their existence was not dependent on time and space...existence not dependent therefore existence INdependent.
Therefore time and space existence dependent on The Laws but not vica versa.
If you have changed your views on that you are free to do so.
-
Vlad
Read Prof D's #231 - looks like you misunderstood.
Read Prof D's #59
-
See reply#59 You said there Their existence was not dependent on time and space...existence not dependent therefore existence INdependent.
Therefore time and space existence dependent on The Laws but not vica versa.
If you have changed your views on that you are free to do so.
Nope I've not changed my views - hence in my previous reply I said:
'I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former' - which is entirely consistent with reply 59 and many subsequent replies in which I have clearly indicate that the fundamental physical laws and time/space are not independent as time/space are dependent on those physical laws.
-
Nope I've not changed my views - hence in my previous reply I said:
'I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former' - which is entirely consistent with reply 59 and many subsequent replies in which I have clearly indicate that the fundamental physical laws and time/space are not independent as time/space are dependent on those physical laws.
But I use the term existence whereas you do not.
You indicate here that time/space are dependent on physical laws but NOT that physical laws are dependent on time and space. Is that still your position and why can you not bring yourself to make that clear here whereas in reply#59 You make it clear that the laws are not dependent on time and space for their existence.
It looks like you are word gaming here.
-
But I use the term existence whereas you do not.
You indicate here that time/space are dependent on physical laws but NOT that physical laws are dependent on time and space. Is that still your position and why can you not bring yourself to make that clear here whereas in reply#59 You make it clear that the laws are not dependent on time and space for their existence.
It looks like you are word gaming here.
POT _ KETTLE _ BLACK!!!
-
POT _ KETTLE _ BLACK!!!
I've noticed that when Davey is put under a bit of pressure, an axe grinder leaps in to get him off the hook.
Owlswing….atheists are not your fellow travellers.
-
You indicate here that time/space are dependent on physical laws but NOT that physical laws are dependent on time and space. Is that still your position and why can you not bring yourself to make that clear here whereas in reply#59 You make it clear that the laws are not dependent on time and space for their existence.
How many times do I have to say the same thing for it to be clear to you Vlad - both on the basic inter-relationship between fundamental physical laws and time/space, and using an analogy of a specific type of physical law (gravity) and a manifestation dependant on that physical principle (orbits). I used the latter as you seem challenged by the notion of time and space being relative and not fixed (which physicists have recognised for decades in one case, centuries in the other). So here goes:
47 - But as you point out those physical laws fundamentally define time and space so the notion of before or after - of beyond or outside - those physical laws is non-sensical.
48 - Origin is a concept predicated on a point in time - when something first emerged to appeared. But the physical laws define time so the very notion of origin is trumped by those physical laws.
51 - But time and space are a manifestation of the physical laws - eternal is a temporal concept (i.e. to do with time) so you are are reading this the wrong way round as the very concept of 'eternal' is defined by those physical laws. And no the physical laws aren't really independent of time and space because the latter are intrinsically defined by those physical laws.
53 - Wrong way around - time and space are dependent on the physical laws.
57 - Given that time/space are dependent on physical laws it is not correct to say that time/space and physical laws are independent - on the contrary they are inextricably linked as time/space are defined by and indeed a manifestation of those physical laws.
59 - Time/space and the physical laws which define them and which time/space are a manifestation of are clearly inextricably linked - i.e. they are not independent. Claiming somehow that physical laws and time/space are independent is as non-sensical as claiming that gravity and the orbiting of the planets in our solar system are somehow independent.
61 - Because time and space are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.
73 - I on the other hand clearly stated their dependency - in other words that time/space time are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws.
75 - You asked about their dependency and I have been very clear - in other words that time/space time are manifestations of those physical laws - time and space only exist because of those physical laws. Dependency doesn't have to be equally two way, but that doesn't mean there is no dependency.
Try this one - using one of those physical laws:
The orbiting of our planets around the sun is dependent on the laws of gravity.
However
The laws of gravity are not dependent on the orbiting of our planets around the sun.
79 - As I've mentioned previously, your question is as non-sensical as asking how gravity can exist if it isn't dependent on the orbits of the planets. The fundamental laws of physics sit above (in other words are more fundamentally) that things which are manifestations of those laws, including time, space, orbits of planets, design of rockets that allow them to escape from earth's gravitational pull etc etc.
81 - Which are themselves dependent on the laws of physics - space/time don't really exist outside the laws of physics in the same way are planetary orbits don't really exist outside of the laws of gravity (one of those fundamental laws of physics).
118 - In fact I think I was very clear that the laws of nature are themselves determined by, and predicated on, those fundamental laws of physics.
167 - Not really - it has been pretty well universally accepted for a long while within the physics community that neither space nor time are fixed and unchanging, but are relative concepts determined by fundamental principles of physics. This was recognised as long ago as Newton for space, and more recently for time.
231 - Nope I never said that either - I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former.
236 - 'I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former' - which is entirely consistent with reply 59 and many subsequent replies in which I have clearly indicate that the fundamental physical laws and time/space are not independent as time/space are dependent on those physical laws.
-
Vlad's posts should be ignored they are so nonsensical it is not worth responding to them.
-
231 - Nope I never said that either - I have been clear that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are not independent - the latter is dependent on the former.
.
I know time and space are dependent on the laws. You keep saying that. I accept it and have done for the last umpteen posts!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now
Are the laws dependent for their existence on time and space?
If not how do they exist?
-
Are the laws dependent on their existence on time and space?
If not how do they exist?
Is gravity dependent for its existence on the orbits of the planets.
Is flour dependent for its existence on bread.
If not how do they exist.
You are asking a non-sensical question. And one that betrays your lack of understanding of the acceptance in physics that neither time nor space are somehow fixed and unchangeable rather than being relative concepts.
-
I've noticed that when Davey is put under a bit of pressure, an axe grinder leaps in to get him off the hook.
Owlswing….atheists are not your fellow travellers.
I am axe-grinder for no-one on the board - they are all perfectly capable of defending themselves against Christians as brainwashed as those posting to this forum.
Atheists are not my felow travellers, thank the Goddess. They are not as they do not have faith in any deity whereas I do, just not the evil, twisted, vindictive, sadistic, bastard who holds you and otrhers on here in thrall.
I CHOSE my beliefs, I did not have them forced down my throat by priests when I was too young to refuse them and never grew a set big enough to reject them in adulthood, a rejection that I accomplished at age 15!
Bright Blessings, Love and Light and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.
-
Is gravity dependent for its existence on the orbits of the planets.
Is flour dependent for its existence on bread.
If not how do they exist.
You are asking a non-sensical question. And one that betrays your lack of understanding of the acceptance in physics that neither time nor space are somehow fixed and unchangeable rather than being relative concepts.
And still not a straight answer. Yes or no would do rather than low mind gaming.
I accept physics, end of.
I understand why you cannot bring yourself to directly admit your suggestion that the laws are not dependent on time and space. You might lose face.
But as I have become fucked well and truly off by your antics I am now more interested in what I have to say.
Yes I agree that time and space are dependent on the laws for their existence.
Yes I agree it doesn't work the other way.
Yes I am highly sympathetic with Tegmarks mathematical universe, that the universe is a manifestation of mathematical laws.
Mathematical laws are abstract and produce nothing physical.
If that was not the case we would be overwhelmed by the continual spontaneous production of the physical.
Only something with a knowledge of mathematics, the ability to compute and manipulate maths and the controlled will to do so can translate maths into the physical.
The universe is both controlled and exists because of this entity, this rule maker and controller(governer) which because it has volition, computation and ability(power) and self control and choice can be said to be personal rather than impersonal and so we arrive at a ruler and maker of the universe whether at a one of point or by continuously translating the mathematical into the physical.
-
And still not a straight answer. Yes or no would do rather than low mind gaming.
I have been clear and consistent throughout.
I accept physics, end of.
Really - you could have fooled me - you don't even seen to have a basic understanding - e.g. asking us how much the laws of physics weigh.
I understand why you cannot bring yourself to directly admit your suggestion that the laws are not dependent on time and space. You might lose face.
I have done on multiple occasions - but what I do not accept is that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are independent of each other - they aren't.
But as I have become fucked well and truly off by your antics I am now more interested in what I have to say.
Is that supposed to be a comment worth of reading.
Yes I agree that time and space are dependent on the laws for their existence.
Yes I agree it doesn't work the other way.
Good
Yes I am highly sympathetic with Tegmarks mathematical universe, that the universe is a manifestation of mathematical laws.
I doubt you have the faintest idea what that means.
Mathematical laws are abstract and produce nothing physical.
If that was not the case we would be overwhelmed by the continual spontaneous production of the physical.
Only something with a knowledge of mathematics, the ability to compute and manipulate maths and the controlled will to do so can translate maths into the physical.
The universe is both controlled and exists because of this entity, this rule maker and controller(governer) which because it has volition, computation and ability(power) and self control and choice can be said to be personal rather than impersonal and so we arrive at a ruler and maker of the universe whether at a one of point or by continuously translating the mathematical into the physical.
Oh dear - we were doing so well and then Vlad starts to spout bollocks as is so often the case. Occam says no - if you want to propose some kind of maths-knowing govnor - up to you to provide evidence for this nonsense and to justify why this is necessary (as per Occam).
-
I have been clear and consistent throughout.
Really - you could have fooled me - you don't even seen to have a basic understanding - e.g. asking us how much the laws of physics weigh.
I have done on multiple occasions - but what I do not accept is that the fundamental laws of physics and time/space are independent of each other - they aren't.
Is that supposed to be a comment worth of reading.
Good
I doubt you have the faintest idea what that means.
Oh dear - we were doing so well and then Vlad starts to spout bollocks as is so often the case. Occam says no - if you want to propose some kind of maths-knowing govnor - up to you to provide evidence for this nonsense and to justify why this is necessary (as per Occam).
You need to show it is bollocks.
It reveals where you do not understand Occam and necessary entities.
You have abstract mathematical laws producing the physical.
That of course does not happen. If it did we would be overwhelmed by continuous production of the physical. There is however obviously control here. There needs to be a necessary entity beyond the number you propose.
-
You need to show it is bollocks.
No I don't - it is your proposal - the onus is on you to demonstrate your 'guvnor' to be necessary and to exist.
Over to you.
-
No I don't - it is your proposal - the onus is on you to demonstrate your 'guvnor' to be necessary and to exist.
Over to you.
You need to rebut it not just sit on your behind.
I have demonstrated necessity. Abstract mathematical laws never translate into the physical or anything material and you have them doing so. If they did we would be overwhelmed by continually produced matter we know that matter/energy interacts with matter/energy but abstract laws have no weight or physical dimensions whatsoever...….as you emphatically pointed out. And yet here you are saying time and space dependent on them! Whose being stupid now?
-
You need to rebut it not just sit on your behind.
No I don't - if I propose that the universe was sneezed out the the nose of a giant turtle the onus of proof would be on me - there would be no need to rebut it.
If you wish to propose the notion of some maths-knowing 'guvnor' the onus is on you to justify your claim.
-
At the end of the day Davey, I've put my ideas out there. So far zero refutation. But I'm not really bothered whether you do or not to be honest.
You propose that time and space are dependent for their existence on the laws of physics. How does an abstract physical law produce/generate time and space.
I have put forward and justified mine......justify yours.
I do grant that you have gone further than the great atheist shyster himself....Bertrand Russell famous for his the universe just is.Live with it! Non argument.
-
Vlad's posts should be ignored they are so nonsensical it is not worth responding to them.
I try to not go there L R, I think if you did make a start you might find yourself gradually start loosing the will to live.
Regards, ippy.
-
Are the laws dependent for their existence on time and space?
If not how do they exist?
Vlad
You seem to be thrashing about for no good reason - let me try this approach. You seem to be seeing the 'laws' that describe phenomena as being somehow separate entities from the phenomena that they describe, where what they describe would happen anyway whether or not the mechanisms involved were recognised by humans.
Any of these 'laws' is a description of how phenomena present: they are, therefore, grounded in naturalistic methods. For them to have been set out in the first place indicates that there has been sufficiently extensive study to show that certain aspects occur under certain conditions to the extent that the description of them can be viewed as a 'law' - and if it were found that any the 'law' was invalidated by new evidence then it would no longer be a 'law'. The phenomena concerned must be a feature within time and space since for it to have been investigated in first place, since the notion of investigating something that was not within time and space wouldn't make sense as things stand.
Let us take an example of a 'law' and maybe you can tell us what you think the problems are, so cast your mind back to school physics lessons and let use use Boyle's Law as an example:
The absolute pressure exerted by a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to the volume it occupies if the temperature and amount of gas remain unchanged within a closed system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law
I'd say this law depends on their being relevant stuff within time and space, since if it were otherwise this law would never have be formulated.
-
.
I know time and space are dependent on the laws. You keep saying that. I accept it and have done for the last umpteen posts!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now
Are the laws dependent for their existence on time and space?
If not how do they exist?
errmmm....
I have only read a few of PD's posts but it's pretty obvious to me that his answer (which I agree with) is that they are not dependent on the existence of time and space. Rather time and space are defined by physical law.
-
Mathematical laws are abstract and produce nothing physical.
If that was not the case we would be overwhelmed by the continual spontaneous production of the physical.
Only something with a knowledge of mathematics, the ability to compute and manipulate maths and the controlled will to do so can translate maths into the physical.
The universe is both controlled and exists because of this entity, this rule maker and controller(governer) which because it has volition, computation and ability(power) and self control and choice can be said to be personal rather than impersonal and so we arrive at a ruler and maker of the universe whether at a one of point or by continuously translating the mathematical into the physical.
The mathematical laws are not really the laws that govern the Universe. They are our descriptions of the laws that (we think) the Universe follows. There doesn't need to be some rule maker to interpret the mathematics. The Universe just does what it does and we describe what it does with mathematical equations.
-
Vlad
You seem to be thrashing about for no good reason - let me try this approach. You seem to be seeing the 'laws' that describe phenomena as being somehow separate entities from the phenomena that they describe, where what they describe would happen anyway whether or not the mechanisms involved were recognised by humans.
Any of these 'laws' is a description of how phenomena present: they are, therefore, grounded in naturalistic methods. For them to have been set out in the first place indicates that there has been sufficiently extensive study to show that certain aspects occur under certain conditions to the extent that the description of them can be viewed as a 'law' - and if it were found that any the 'law' was invalidated by new evidence then it would no longer be a 'law'. The phenomena concerned must be a feature within time and space since for it to have been investigated in first place, since the notion of investigating something that was not within time and space wouldn't make sense as things stand.
Let us take an example of a 'law' and maybe you can tell us what you think the problems are, so cast your mind back to school physics lessons and let use use Boyle's Law as an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law
I'd say this law depends on their being relevant stuff within time and space, since if it were otherwise this law would never have be formulated.
Yes Gordon, it's all about ''the relevant stuff'' Why does the stuff follow the law though Gordon? What is forcing it to follow a law which according to you is just formulated by us? Do we invent the laws or discover them?
-
The Universe just does what it does
OK
-
The mathematical laws are not really the laws that govern the Universe. They are our descriptions of the laws that (we think) the Universe follows. There doesn't need to be some rule maker to interpret the mathematics. The Universe just does what it does and we describe what it does with mathematical equations.
I agree - although I am calling things fundamental physical laws, I've been clear that I'm talking about the underlying physical processes and relationships. In the most complete sense the 'laws' are human descriptions of fundamental physical processes derived through observation and measurement. While the laws, as we describe them, might be human constructs, those fundamental physical processes and relationships that they describe aren't human constructs.
-
I agree - although I am calling things fundamental physical laws, I've been clear that I'm talking about the underlying physical processes and relationships. In the most complete sense the 'laws' are human descriptions of fundamental physical processes derived through observation and measurement. While the laws, as we describe them, might be human constructs, those fundamental physical processes and relationships that they describe aren't human constructs.
Nor need they be the constructs of any other intelligent entity and, if they were, that entity would itself be subject to some meta physical law (the space there is deliberate, I don't mean metaphysical).
-
Nor need they be the constructs of any other intelligent entity and, if they were, that entity would itself be subject to some meta physical law (the space there is deliberate, I don't mean metaphysical).
Quite.
-
Nor need they be the constructs of any other intelligent entity and, if they were, that entity would itself be subject to some meta physical law (the space there is deliberate, I don't mean metaphysical).
Not sure that's true because eventually contingencies have to end in a necessary.
Sounds like you are unsure if you need an entity or not or whether you would continue to need them ad infinitum whereas a necessary entity ends the hierarchy.
Could this entity be unintelligent? Well no, because it would not know where to stop and the physical would keep being created.
That actually was the proposal of the steady state theory previous to big bang.....But where is that theory now?
-
Not sure that's true because eventually contingencies have to end in a necessary.
Why?
-
Why?
If I wanted something, I could of course borrow it....and what I borrowed it from could in turn have borrowed it...… However if that goes back infinitely I would never get the something I wanted. If I do get it then it is only because it was introduced at some point in the past. Thus it is with contingency and necessity.
-
Yes Gordon, it's all about ''the relevant stuff'' Why does the stuff follow the law though Gordon? What is forcing it to follow a law which according to you is just formulated by us? Do we invent the laws or discover them?
Is it not the case that the laws follow the stuff, since the stuff has to be studied in order to formulate the laws?
-
If I wanted something, I could of course borrow it....and what I borrowed it from could in turn have borrowed it...… However if that goes back infinitely I would never get the something I wanted. If I do get it then it is only because it was introduced at some point in the past. Thus it is with contingency and necessity.
Oh dear - once again Vlad is unable to understand that time itself is relative and contingent/dependent on fundamental physical principles as described by humans as physical laws.
You really struggling to understand basic physics Vlad.
And outside of that schoolboy error the rest of your post in unintelligible non-sense.
-
Is it not the case that the laws follow the stuff, since the stuff has to be studied in order to formulate the laws?
Surely a law should be derived from what we observe the stuff to be doing and that would be following a repeatable pattern in stuff of the same type in other words we are only reporting as best we can what the stuff is doing. But again either we question why stuff of a certain type invariably does and is....and not something else or we just resign ourself to saying the universe just does what it does as someonehas already resorted to in this thread.
-
Oh dear - once again Vlad is unable to understand that time itself is relative and contingent/dependent on fundamental physical principles as described by humans as physical laws.
You really struggling to understand basic physics Vlad.
And outside of that schoolboy error the rest of your post in unintelligible non-sense.
Professor Davey, how long ago was the big bang?
-
Oh dear - once again Vlad is unable to understand that time itself is relative and contingent/dependent on fundamental physical principles as described by humans as physical laws.
You really struggling to understand basic physics Vlad.
And outside of that schoolboy error the rest of your post in unintelligible non-sense.
Alright if you don't like the word the past you could quite easily say that the something has to be introduced at some point in the hierarchy.
-
Surely a law should be derived from what we observe the stuff to be doing and that would be following a repeatable pattern in stuff of the same type in other words we are only reporting as best we can what the stuff is doing.
That is what I said: we discover laws by studying stuff.
But again either we question why stuff of a certain type invariably does and is....and not something else or we just resign ourself to saying the universe just does what it does as someonehas already resorted to in this thread.
We can study 'how'; such as by what mechanisms etc, but 'why' is another matter - and by asking 'why' you risk begging the question.
-
That is what I said: we discover laws by studying stuff.
We can study 'how'; such as by what mechanisms etc, but 'why' is another matter - and by asking 'why' you risk begging the question.
As far studying ''stuff'' is concerned I tend to use the words how and why interchangeably. I'm not an anally retentive atheist you see.
-
Alright if you don't like the word the past you could quite easily say that the something has to be introduced at some point in the hierarchy.
But again - you are implying linearity and directionality. You cannot presume this.
So in your rather clunky argument for you to have borrowed something implies linearity and directionality. If you don't presume this and accept relativity, while you may perceive that you are borrowing something that may just be due to your relative perception and from a different perspective it may be that you are lending to someone rather than borrowing from them.
-
As far studying ''stuff'' is concerned I tend to use the words how and why interchangeably. I'm not an anally retentive atheist you see.
Well you are being imprecise in your language. How implies mechanism, why implies motive (which is an entirely different matter).
-
But again - you are implying linearity and directionality. You cannot presume this.
So in your rather clunky argument for you to have borrowed something implies linearity and directionality. If you don't presume this and accept relativity, while you may perceive that you are borrowing something that may just be due to your relative perception and from a different perspective it may be that you are lending to someone rather than borrowing from them.
Of course you can. What do you think a hierarchy is all about?
After all it's cause and effect not necessarily cause then effect.
-
Well you are being imprecise in your language. How implies mechanism, why implies motive (which is an entirely different matter).
Citation?
-
But again either we question why stuff of a certain type invariably does and is....and not something else or we just resign ourself to saying the universe just does what it does as someonehas already resorted to in this thread.
The point you keep on ignoring is that if we decide to "explain" why stuff does what it does with rules that have an existence apart from the universe and a rule maker that decided what they were going to be, you haven't actually explained anything because there is no logical reason to then not ask the same question about the rule maker. Why does it exist and do as it does and not something else?
You've got to the conclusion you like and then arbitrarily stopped asking questions. Just slapping the label "necessary" on it, is equally arbitrary. How can you tell that the universe (as a whole) isn't necessary but some rule maker would be?
As things stand, you've just added the stuff you like without any hint of justification.
-
Of course you can
How - simple understanding of relativity make this very challenging.
Take a classic example - from the perspective of a person stood on the earth it may appear that they are still and the sun is moving overhead. While from the perspective of the sun the reverse is the case - that the entity that is moving is the person on a rotating planet.
You really do struggle with things being relative and potentially elastic and flexible, rather than fixed.
-
The point you keep on ignoring is that if we decide to "explain" why stuff does what it does with rules that have an existence apart from the universe and a rule maker that decided what they were going to be, you haven't actually explained anything because there is no logical reason to then not ask the same question about the rule maker. Why does it exist and do as it does and not something else?
You've got to the conclusion you like and then arbitrarily stopped asking questions. Just slapping the label "necessary" on it, is equally arbitrary. How can you tell that the universe (as a whole) isn't necessary but some rule maker would be?
As things stand, you've just added the stuff you like without any hint of justification.
Your logic sounds as if it has never come across contingency and necessity. If you had a private education perhaps you can sue for being short changed.
-
How - simple understanding of relativity make this very challenging.
Take a classic example - from the perspective of a person stood on the earth it may appear that they are still and the sun is moving overhead. While from the perspective of the sun the reverse is the case - that the entity that is moving is the person on a rotating planet.
You really do struggle with things being relative and potentially elastic and flexible, rather than fixed.
You've completely ignored my question about what you think a hierarchy is.
-
As far studying ''stuff'' is concerned I tend to use the words how and why interchangeably. I'm not an anally retentive atheist you see.
In which case you'll forego clarity and risk descending into the chasm of equivocation - that said, you'll be company for Alan.
-
In which case you'll forego clarity and risk descending into the chasm of equivocation - that said, you'll be company for Alan.
Aye, you'll be doomed to the chasm of equivocation, where there will be a great gnashing o' teeth and if ye ha'no teeth then truly, teeth will be provided.Aye.
-
Citation?
Standard definitions
Why - the cause, reason, or purpose for which (i.e. purpose/reasons implying motive)
How - in what way or manner; by what means (i.e. manner/means implying mechanism).
Are you unable to recognise the completely different meaning of:
How did you kill Jack vs Why did you kill Jack
-
Aye, you'll be doomed to the chasm of equivocation, where there will be a great gnashing o' teeth and if ye ha'no teeth then truly, teeth will be provided.Aye.
Thank you, Pike.
-
You've completely ignored my question about what you think a hierarchy is.
Hierarchy is a statement of direction - but direction is in itself a relative concept, not an absolute one.
-
Your logic sounds as if it has never come across contingency and necessity. If you had a private education perhaps you can sue for being short changed.
Any idiot can pretend to have superior knowledge or understanding. I'm still waiting for you to produce or cite any actual argument that isn't laughable.
Why would a rule maker be necessary? Why couldn't the universe as a whole be necessary? How do you know what is necessary? You have produced nothing at all that resembles logical reasoning. All you seem to be doing is pointing at something nobody actually knows the anwer to and trying to populate the unknown with your favourite myth - without the slightest hint of a logical justification.
-
Any idiot can pretend to have superior knowledge or understanding. I'm still waiting for you to produce or cite any actual argument that isn't laughable.
Why would a rule maker be necessary? Why couldn't the universe as a whole be necessary? How do you know what is necessary? You have produced nothing at all that resembles logical reasoning. All you seem to be doing is pointing at something nobody actually knows the anwer to and trying to populate the unknown with your favourite myth - without the slightest hint of a logical justification.
The universe could be necessary but there would have to be something discovered about the universe which wasn't contingent. What would that be like? Maybe we will never know because it may be impervious to science or maybe we could know if it chose to reveal itself to us.
-
The universe could be necessary but there would have to be something discovered about the universe which wasn't contingent. What would that be like? Maybe we will never know because it may be impervious to science or maybe we could know if it chose to reveal itself to us.
Isn't that what people have considered energy to be for centuries - effectively that is cannot be created or destroyed and within a closed system universe the total amount is constant. Therefore the energy is not contingent on something else.
-
Isn't that what people have considered energy to be for centuries - effectively that is cannot be created or destroyed and within a closed system universe the total amount is constant. Therefore the energy is not contingent on something else.
If it can be changed then I suppose it is contingent.
-
If it can be changed then I suppose it is contingent.
It can only be converted in form but energy itself would appear not to be contingent on anything else - it exists in a fixed amount in the universe and can neither be created nor destroyed - or so standard orthodox physics thinking has considered to be the case since about 1840.
-
The universe could be necessary but there would have to be something discovered about the universe which wasn't contingent.
Why do you think the whole of space-time and all its contents can't possibly be necessary? As I've been trying to explain, the whole lot is just a four-dimensional object.
What would that be like? Maybe we will never know because it may be impervious to science...
I have no idea.
...or maybe we could know if it chose to reveal itself to us.
Trying to read your favourite myth into an unknown again...
-
Why do you think the whole of space-time and all its contents can't possibly be necessary? As I've been trying to explain, the whole lot is just a four-dimensional object.
I don't, but how can the whole universe be necessary when what we observe is contingent?
You might argue that necessity emerges as a property from the ensemble of contingent things but then that necessity would itself then be contingent on something else.
Necessity cannot be affected by anything else or it becomes contingent on other things.
-
It can only be converted in form but energy itself would appear not to be contingent on anything else - it exists in a fixed amount in the universe and can neither be created nor destroyed - or so standard orthodox physics thinking has considered to be the case since about 1840.
Energy exists in a fixed amount suggests fine tuning. Could the amount have been different?
-
Maybe we will never know because it may be impervious to science ...
To misquote Dillahunty - an entity that does not manifest is in reality indistinguishable to an entity that does not exist.
or maybe we could know if it chose to reveal itself to us.
Here we go again - you cannot get away from the anthropomorphising and applying consciousness to everything - why is choice relevant here. Did energy 'choose' to reveal itself to us ... now about gravity, did it 'choose' to reveal itself to us. Nope - they were always there, unthinking, unconscious and one day humans discovered them. They just as much exist even if humans hadn't discovered them or even if there were no intelligent life or even any life in the universe.
You cannot stop yourself seeing the world through your own human-created god-shaped blinkers, can you Vlad.
-
Energy exists in a fixed amount suggests fine tuning.
No it doesn't - the fixed amount derives from its inability to be created nor destroyed rather than fine tuning.
Could the amount have been different?
I've no idea, do you? Point is it cannot be created nor destroyed and therefore always did and always will exist.
-
Isn't that what people have considered energy to be for centuries - effectively that is cannot be created or destroyed and within a closed system universe the total amount is constant. Therefore the energy is not contingent on something else.
Energy isn't stuff though, it's a property of stuff, there has to be something (or system of things) that has energy. No stuff, no energy. See: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy (https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/).
-
I don't, but how can the whole universe be necessary when what we observe is contingent?
The point is Vlad, that it's you who are trying to draw conclusions from unknowns. I don't know, and I don't think anybody else knows, what is necessary (if anything) or why, in the context of what exists.
-
To misquote Dillahunty - an entity that does not manifest is in reality indistinguishable to an entity that does not exist.
There is an entertaining video of an interview with Dillahunty asking him what level of ''manifestation'' would clinch God for him.
An asteroid mysteriously plucked out of orbit crashing into the moon and the debris spelling out the name of God in every language was offered. He still couldn't bring himself to say he would then believe saying something like ''it would have to happen more than once'' or something. That made me smile.
I have no doubt that God has made himself manifest in Jesus Christ.
-
Energy isn't stuff though, it's a property of stuff, there has to be something (or system of things) that has energy. No stuff, no energy. See: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy (https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/).
I don't think I said it was stuff - I think that might have been Vlad.
My point is that energy (as as property) does not seem to be contingent on something else as it is effectively constant within the universe and is unable to be created nor destroyed. And given that we have spent much of this thread discussing basic physical laws, which are human descriptions of physical properties and relationships, then I'd have thought discussion of energy as a property that seems not to be contingent on anything else seems highly relevant.
-
No it doesn't - the fixed amount derives from its inability to be created nor destroyed rather than fine tuning.
I've no idea, do you? Point is it cannot be created nor destroyed and therefore always did and always will exist.
1) Inability? for whom?
2) If it is unable to be created, how come it's there?
-
I have no doubt that God has made himself manifest in Jesus Christ.
An assertion without evidence.
And only a fool claims to have no doubt in an assertion, without any evidence to back up their assertion.
-
1) Inability? for whom?
Once again Vlad is unable to see anything except through the blinkers of whom, implying a conscious being. Why is there any necessity for a whom.
-
Prof,
An assertion without evidence.
And only a fool claims to have no doubt in an assertion, without any evidence to back up their assertion.
We should call it “Vlad’s paradox”: the less evidence he has, the more certain he is. Thus zero evidence = total certainty.
-
My point is that energy (as as property) does not seem to be contingent on something else as it is effectively constant within the universe and is unable to be created nor destroyed. And given that we have spent much of this thread discussing basic physical laws, which are human descriptions of physical properties and relationships, then I'd have thought discussion of energy as a property that seems not to be contingent on anything else seems highly relevant.
But energy can't exist without stuff, so it must be contingent on the existence of stuff. It's also a conserved quantity because of the time translation symmetry of the universe, just like (linear) momentum is conserved because of the space translation symmetry (Noether's theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem)), so its conservation depends on the symmetries of the universe itself.
-
I try to not go there L R, I think if you did make a start you might find yourself gradually start loosing the will to live.
Regards, ippy.
There is one good about responding to him, you get a very clear indication when you have scored a hit! He ignores it rather than belittling you!
-
Once again Vlad is unable to see anything except through the blinkers of whom, implying a conscious being. Why is there any necessity for a whom.
I say that the universe is either created, infinite, or appeared spontaneously. I have even mentioned Tegmark who has mathematics as the ruling principle for physicality. It is atheists who dismiss creation or if they recognise it cling to the unconscious and impersonal. In fact at any point the atheist seeks out the unconscious, impersonal alternative even in the face of what they call The laws being physicalised as if by magic and in a bobs your uncle fashion, hey presto it's all there manner. An even bigger hint at straw clutching by atheists is the attraction for an infinite universe. This, of course, seemingly gets rid of all atheists problems.
By ''whom'' I meant humanity but it is unreasonable to exclude a personal creator since personality exists and things are created by persons in the universe.
-
There is one good about responding to him, you get a very clear indication when you have scored a hit! He ignores it rather than belittling you!
Yes but it's what your idea of a ''hit'' is.
-
Not sure that's true because eventually contingencies have to end in a necessary.
How do you know it's not turtles all the way down?
Sounds like you are unsure if you need an entity or not
Trouble is, if you need an entity, you need an entity for that entity and an entity for that entity and so on. So either you have an infinite chain of entities or you stop at some point and designate one entity special. If you are going to do that, you might as well make it the very first entity i.e. the Universe, not the second entity - your god.
Could this entity be unintelligent?
Yep. An fact it has to be. Otherwise we have to ask where its intelligence came from.
That actually was the proposal of the steady state theory previous to big bang.....But where is that theory now?
Wrong. The steady state hypothesis was proposed as an alternative to the Big Bang. It acknowledges the expansion of the Universe but proposes that it is eternal and new matter is constantly being created in the gaps. It failed because the Big Bang Theory correctly predicted how much helium there is in the Universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation and it didn't.
-
How do you know it's not turtles all the way down?
Trouble is, if you need an entity, you need an entity for that entity and an entity for that entity and so on. So either you have an infinite chain of entities or you stop at some point and designate one entity special. If you are going to do that, you might as well make it the very first entity i.e. the Universe, not the second entity - your god.
Yep. An fact it has to be. Otherwise we have to ask where its intelligence came from.
Wrong. The steady state hypothesis was proposed as an alternative to the Big Bang. It acknowledges the expansion of the Universe but proposes that it is eternal and new matter is constantly being created in the gaps. It failed because the Big Bang Theory correctly predicted how much helium there is in the Universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation and it didn't.
How then can an infinity deliver if we are infinitely dependent on something coming up with the actual goods? Why is their anything in an infinity anyway? Even if infinity were a string of events like a train. What keeps a train moving? Aren't you proposing a perpetual motion machine since the universe follows the laws ofthermodynamics?
-
I say that the universe is either created, infinite, or appeared spontaneously.
Still ignoring the fact that, according to general relativity, the space-time just is.
I have even mentioned Tegmark who has mathematics as the ruling principle for physicality.
Which is also a guess. However, at least mathematics basically consists of truisms, so they are at least logically necessary. It also has the advantage of simplicity.
It is atheists who dismiss creation or if they recognise it cling to the unconscious and impersonal. In fact at any point the atheist seeks out the unconscious, impersonal alternative even in the face of what they call The laws being physicalised as if by magic and in a bobs your uncle fashion, hey presto it's all there manner.
Just like your god just happens to be for no reason (still waiting for an actual argument about necessity). The existence of a god that creates a universe is no less mysterious and unexplained than just a universe - that's why it's nothing but a pointless guess.
An even bigger hint at straw clutching by atheists is the attraction for an infinite universe. This of course gets rid of all atheists problems.
Of course it doesn't. You're still stuck in Newtonian thinking. A past timelike infinity is simply irrelevant.
By whom I meant humanity but it is unreasonable to exclude a personal creator since personality exists and things are created by persons in the universe.
And persons exist because of the unconscious process of evolution. All the evidence we have is that conscious beings need an ordered universe, not the other way around.
-
Yep. An fact it has to be. Otherwise we have to ask where its intelligence came from.
Nope, because if it were unintelligent what would stop it creating the physical or constantly changing the parameters of the universe?
-
Still ignoring the fact that, according to general relativity, the space-time just is.
Which is also a guess. However, at least mathematics basically consists of truisms, so they are at least logically necessary. It also has the advantage of simplicity.
Just like your god just happens to be for no reason (still waiting for an actual argument about necessity). The existence of a god that creates a universe is no less mysterious and unexplained than just a universe - that's why it's nothing but a pointless guess.
Of course it doesn't. You're still stuck in Newtonian thinking. A past timelike infinity is simply irrelevant.
And persons exist because of the unconscious process of evolution. All the evidence we have is that conscious beings need an ordered universe, not the other way around.
It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created.
-
It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created.
Firstly, this is still Newtonian thinking about time. Secondly, why would you think that (Tegmark is a counterexample)? Thirdly, why would you expect consciousness to produce consistency (I'm assuming you're conscious but your idea of what constitutes a god changes like the weather)? Fourthly, any sort of "creator" is a guess and anything about it is also a guess (until and unless we get an actual argument or evidence).
-
Nope, because if it were unintelligent what would stop it creating the physical or constantly changing the parameters of the universe?
The fact that it hasn't got a mind to change.
-
How then can an infinity deliver if we are infinitely dependent on something coming up with the actual goods? Why is their anything in an infinity anyway? Even if infinity were a string of events like a train. What keeps a train moving? Aren't you proposing a perpetual motion machine since the universe follows the laws ofthermodynamics?
Again you are confusing the Universe with the things in it.
"A string of events" implies time. Time is a property of the Universe not something in which the Universe exists.
-
Nope, because if it were unintelligent what would stop it creating the physical or constantly changing the parameters of the universe?
If the creator of the Universe can be unintelligent, why bother with a creator at all? Why not just say the Universe "is"?
-
Firstly, this is still Newtonian thinking about time. Secondly, why would you think that (Tegmark is a counterexample)? Thirdly, why would you expect consciousness to produce consistency (I'm assuming you're conscious but your idea of what constitutes a god changes like the weather)? Fourthly, any sort of "creator" is a guess and anything about it is also a guess (until and unless we get an actual argument or evidence).
A one of Big bang is not consistent. It's a one of, one universe is not consistency, It's just a one of, matter/energy constantly created , parameters constantly changing IS consistent. I didn't make the argument for consistency but control and self control. The one universe with one set of rules shows remarkable control and self control.
-
If the creator of the Universe can be unintelligent, why bother with a creator at all? Why not just say the Universe "is"?
Intellectual surrender.
-
Intellectual surrender.
Occam's razor actually.
-
Occam's razor actually.
Oh dear another misunderstanding of the razor. You have to establish what is a necessary entity and what isn't. Just saying the universe just is does not answer that. An unconscious creator is still a creator existing non dependently on what it creates and therefore not part of the universe.
-
Oh dear another misunderstanding of the razor.
Thanks. It would be useful if you continued to flag up the fallacies and falsehoods in your arguments at the beginning of each post. It will save us a lot of time going forward.
You have to establish what is a necessary entity and what isn't.
This is what we are trying to do. The problem is that you will only accept one answer, not based on rationality or argument but based on the fact that you want God to be real.
Just saying the universe just is does not answer that. An unconscious creator is still a creator existing non dependently on what it creates and therefore not part of the universe.
Just saying God exists does not answer it either, but, at least in my version we haven't multiplied entities unnecessarily.
-
A one of Big bang is not consistent. It's a one of, one universe is not consistency, It's just a one of, matter/energy constantly created , parameters constantly changing IS consistent.
Utterly baseless assertion. Where is your reasoning? And you're still stuck in Newtonian thinking.
I didn't make the argument for consistency but control and self control. The one universe with one set of rules shows remarkable control and self control.
Firstly, it's total gibberish to claim the universe shows "remarkable control and self control". Secondly, how do you know that there's only one universe? Thirdly, Tegmark is still a counterexample.
-
The fact that it hasn't got a mind to change.
That of course would consign us to an eternity of no universe or an eternity of nonstop change and creation.
-
Utterly baseless assertion. Where is your reasoning? And you're still stuck in Newtonian thinking.
Firstly, it's total gibberish to claim the universe shows "remarkable control and self control". Secondly, how do you know that there's only one universe? Thirdly, Tegmark is still a counterexample.
No I didn't say the universe shows remarkable control and self control. I said the creator has these, not the universe.
A one of of course is rarely penetrable to science which depends on repeatability
There may be more than one universe but not an unlimited number. One has to be careful in the pursuit of multiple universes as it could be spurred on by one's atheism rather than wholesome scientific pursuit.
How is Tegmark a counter example?
-
Thanks. It would be useful if you continued to flag up the fallacies and falsehoods in your arguments at the beginning of each post. It will save us a lot of time going forward.
This is what we are trying to do. The problem is that you will only accept one answer, not based on rationality or argument but based on the fact that you want God to be real.
Just saying God exists does not answer it either, but, at least in my version we haven't multiplied entities unnecessarily.
I would have thought that to be certain you haven't the universe would have had to demonstrably self created or be demonstrably infinite. Good luck with those.
The universe just is is no answer. an unintelligent creator is an entity like an intelligent creator but still not part of the universe. It's hard to see what you have achieved.
-
No I didn't say the universe shows remarkable control and self control. I said the creator has these, not the universe.
Which is equally silly.
A one of of course is rarely penetrable to science which depends on repeatability
Until you come up with an argument, you're playing a guessing game here - what's the relevance of science?
There may be more than one universe but not an unlimited number. One has to be careful in the pursuit of multiple universes as it could be spurred on by one's atheism rather than wholesome scientific pursuit.
It's you who is trying to base an argument on the number of universes, not me. We have no idea if there are others or how many.
How is Tegmark a counter example?
Because it's an alternative guess that doesn't involve a conscious creator and doesn't suffer from the problems you keep on asserting there would be without one.
-
A conscious extra universal ruler is the same number of extra universal rulers as an unconscious one
But a ruler (conscious or otherwise) operating through natural laws is one more element to justify than just natural laws...
O.
-
Which is equally silly.
Until you come up with an argument, you're playing a guessing game here - what's the relevance of science?
It's you who is trying to base an argument on the number of universes, not me. We have no idea if there are others or how many.
Because it's an alternative guess that doesn't involve a conscious creator and doesn't suffer from the problems you keep on asserting there would be without one.
Yes it does. There are mathematics which do not appear physicalised in the universe. There is no observed example of maths BECOMING physicalised rather than just remaining in the realm of mathematical realism. A multiverse is just maths and maths only supplies a finite number of universes.
Maths however seems to be independent of physics 1 +1 =2 no matter what the physical conditions are. What would stop a new big bang every second right here right now if it was maths wotdidit?
-
But a ruler (conscious or otherwise) operating through natural laws is one more element to justify than just natural laws...
Occam's razor isn't just about the number of elements but the number of necessary elements and laws need enforcement.
-
Occam's razor isn't just about the number of elements but the number of necessary elements and laws need enforcement.
So, Vlad, how would you go about 'enforcing' Boyle's Law?
-
But energy can't exist without stuff, so it must be contingent on the existence of stuff.
And stuff cannot exist without energy, so it's tricky to say which is contingent on the other - possibly that they are fundamentally interdependent but as they are conserved neither is contingent on a further entity.
-
... but the number of necessary elements and laws need enforcement.
Blimey, we've moved beyond anthropomorphising the universe to requiring a policeman - beyond parody.
So if all elements and laws need enforcement Vlad, who (or what) is the enforcer for a conscious creator. Under your argument that a conscious creator is a necessary element (wrong of course, but let's work with this assumption) then under your own argument there must be a higher enforcer to police that conscious creator. And on it goes.
-
Blimey, we've moved beyond anthropomorphising the universe to requiring a policeman - beyond parody.
So if all elements and laws need enforcement Vlad, who (or what) is the enforcer for a conscious creator. Under your argument that a conscious creator is a necessary element (wrong of course, but let's work with this assumption) then under your own argument there must be a higher enforcer to police that conscious creator. And on it goes.
The creator obviously shows self control by only performing the creative act once otherwise we would be knee deep in matter/energy and the laws would be constantly changing.
-
So, Vlad, how would you go about 'enforcing' Boyle's Law?
I would probably say ''obey Boyles law otherwise we'll take you round the back and give you a good shoeing''
-
And stuff cannot exist without energy, so it's tricky to say which is contingent on the other - possibly that they are fundamentally interdependent but as they are conserved neither is contingent on a further entity.
E=MCsquared
-
E=MCsquared
Well done Vlad - do you think I don't know that?
-
Occam's razor isn't just about the number of elements but the number of necessary elements and laws need enforcement.
Why do FUNDAMENTAL laws need 'enforcement' - it may well be that this is the nature of stuff. Otherwise you have one of those infinite regresses that you get so upset about.
O.
-
Yes it does. There are mathematics which do not appear physicalised in the universe.
As you would expect. I take it you haven't really looked at the proposal.
What would stop a new big bang every second right here right now if it was maths wotdidit?
Because that isn't part of the mathematical structure that is the universe. I'm not going to try to argue that Tegmark is correct but it does provide a counterexample to your assertions about unconscious creators.
Still waiting for any reason to take any of these guesses seriously.
-
And stuff cannot exist without energy, so it's tricky to say which is contingent on the other - possibly that they are fundamentally interdependent but as they are conserved neither is contingent on a further entity.
But energy is a property of stuff, just like momentum is (and they're treated together in relativity) or, for that matter, mass, electric charge, or spin. It's also observer dependent and conserved only because of the time translation symmetry of the universe.
Nothing can exist if it doesn't have any properties so why regard one of those as something special? I really don't get why people latch on to energy as something fundamental.
-
I would probably say ''obey Boyles law otherwise we'll take you round the back and give you a good shoeing''
I thought I'd teed this up for you, by citing Boyle's Law, to come back with a witty 'enforcement' response along the lines of - 'Well, I'd get all the gasses in a room and apply some pressure to 'em', but you missed the opportunity!
-
But energy is a property of stuff, just like momentum is (and they're treated together in relativity) or, for that matter, mass, electric charge, or spin. It's also observer dependent and conserved only because of the time translation symmetry of the universe.
Nothing can exist if it doesn't have any properties so why regard one of those as something special? I really don't get why people latch on to energy as something fundamental.
But the argument can be made entirely the other way around too, effectively that stuff (mass) cannot exist without energy and that mass and matter is a manifestation of energy, rather than energy being a property of stuff.
The fundamental relationships between those entities remains unclear - and theoretical and experimental physicists continue to spend large amounts of time and effort studying those relationships, precisely because they are so fundamental and so intrinsically linked to the nature, origins and development of the universe.
-
No I didn't say the universe shows remarkable control and self control. I said the creator has these, not the universe.
How could you possibly know that. You haven't determined that there ever was a creator?
There may be more than one universe but not an unlimited number.
Why not?
-
I would have thought that to be certain
The only person claiming any certainty here is you.
the universe would have had to demonstrably self created or be demonstrably infinite.
Or it just is.
The universe just is is no answer. an unintelligent creator is an entity like an intelligent creator but still not part of the universe. It's hard to see what you have achieved.
"God just is" is no answer.
-
Yes it does. There are mathematics which do not appear physicalised in the universe. There is no observed example of maths BECOMING physicalised rather than just remaining in the realm of mathematical realism. A multiverse is just maths and maths only supplies a finite number of universes.
No. It has been explained to you already that the maths is what we humans do to describe the way reality behaves.
Maths however seems to be independent of physics 1 +1 =2 no matter what the physical conditions are. What would stop a new big bang every second right here right now if it was maths wotdidit?
Really?
What is c + c then? (where c is the speed of light).
-
It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created.
Been a while since anyone attempted the circular reasoning daftness of a "fine-tuned" universe: "From the outset God intended us to exist; we can only exist if the universe is a certain way; the universe is that way; therefore God". Perhaps we could have a face palm emoji available for the next time someone tries it?
-
But the argument can be made entirely the other way around too, effectively that stuff (mass) cannot exist without energy and that mass and matter is a manifestation of energy, rather than energy being a property of stuff.
Mass isn't stuff either (it's another property) and matter isn't even a well defined scientific term (it's context dependent). The stuff that exists in our two most fundamental theories (GR and QFT) are quantum fields and space-time. There is no hypothesis or conjecture that I'm aware of that claims that they are manifestations of energy. I can't even see how that would make any sense, given that it's basically a consequence of symmetry and is fundamentally related to momentum in relativity. Feel free to provide a reference though.
-
The creator ...
There is no evidence for a creator.
obviously
In what way is an entity for whose existence there is no evidence doing something, somehow obvious. It isn't.
shows self control
Evidence please - given that you have no evidence for a creator in the first place you cannot move to the stage of ascribing attributes to that entity.
by only performing the creative act once
You have no evidence that the universe was created by a creator - nor do you have evidence that the emergence of our universe is the only example of a universe emerging. There are plenty of theories (that are actually based on evidence and observation) that propose multi-universe solutions.
otherwise we would be knee deep in matter/energy
Why would that be the case given that matter and energy are conserved within a closed system such as a universe, so regardless of whether other universes exist ours would still contain the same matter and energy.
and the laws would be constantly changing.
Why would those laws be constantly changing - if they are fundamental laws they'd be constant and would apply in our universe, and other ones, in the same manner.
On Occam I think you have added six additional steps/complexities/entities that fall foul of Occam and therefore require you to justify their existence and necessity in a single sentence. These are:
A creator
That the creator has self control
That the universe was created by the creator
That the creation of the universe by the creator only happened once
That energy/mass are not governed by the fundamental laws of conservation in mult-universes
That fundamental laws are not fundamental in multi-universes but change.
-
Been a while since anyone attempted the circular reasoning daftness of a "fine-tuned" universe: "From the outset God intended us to exist; we can only exist if the universe is a certain way; the universe is that way; therefore God". Perhaps we could have a face palm emoji available for the next time someone tries it?
A bit of an unwise intervention since the fine tuned universe is an idea amongst respectable physicists past and present.
Dawkins acknowledges this in the God delusion and advocates not only the multiverse but Smolin's evolutionary multiverse in that notoriously atheistic tome ''The God Delusion''. The scientist and atheist Massimo Piggliaci has taken Carroll to task for talking about trying to solve/circumvent Fine tuning and referring to it as ''The fine tuning problem''. Pointing out it is a problem for atheism but not science.
I use it here in answer to the contention that even if there were a creator there is no reason why it could not be unconscious and unintelligent or why it could be conscious and intelligent. Under an unconscious creator there would be nothing to stop it creating matter/energy or changing the parameters of the universe or for it to make only one universe.
-
Mass isn't stuff either ...
Define 'stuff' then NTtS - it isn't a term I've heard my friends and colleagues in our school of physics use - including those who are eminent academic experts in theoretical particle physics, string theory or cosmology.
-
There is no evidence for a creator.
In what way is an entity for whose existence there is no evidence doing something, somehow obvious. It isn't.
Evidence please - given that you have no evidence for a creator in the first place you cannot move to the stage of ascribing attributes to that entity.
You have no evidence that the universe was created by a creator - nor do you have evidence that the emergence of our universe is the only example of a universe emerging. There are plenty of theories (that are actually based on evidence and observation) that propose multi-universe solutions.
Why would that be the case given that matter and energy are conserved within a closed system such as a universe, so regardless of whether other universes exist ours would still contain the same matter and energy.
Why would those laws be constantly changing - if they are fundamental laws they'd be constant and would apply in our universe, and other ones, in the same manner.
On Occam I think you have added six additional steps/complexities/entities that fall foul of Occam and therefore require you to justify their existence and necessity in a single sentence. These are:
A creator
That the creator has self control
That the universe was created by the creator
That the creation of the universe by the creator only happened once
That energy/mass are not governed by the fundamental laws of conservation in mult-universes
That fundamental laws are not fundamental in multi-universes but change.
Bzzz Appeal to multiverse.
Which is an extra entity.`
-
Define 'stuff' then Vlad - it isn't a term I've heard my friends and colleagues in our school of physics use - including those who are eminent academic experts in theoretical particle physics, string theory or cosmology.
You aren't replying to Vlad here
-
You aren't replying to Vlad here
Oops - true - but the question is completely valid.
-
Define 'stuff' then Vlad - it isn't a term I've heard my friends and colleagues in our school of physics use - including those who are eminent academic experts in theoretical particle physics, string theory or cosmology.
I'm not Vlad.
I borrowed the term from Matt Strassler (theoretical physicist who writes the blog I linked to before: here (https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/)) and, IIRC, speaker-to-animals from the old BBC boards used the term too (in much the same context). I said what I meant in the rest of the post: basically, as far as current science is concerned, it's quantum fields (and space-time, if you want).
-
Vlad,
A bit of an unwise intervention since the fine tuned universe is an idea amongst respectable physicists past and present.
Dawkins acknowledges this in the God delusion and advocates not only the multiverse but Smolin's evolutionary multiverse in that notoriously atheistic tome ''The God Delusion''. The scientist and atheist Massimo Piggliaci has taken Carroll to task for talking about trying to solve/circumvent Fine tuning and referring to it as ''The fine tuning problem''. Pointing out it is a problem for atheism but not science.
I use it here in answer to the contention that even if there were a creator there is no reason why it could not be unconscious and unintelligent or why it could be conscious and intelligent. Under an unconscious creator there would be nothing to stop it creating matter/energy or changing the parameters of the universe or for it to make only one universe.
And your answer to the circular reasoning problem it gives you if you want to argue it as evidence for "god" would be what?
IF you want to assume that a god intended us all along then you can wonder at the unlikelihood of the universe by chance alone turning out to be just right for our existence, and you might even conclude (albeit erroneously) that there must therefore have been a god to make the universe that way. You're still stuck though with your premise and your conclusion being the same thing - "god". Think Adams' puddle, and insert facepalm emoji here...
-
Bzzz Appeal to multiverse.
No - I'm not appealing to a multi-verse merely pointing out it as a plausible possibility. You are doing the opposite, you are limiting the possibility of multi-verse solutions in a (failed) attempt to justify a series of hand-waving assertions for which you have zero evidence and fall foul of Occam in multiple occasions.
-
Vlad,
And your answer to the circular reasoning problem it gives you if you want to argue it as evidence for "god" would be what?
IF you want to assume that a god intended us all along then you can wonder at the unlikelihood of the universe by chance alone turning out to be just right for our existence, and you might even conclude (albeit erroneously) that there must therefore have been a god to make the universe that way. You're still stuck though with your premise and your conclusion being the same thing - "god". Think Adams' puddle, and insert facepalm emoji here...
All I am saying is that one possibility is the universe was created and that that creator was conscious and intelligent, self controlled, discriminating, Had volition, encyclopedic knowledge and ability...…….I don't know where you possibly get the notion i'm talking about God.
Dougie Adams was a flippant twat.
-
No - I'm not appealing to a multi-verse merely pointing out it as a plausible possibility. You are doing the opposite, you are limiting the possibility of multi-verse solutions in a (failed) attempt to justify a series of hand-waving assertions for which you have zero evidence and fall foul of Occam in multiple occasions.
The multiverse is an extra entity. But the only reason to ignore it is on the argument frequently used by atheists the ''current evidence'' argument.....only it's a bit worse than that given the issues of''stepping outside'' the universe for evidence.
In any case a multiverse just defers the issues around was it created, Is it infinite or did it spontaneously appear.
-
In any case a multiverse just defers the issues around was it created, Is it infinite or did it spontaneously appear.
But the notion of appearance (or even creation) assumes a temporal component of time - in other words something wasn't there are one point in time but then appears at another point in time and is in existence during a further period of time.
If time itself is relative, non-fixed and flexible then those notions become meaningless.
-
Vlad,
All I am saying is that one possibility is the universe was created and that that creator was conscious and intelligent, self controlled, discriminating, Had volition, encyclopedic knowledge and ability...…….I don't know where you possibly get the notion i'm talking about God.
No, that’s not all you’re saying at all. Leaving aside the manifold problems with conjecturing a “creator” at all (eg, Fletcher’s tunnel), you have no basis just to assume that this creator would have had any of these properties at all. That’s why what you actually said (Reply 310) was: “It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created” – ie, you tried the fine tuning fallacy to justify intentionality.
What “fixed tuned” parameters were you proposing exactly if not “tuning” for a purpose?
Evasion noted though
Dougie Adams was a flippant twat.
No he wasn’t, but ad hominem noted.
-
All I am saying is that one possibility is the universe was created and that that creator was conscious and intelligent, self controlled, discriminating, Had volition, encyclopedic knowledge and ability...…….I don't know where you possibly get the notion i'm talking about God.
"Conscious intelligent creator of the Universe". If this entity exists, we would certainly call it God.
-
In any case a multiverse just defers the issues around was it created, Is it infinite or did it spontaneously appear.
So does a god.
-
Yes but it's what your idea of a ''hit'' is.
A Hit is pointing out that you are talking rubbish!
You know two-thirds of three fifths of f**k-all about paganism and thus you make statements that are showing your level of ignorance for all who DO know about paganism. I, on the other hand, do know about Christianity having been force-fed it for twelve or thirteen years.
-
Vlad,
No, that’s not all you’re saying at all. Leaving aside the manifold problems with conjecturing a “creator” at all (eg, Fletcher’s tunnel), you have no basis just to assume that this creator would have had any of these properties at all. That’s why what you actually said (Reply 310) was: “It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created” – ie, you tried the fine tuning fallacy to justify intentionality.
Or I just outlined what an unconscious creator would entail. Fine tuning is an idea in Physics Hillside.
It just means that the parameters of the universe are not shifting and there is conservation of energy something we would not expect if creation was the act of something unconscious. There is therefore no virtue in ruling out intentionality Since you seem bent on an unconscious creator stopping or starting the universe or maintaining it have you thought of driving while asleep?
As for you arguing out of Fletcher's tunnel...…...
-
Vlad,
Or I just outlined what an unconscious creator would entail. Fine tuning is an idea in Physics Hillside.
No you didn’t, and no it isn’t. “Tuning” is a purposive act - it requires intentionality. Physics makes no such claim – it merely observes, describes and develops theories about the known parameters.
If you want to talk about the parameters of the universe too, that’s fine; if you want to assert them to have been “tuned” that way though, then you’re in a world of trouble.
It just means that the parameters of the universe are not shifting…
No it doesn’t. “Stable” or “static” or “unchanging” would to do that, but “tuned” means something else. To be “tuned” you’d need a tuner – QED.
…and there is conservation of energy something we would not expect if creation was the act of something unconscious.
Non sequitur. Why not? And while you’re at it, why not with no “creator” at all?
There is therefore no virtue in ruling out intentionality
Actually there is, for the same reason there’s “virtue” in ruling out leprechauns – they add nothing of explanatory value, and in any case no-one “rules out” anything as a possibility – your god, any other god, and leprechauns included. That’s your standard burden of proof mistake remember?
Since you seem bent on an unconscious creator stopping or starting the universe or maintaining it have you thought of driving while asleep?
As I’ve always explained perfectly clearly that I see no good reason to believe there to have been a “creator” at all, even for you this is one of the more egregious lies you’ve tried.
As for you arguing out of Fletcher's tunnel...…...
You’re the one who’s (unwittingly) argued his way into it – it’s your job therefore to find a way out.
Oh, and no apology for you ad hom re Douglas Adams then? Why am I not surprised?
-
Or I just outlined what an unconscious creator would entail. Fine tuning is an idea in Physics Hillside.
No, it isn't, because it's not testable - it's not a scientific idea at all. It's an idea about science for philosophers.
It just means that the parameters of the universe are not shifting and there is conservation of energy something we would not expect if creation was the act of something unconscious.
Why would we not?
O.
-
Vlad,
No you didn’t, and no it isn’t. “Tuning” is a purposive act - it requires intentionality. Physics makes no such claim – it merely observes, describes and develops theories about the known parameters.
If you want to talk about the parameters of the universe too, that’s fine; if you want to assert them to have been “tuned” that way though, then you’re in a world of trouble.
No it doesn’t. “Stable” or “static” or “unchanging” would to do that, but “tuned” means something else. To be “tuned” you’d need a tuner – QED.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
These mention physics and the part of physicists. Hard Luck.
Actually there is, for the same reason there’s “virtue” in ruling out leprechauns – they add nothing of explanatory value, and in any case no-one “rules out” anything as a possibility – your god, any other god, and leprechauns included. That’s your standard burden of proof mistake remember?
leprechauns BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Argumentum ad ridiculum or Horse laugh fallacy.
Oh, and no apology for you ad hom re Douglas Adams then? Why am I not surprised?
Why should I when I think the bloke was a c*nt?
-
Why would we not?
You are expecting actual laws and a reasonable universe rather than chaos?
-
Vlad,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
These mention physics and the part of physicists. Hard Luck.
These articles refer to the adjustments the physicists themselves do, not to “tuning” as implying that there must therefore have been a tuner a priori to make the universe a certain way, which is what you were attempting in Reply 310 (“It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created.”)
Hard luck indeed. Actually no luck involved – just more of your dishonesty.
leprechauns BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Argumentum ad ridiculum or Horse laugh fallacy.
Wrong again. It’s actually a reductio ad absurdum, which is a sound rhetorical argument. Here’s a link that would get you started if you didn’t just ignore it (which you will):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Why should I when I think the bloke was a c*nt?
What a despicable piece of work you are. Even if that was true though (and it isn’t) it would tell you nothing about whether or not Adams’ puddle is a legitimate argument (which it is). That was your ad hom – attack the (supposed) character of the person making the argument, but not the argument itself. Shame on you.
To summarise, you just attempted:
1. Misrepresentation of the science
2. Doubling down on your circular reasoning
3. Misunderstanding of a rhetorical argument
4. Repetition of a previous ad hom
Why not find another mb to pollute now you've had your fun here?
-
leprechauns BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Argumentum ad ridiculum or Horse laugh fallacy.
Bzzzzzzzzzt wrong. If you'd read what was said, you'd understand there was no fallacious reasoning in the argument.
-
You are expecting actual laws and a reasonable universe rather than chaos?
This is utterly silly. Why would you expect an conscious law maker to just happen to exist rather than chaos, any more than a universe with consistent laws? All the evidence we have is that consciousness requires an ordered universe, not the other way around.
Where is the first hint of a morsel of a scintilla of a suggestion of a reason to take the idea of a conscious creator seriously?
-
All I am saying is that one possibility is the universe was created and that that creator was conscious and intelligent, self controlled, discriminating, Had volition, encyclopedic knowledge and ability...…….I don't know where you possibly get the notion i'm talking about God.
If you happened to be talking about God though,.
Would some or all of those attributes be required for him to exist?
-
You are expecting actual laws and a reasonable universe rather than chaos?
I fail to see how conservation of energy leads to a conclusion of 'conscious creator'. I'm not 'expecting' anything - I'm seeing consistent behaviour from the universe, and presuming that there are underlying laws of nature that lead to that. I'm not presuming something must have 'decided' those rules, because then I also need to explain the rules for that consciousness and it's mechanism for deciding and implementing rules.
O.
-
All I am saying is that one possibility is the universe was created and that that creator was conscious and intelligent, self controlled, discriminating, Had volition, encyclopedic knowledge and ability...…….I don't know where you possibly get the notion i'm talking about God.
Dougie Adams was a flippant twat.
Assuming Douglas was a flippant twat, even if this were so he still managed to sum you up and others just like you in a nutshell!
Regards, ippy.
-
I'm not Vlad.
Indeed you are not
I borrowed the term from Matt Strassler (theoretical physicist who writes the blog I linked to before: here (https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/)) and, IIRC, speaker-to-animals from the old BBC boards used the term too (in much the same context). I said what I meant in the rest of the post: basically, as far as current science is concerned, it's quantum fields (and space-time, if you want).
Haven't looked through this in details but isn't he just using the term 'stuff' to describe 'matter' - indeed he states that 'Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context' and I'm struggling to see where he defines something as being 'stuff', but not 'matter'.
-
Vlad,
These articles refer to the adjustments the physicists themselves do, not to “tuning” as implying that there must therefore have been a tuner a priori to make the universe a certain way, which is what you were attempting in Reply 310 (“It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created.”)
Hard luck indeed. Actually no luck involved – just more of your dishonesty.
Wrong again. It’s actually a reductio ad absurdum, which is a sound rhetorical argument. Here’s a link that would get you started if you didn’t just ignore it (which you will):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
straight out of the New Atheist playbook.
Why not find another mb to pollute now you've had your fun here?
Why, just because I think Douglas Adams was a c*nt?
-
Vlad,
straight out of the New Atheist playbook.
So I identified the four dishonesties/mistakes you attempted and rather then deal with the problem you went for the ad hom again. Whether the arguments that undid you were from the "New Atheist playbook" (whatever that might be), learned philosophical tomes or the backs of fag packets makes no difference at all to the validity of the arguments themselves.
Why, just because I think Douglas Adams was a c*nt?
No, because you think that making that assertion is a legitimate response to an argument he made that falsified a previous one you'd attempted.
Well that and the facts that you either have no understanding of or deliberately misrepresent the science and reasoning you attempt to pray in aid, that you consistently ignore or misrepresent every argument that's put to you, that you're utterly dishonest in all your dealing here, that you routinely play the same card as the pigeon that knocks over the chess pieces, craps on the board and then flies off to claim its "victory", that for some unknown reason you find people replying in good faith to your unremitting trolling to be amusing enough to provoke you to even more of it, that you have no intention actually of discussing anything, that you will never own or learn from your repeated mistakes despite having them explained to you over and over again, that...
...enough?
-
Haven't looked through this in details but isn't he just using the term 'stuff' to describe 'matter' - indeed he states that 'Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context' and I'm struggling to see where he defines something as being 'stuff', but not 'matter'.
As the quote suggests, matter is some (context dependant) subset of stuff. All matter is stuff but not all stuff is matter. I guess a photon wouldn't normally be regarded as matter, but, as he points out, neither is it energy. Another quote: "All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not."
As I said before, the basic "stuff" of reality, according to GR and QFT, are quantum fields (all particles, whether matter or not, being "ripples" or excitations of said fields) and space-time.
-
As the quote suggests, matter is some (context dependant) subset of stuff. All matter is stuff but not all stuff is matter. I guess a photon wouldn't normally be regarded as matter, but, as he points out, neither is it energy. Another quote: "All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not."
As I said before, the basic "stuff" of reality, according to GR and QFT, are quantum fields (all particles, whether matter or not, being "ripples" or excitations of said fields) and space-time.
Reading a little more - effectively all it means is particles and waves - would be simpler to describe it as such as I think most people understand that concept.
And yes if that is what defines 'stuff', then energy isn't stuff, nor is mass. However energy and mass are properties of stuff (not all stuff has mass, e.g. waves) but all stuff has energy I think. Although you could describe it the other way around - i.e. that particles and waves are manifestations of energy and mass.
-
Reading a little more - effectively all it means is particles and waves - would be simpler to describe it as such as I think most people understand that concept.
The blog post I linked to is trying to dispel the popular misconception that energy is some sort of "stuff" that things are can be made of. Seems some people want to cling on to it anyway.
And yes if that is what defines 'stuff', then energy isn't stuff, nor is mass. However energy and mass are properties of stuff (not all stuff has mass, e.g. waves) but all stuff has energy I think. Although you could describe it the other way around - i.e. that particles and waves are manifestations of energy and mass.
But that isn't what the relevant (well tested) theories describe. Why pick on those properties, anyway? It's not as if some particular particle, if it has rest mass anyway, has a fixed amount of energy; energy and momentum get mixed up in relativity just as space and time do. I suspect you wouldn't want to call particles manifestations of momentum. Or maybe you would...?
-
straight out of the New Atheist playbook.
Where can I get a copy of that? I'm not sure I'm playing it right. Maybe it'll explain what's 'new' about 'you've not adequately made your case'?
Why, just because I think Douglas Adams was a c*nt?
It's always edifying when someone elevates the level of discourse by disrespecting the deceased...
O.
-
It's always edifying when someone elevates the level of discourse by disrespecting the deceased...
I think Adams would have appreciated it, coming, as it did, from a rabid theist.
-
And yes if that is what defines 'stuff', then energy isn't stuff, nor is mass. However energy and mass are properties of stuff (not all stuff has mass, e.g. waves) but all stuff has energy I think. Although you could describe it the other way around - i.e. that particles and waves are manifestations of energy and mass.
All humans have height but you wouldn't say humans are manifestations of height.
Energy is a number, an accounting trick. It's an abstract quantity.
-
Vlad,
So I identified the four dishonesties/mistakes you attempted and rather then deal with the problem you went for the ad hom again. Whether the arguments that undid you were from the "New Atheist playbook" (whatever that might be), learned philosophical tomes or the backs of fag packets makes no difference at all to the validity of the arguments themselves.
No, because you think that making that assertion is a legitimate response to an argument he made that falsified a previous one you'd attempted.
Well that and the facts that you either have no understanding of or deliberately misrepresent the science and reasoning you attempt to pray in aid, that you consistently ignore or misrepresent every argument that's put to you, that you're utterly dishonest in all your dealing here, that you routinely play the same card as the pigeon that knocks over the chess pieces, craps on the board and then flies off to claim its "victory", that for some unknown reason you find people replying in good faith to your unremitting trolling to be amusing enough to provoke you to even more of it, that you have no intention actually of discussing anything, that you will never own or learn from your repeated mistakes despite having them explained to you over and over again, that...
...enough?
First of all Physicists do talk in terms of a finely tuned universe
secondly I started by talking about fixed tune
Third, we all know who Adam's was arguing with and what argument they were making. That the universe has constants which do not appear to change and that matter and energy are not constantly created rather than the chaos which would occur in unconscious process is what I am arguing.
By stopping speculation and saying the universe just is, is just atheists of the God dodging variety saying ''that's far enough for me, thank you''
The motivation of most atheists here is not to defend science but to defend atheism....In my humble opinion.
-
That the universe has constants which do not appear to change and that matter and energy are not constantly created rather than the chaos which would occur in unconscious process is what I am arguing.
But you haven't argued it, you've just asserted it. Where is the actual reasoning?
By stopping speculation and saying the universe just is, is just atheists of the God dodging variety saying ''that's far enough for me, thank you''
I see nobody dodging any gods here. I see no gods to dodge. The question is: do we have any basis at all on which to go further? Nothing you've posted to date provides such a basis, so we just have your assertions and guesswork. I prefer an honest "we don't know" until and unless some further evidence or reasoning can shed further light on the matter.
There is undoubtedly a mystery as to why stuff exists and is the way it is but making shit up about some god or other has no basis (that I've seen yet) and doesn't actually answer the question anyway.
The motivation of most atheists here is not to defend science but to defend atheism....In my humble opinion.
It's about defending logical thinking and rationality, tentatively believing what evidence can tell us, and resisting the temptation to believe in guesses, myths, or superstitions to "explain" things that we don't have enough evidence or reasoning to draw conclusions about.
-
... rather than the chaos which would occur in unconscious process is what I am arguing.
Why should an unconscious process cause chaos Vlad - whether or not is does depends entirely on the energetics of the process, which of course play out in a completely unconscious manner.
I've used this example several times, but will do so again.
If you mix water and amphiphilic phospholipids they will firstly perfectly segregate into the two components (in other words creating the most ordered and least chaotic partitioning) - secondly the phospholipids will self assemble in to the most ordered structures imaginable - including perfect spheres, each made of a perfect bilayer of the phospholipids with the outer layer all in one orientation, the inner layer in the opposite orientation.
This incredibly order and entirely unchaotic arrangement arises entirely unconsciously and is due to the fact that it is the lowest energy stage and any other state requires the input of energy to maintain it. So shake the bottle, and everything mixes, but it will return to the perfectly ordered state as it settles.
Now this is just one example - there are countless examples whether the energetically more advantageous state is highly ordered, systems which are self regulating and self 'optimising' - with the control of those ordering phenomena being entirely 'unconscious' basic physical principles.
No need for a 'conscious' creator to generate perfect bilayer phospholipid vesicles - no need for a 'conscious' creator to generate perfectly ordered and near symmetrical (and unique) snowflakes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake#/media/File:Snowflake_macro_photography_1.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer#/media/File:Phospholipids_aqueous_solution_structures.svg
-
Why should an unconscious process cause chaos Vlad - whether or not is does depends entirely on the energetics of the process, which of course play out in a completely unconscious manner.
I've used this example several times, but will do so again.
If you mix water and amphiphilic phospholipids they will firstly perfectly segregate into the two components (in other words creating the most ordered and least chaotic partitioning) - secondly the phospholipids will self assemble in to the most ordered structures imaginable - including perfect spheres, each made of a perfect bilayer of the phospholipids with the outer layer all in one orientation, the inner layer in the opposite orientation.
This incredibly order and entirely unchaotic arrangement arises entirely unconsciously and is due to the fact that it is the lowest energy stage and any other state requires the input of energy to maintain it. So shake the bottle, and everything mixes, but it will return to the perfectly ordered state as it settles.
Now this is just one example - there are countless examples whether the energetically more advantageous state is highly ordered, systems which are self regulating and self 'optimising' - with the control of those ordering phenomena being entirely 'unconscious' basic physical principles.
No need for a 'conscious' creator to generate perfect bilayer phospholipid vesicles - no need for a 'conscious' creator to generate perfectly ordered and near symmetrical (and unique) snowflakes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake#/media/File:Snowflake_macro_photography_1.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer#/media/File:Phospholipids_aqueous_solution_structures.svg
But it is following laws and those enforced laws ensure order and organisation rather than chaos.
My point is that creation of matter/energy, were it a naturalistic, scientifically penetrable affair would not be a one of affair.
That the universe just is is just an assertion. It seems to me an investigation and thought stopper. Science and the notion of laws which has not been superceded was the notion of theistic scientists. Had the job been left to atheists we would be stuck at 'The universe just is''
-
But it is following laws and those enforced laws ensure order and organisation rather than chaos.
But they require zero conscious action. That's the point - and a further point is that they are self evolving and self regulating. In the same way are our traditional view of species evolution, processes that result in unstable states are unlikely to be maintained - those that result in stable state will be, well, stable and therefore maintained. So there is actually a tendency towards order rather than chaos.
So in cosmic terms if your have a random selection of lumps of rock of differing sizes moving randomly in the vicinity of each other - will they tend towards chaos or order? Most definitely towards order as the smaller entities lose momentum and become captured in the orbits of larger ones. And so from a random 'chaotic' movement of lumps of rock you will end up with a smaller set or highly ordered 'solar system-type' arrangements.
-
First of all Physicists do talk in terms of a finely tuned universe
Could you cite a paper in a respectable journal to back that up?
That the universe has constants which do not appear to change and that matter and energy are not constantly created rather than the chaos which would occur in unconscious process is what I am arguing.
Why would an unconscious process create 'chaos'? Firstly, be definition almost, processes cannot create chaos, chaos is the absolute lack of any organisational order which defies the concept of 'process'. Secondly, we have any number of 'unconscious processes' - evolution, weather - which produce clearly defined, non-chaotic outcomes, so it's obviously not universal or necessary.
By stopping speculation and saying the universe just is, is just atheists of the God dodging variety saying ''that's far enough for me, thank you"
Except that 'atheists' don't just say that, they say 'it's possible, therefore you still haven't justified gods, let's see what the scientists come up with by following the evidence.'
The motivation of most atheists here is not to defend science but to defend atheism....In my humble opinion.
If only someone's motivation made the blindest bit of difference to the validity of the argument they are - or aren't - making... The argument stands or falls on its own merits, not on your perception of the merits of the motivation of its proponents.
O.
-
Vlad,
First of all Physicists do talk in terms of a finely tuned universe
By which they mean that various constants have fixed values, not that there was therefore a “tuner” as you dishonestly imply.
…secondly I started by talking about fixed tune
No you didn’t. What you actually said (Reply 310) was “It cannot be an unconscious creator because of the fixed tuned nature of the parameters and that we would see matter constantly created”. What’s the point in quoting your own words back to you if you keep pretending you said something else?
Third, we all know who Adam's was arguing with and what argument they were making.
You don’t appear to know that at all. What his puddle analogy was actually illustrating (rather brilliantly) is that we are adapted to the universe, not the other way around. As you went straight for the ad hom though you never even got as far as addressing that.
That the universe has constants which do not appear to change and that matter and energy are not constantly created rather than the chaos which would occur in unconscious process is what I am arguing.
No, you’re just asserting it with no reasoning to support the assertion. Why would an “unconscious process” produce only chaos? Your attempt at inserting agency into an inanimate process is the same as a child saying “that branch hit me”.
By stopping speculation and saying the universe just is,
No-one’s stopping speculations at all. You are free to speculate anything you like. What you can’t do though is expect to have those speculations taken seriously when you try to justify them with false reasoning, misunderstandings and misrepresentations. And – so far at least – that’s all you have.
…is just atheists of the God dodging variety saying ''that's far enough for me, thank you''
Yet again, you can’t dodge something you’ve been given no sound reason to think exists in the first place. Are you leprechaun dodging? Why not?
The motivation of most atheists here is not to defend science but to defend atheism....In my humble opinion.
Then as with pretty much everything else about which you eructate your unqualified opinions, you’re wrong.
-
Please forgive my intrusion, and I haven't read through all the posts, but, from what I've read there seems to be a lot of debate about proof of god(s) based-or not-on physical laws.
If we doubt God because there is no physical evidence, then it seems to me that the evidence on which we rely must be fool proof, irrefutable, right? And, we have that with Newtonian physics. This representation of reality has served us well giving us a predictable, mechanical world we can count on, well, sort of.
But, then, there is quantum physics, which defies everything we rely upon in the Newtonian world. Newtonian physics promises us precision, the ability to precisely predict outcomes. Quantum Physics defies everything Newtonian Physics has proven with mathematical, well, at best-uncertainty. The electron insists on being mysterious, undefinable, unpredictable, and omnipresent.
I agree that I'm suggesting just another God-of-the-gaps argument, but for me? I'm very curious about infinite possible realties.
So, here's where I am. I believe there is more than me and us and what we perceive as reality. Do I have proof? Well, yes. There is proof that basing everything we believe only on that which we perceive is misguiding. And this is based on the most recent science.
-
Please forgive my intrusion, and I haven't read through all the posts...
The more the merrier...
If we doubt God because there is no physical evidence, then it seems to me that the evidence on which we rely must be fool proof, irrefutable, right?
I think you may have things backwards. I don't accept the existence of any of the thousands of gods humans have and do believe in because of the lack of any evidence or reasoning.
But, then, there is quantum physics, which defies everything we rely upon in the Newtonian world. Newtonian physics promises us precision, the ability to precisely predict outcomes. Quantum Physics defies everything Newtonian Physics has proven with mathematical, well, at best-uncertainty. The electron insists on being mysterious, undefinable, unpredictable, and omnipresent.
Too much pop science. Electrons aren't really omnipresent (unless you manage to do a perfectly accurate measurement of their momentum, which is of course impossible), they are (mathematically) defined, and quantum physics is actually very good at making predictions, that's why it's used so much in engineering, such as the design of semiconductors (most electronic components).
It has radically changed our view of the physical world and it is startlingly counter-intuitive in some respects, but you shouldn't believe everything people say about it. It is solid science. Aspects of quantum field theory count as the best tested in all of science.
I believe there is more than me and us and what we perceive as reality. Do I have proof? Well, yes. There is proof that basing everything we believe only on that which we perceive is misguiding.
Not entirely sure what you mean by "that which we perceive" in this context, and what do you think the "proof" is?
And this is based on the most recent science.
Science has told us that the universe doesn't behave according to our intuitions (and why should it outside of the immediate environment we evolved in?) but it is based entirely on what we perceive in the sense that it is based on experiment and observation.
-
Please forgive my intrusion, and I haven't read through all the posts, but, from what I've read there seems to be a lot of debate about proof of god(s) based-or not-on physical laws.
Welcome :)
If we doubt God because there is no physical evidence, then it seems to me that the evidence on which we rely must be fool proof, irrefutable, right? And, we have that with Newtonian physics. This representation of reality has served us well giving us a predictable, mechanical world we can count on, well, sort of.
It's not merely the lack of physical evidence, its the combination of a multiple contradictory claims in favour of multiple religious pantheons, the lack of consistency within most of those religious claims and their lack of compatibility with what we do have evidence for in reality and simply the logical implausibilities that arise if some of the most common claims are actually investigated.
But, then, there is quantum physics, which defies everything we rely upon in the Newtonian world. Newtonian physics promises us precision, the ability to precisely predict outcomes. Quantum Physics defies everything Newtonian Physics has proven with mathematical, well, at best-uncertainty. The electron insists on being mysterious, undefinable, unpredictable, and omnipresent.
Whilst quantum physics does undermine some of what Newtonian physics had sought to establish, that doesn't undermine Newtonian physics' place in life. The reason Newtonian physics hung around for as long as it did is because for the overwhelming range of 'everyday' situations it works. Until you get to relative extremes of mass, speed or distance (large or small) Newtonian physics stands up pretty well. We came across quantum descriptions because we managed to apply Newtonian physics well enough that we over-reached its capacity.
I agree that I'm suggesting just another God-of-the-gaps argument, but for me? I'm very curious about infinite possible realities.
It's in danger of becoming a 'god of the gaps' argument, but so long as you remain curious and don't fall into the trap of 'science doesn't know, therefore God' you'll be fine.
So, here's where I am. I believe there is more than me and us and what we perceive as reality. Do I have proof? Well, yes. There is proof that basing everything we believe only on that which we perceive is misguiding. And this is based on the most recent science.
That's only proof that our evolutionary history has geared us to view reality at a particular scale, and favouring certain spectra within ranges of physical phenomena in particular detail. There's a wealth of electromagnetic waves out there, but we only directly interact with the very small portion of them that are in the visible light spectrum, and we are completely ignorant of (for instance) the constant stream of anti-neutrinos out there. We struggle - and think that we're 'misguided' - with quantum level realities because we're trying to interpret them with a brain architecture that's evolved to deal with macroscopic phenomena.
O.
-
It's in danger of becoming a 'god of the gaps' argument, but so long as you remain curious and don't fall into the trap of 'science doesn't know, therefore God' you'll be fine.
I think you need to go further than mere curiosity to avoid 'god of the gaps'. You need to understand history.
Effectively if you went back thousands of hundreds of years there were massive gaps in our knowledge - since then some (many many) have been filled - in other words we now understand something we didn't used to. As far as I'm concerned all of those gaps have been filled with knowledge that aligns with our scientific processes, based on evidence. Not one has been filled with 'god', based on evidence.
So compared to hundred or thousands of years ago we have either used science to fill a gap or we remain unclear in our knowedge (a gap remains). Given that I don't think it is reasonable to imply that a gap might be filled with either scientific knowledge, or god - as our experience tells us that as we learn more the gaps are only filled by science, never by god.
-
An argument which proposes God as the provider of the whole universe can’t possibly be a God of the gaps argument.
What a silly idea.
-
Welcome to this Ship of Fools of an mb Flower Girl.
Please forgive my intrusion, and I haven't read through all the posts, but, from what I've read there seems to be a lot of debate about proof of god(s) based-or not-on physical laws.
You’re not intruding, you’re contributing – and very welcome it is too.
If we doubt God because there is no physical evidence,…
No, the “physical” is superfluous. There are countless speculations – the Christian god, other gods, leprechauns, unicorns, whatever – that conceptually at least are possible (I’m leaving aside for now by the way the definitional problems they all have). The problem for the proponents of these things who claim them to be probable rather than just possible though is that they need to find a method of some kind to distinguish the claim from just guessing. Call that “evidence” if you like, but absent such a method I have no basis to take any such claim more seriously than any other.
…then it seems to me that the evidence on which we rely must be fool proof, irrefutable, right?
No. Axiomatically evidence has the potential to be wrong. It justifies a belief probabilistically, but that’s not to say the more robust evidence might not be found one day that amends or falsifies the prior evidence and so changes the prevailing paradigm. Science itself rests on this fundamental principle, and that’s why those who claim to be certain about their belief “God” and claim evidence to justify the belief are on a fool’s errand – if you think you have evidence, then you must admit to the possibility of the evidence being wrong. The only way logically to absolute certainty is to have no evidence whatsoever. That way there’s nothing to falsify.
And, we have that with Newtonian physics. This representation of reality has served us well giving us a predictable, mechanical world we can count on, well, sort of.
Not sort of – for practical purposes, actually. Newtonian physics breaks down at the scales of the very large and the very small, but that’s not to say that it doesn’t work perfectly well in between.
But, then, there is quantum physics, which defies everything we rely upon in the Newtonian world. Newtonian physics promises us precision, the ability to precisely predict outcomes. Quantum Physics defies everything Newtonian Physics has proven with mathematical, well, at best-uncertainty. The electron insists on being mysterious, undefinable, unpredictable, and omnipresent.
Others more versed than I am in the quantum have answered this already, but just to note that we use our understanding of it with quite astonishing levels of accuracy – someone once described the margin of error as akin to the width of a human hair when measuring the distance from London to San Francisco.
I agree that I'm suggesting just another God-of-the-gaps argument, but for me? I'm very curious about infinite possible realties.
Which is fine, but you can populate that space equally with gods, leprechauns and Jack Frost if you want to. The challenge though is to find a way to demonstrate any of them to be more than just possibilities.
So, here's where I am. I believe there is more than me and us and what we perceive as reality. Do I have proof? Well, yes. There is proof that basing everything we believe only on that which we perceive is misguiding. And this is based on the most recent science.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that there’s a great deal more to learn about “us” (and indeed about the universe in general) then I agree – that’s why people keep doing science to chip away at what that “more” actually is.
-
I think you need to go further than mere curiosity to avoid 'god of the gaps'. You need to understand history.
Effectively if you went back thousands of hundreds of years there were massive gaps in our knowledge - since then some (many many) have been filled - in other words we now understand something we didn't used to. As far as I'm concerned all of those gaps have been filled with knowledge that aligns with our scientific processes, based on evidence. Not one has been filled with 'god', based on evidence.
So compared to hundred or thousands of years ago we have either used science to fill a gap or we remain unclear in our knowedge (a gap remains). Given that I don't think it is reasonable to imply that a gap might be filled with either scientific knowledge, or god - as our experience tells us that as we learn more the gaps are only filled by science, never by god.
Science only fills in gaps in scientific knowledge. Just remember that.
-
An argument which proposes God as the provider of the whole universe can’t possibly be a God of the gaps argument.
The 'god of the gaps' argument isn't regarding the nature of the god that it's arguing for, it's a description of the method of argument being used to justify it.
O.
-
Welcome to this Ship of Fools of an mb Flower Girl.
You’re not intruding, you’re contributing – and very welcome it is too.
No, the “physical” is superfluous. There are countless speculations – the Christian god, other gods, leprechauns, unicorns, whatever – that conceptually at least are possible (I’m leaving aside for now by the way the definitional problems they all have). The problem for the proponents of these things who claim them to be probable rather than just possible though is that they need to find a method of some kind to distinguish the claim from just guessing. Call that “evidence” if you like, but absent such a method I have no basis to take any such claim more seriously than any other.
No. Axiomatically evidence has the potential to be wrong. It justifies a belief probabilistically, but that’s not to say the more robust evidence might not be found one day that amends or falsifies the prior evidence and so changes the prevailing paradigm. Science itself rests on this fundamental principle, and that’s why those who claim to be certain about their belief “God” and claim evidence to justify the belief are on a fool’s errand – if you think you have evidence, then you must admit to the possibility of the evidence being wrong. The only way logically to absolute certainty is to have no evidence whatsoever. That way there’s nothing to falsify.
Not sort of – for practical purposes, actually. Newtonian physics breaks down at the scales of the very large and the very small, but that’s not to say that it doesn’t work perfectly well in between.
Others more versed than I am in the quantum have answered this already, but just to note that we use our understanding of it with quite astonishing levels of accuracy – someone once described the margin of error as akin to the width of a human hair when measuring the distance from London to San Francisco.
Which is fine, but you can populate that space equally with gods, leprechauns and Jack Frost if you want to. The challenge though is to find a way to demonstrate any of them to be more than just possibilities.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that there’s a great deal more to learn about “us” (and indeed about the universe in general) then I agree – that’s why people keep doing science to chip away at what that “more” actually is.
Shear unadulterated scientism.
-
Vlad,
An argument which proposes God as the provider of the whole universe can’t possibly be a God of the gaps argument.
What a silly idea.
The "god of the gaps" refers to gaps in understanding, not to physical gaps. Add face palm here...
-
Vlad,
Shear unadulterated scientism.
Stop lying.
-
An argument which proposes God as the provider of the whole universe can’t possibly be a God of the gaps argument.
What a silly idea.
That's true. When are you going to present such an argument?
-
Science only fills in gaps in scientific knowledge. Just remember that.
In its truest sense, science is a process, a method - as such there is no such thing as 'scientific knowledge' merely knowledge derived from the scientific method.
So the reality is that science fills in the gaps in knowledge. If you want to argue that there are gaps in knowledge that are not amenable to the scientific method then the onus is on you to demonstrate the nature of that knowledge - and please don't use circular god of the gaps arguments.
-
In its truest sense, science is a process, a method - as such there is no such thing as 'scientific knowledge' merely knowledge derived from the scientific method.
So the reality is that science fills in the gaps in knowledge. If you want to argue that there are gaps in knowledge that are not amenable to the scientific method then the onus is on you to demonstrate the nature of that knowledge - and please don't use circular god of the gaps arguments.
That’s rich coming from someone who when asked the nature of the laws of nature said that the nature of the laws of nature were that they were fundamental laws.
-
That’s rich coming from someone who when asked the nature of the laws of nature said that the nature of the laws of nature were that they were fundamental laws.
Stop lying Vlad - where did I ever say that.
-
That’s rich coming from someone who when asked the nature of the laws of nature said that the nature of the laws of nature were that they were fundamental laws.
Look squirrel!!!
Classic Vlad diversionary tactic.
Now back to the question:
If you want to argue that there are gaps in knowledge that are not amenable to the scientific method then the onus is on you to demonstrate the nature of that knowledge - and please don't use circular god of the gaps arguments.
Can you respond to that please Vlad rather than trying to distract.
-
Prof,
Stop lying Vlad - where did I ever say that.
You didn't, any more than I argued for scientism. That's what he does though - ignore the arguments that undo him or lie about them. There is nothing else.
-
Stop lying Vlad - where did I ever say that.
Reply#81
My response is Reply#82
-
Reply#81
On what particular planet (orbiting around a sun, due to gravity) does reply 81 translate to, or could be remotely interpreted as meaning:
That’s rich coming from someone who when asked the nature of the laws of nature said that the nature of the laws of nature were that they were fundamental laws.
-
On what particular planet (orbiting around a sun, due to gravity) does reply 81 translate to, or could be remotely interpreted as meaning:
That’s rich coming from someone who when asked the nature of the laws of nature said that the nature of the laws of nature were that they were fundamental laws.
See Reply#81 AND Reply#82.
I asked what form the laws take bearing in mind their existence as you said was not dependent on time and space and you said they existed as laws. In other words, you are either stumped by the question or you are taking the piss or both. It's all there in replys~81 and 82
Me:If the existence of the laws is not dependent on these for it's form then in what form does it exist?
You:They exist as a fundamental law of physics just as gravity does, or light or sound etc
-
First of all Physicists do talk in terms of a finely tuned universe
secondly I started by talking about fixed tune
Third, we all know who Adam's was arguing with and what argument they were making. That the universe has constants which do not appear to change and that matter and energy are not constantly created rather than the chaos which would occur in unconscious process is what I am arguing.
By stopping speculation and saying the universe just is, is just atheists of the God dodging variety saying ''that's far enough for me, thank you''
The motivation of most atheists here is not to defend science but to defend atheism....In my humble opinion.
Humble!!??
YOU??
Not this siude of the Second Coming!
Sneering Arrogance is far more your forte!
-
Humble!!??
Alright then...….Most humble opinion.
-
See Reply#81 AND Reply#82.
Let's nail the first issue - reply 82 is a post from you, not from me - so totally irrelevant to what I think.
-
See Reply#81 AND Reply#82.
I asked what form the laws take bearing in mind their existence as you said was not dependent on time and space and you said they existed as laws. In other words, you are either stumped by the question or you are taking the piss or both. It's all there in replys~81 and 82
Me:If the existence of the laws is not dependent on these for it's form then in what form does it exist?
You:They exist as a fundamental law of physics just as gravity does, or light or sound etc
Nice bit of quote mining - taking a section of my reply, out of context, and using it to imply something which isn't the case if you read the whole post.
I did not say that fundamental physical laws exist as fundamental laws, just cos they do.
Nope I went on to say that we know that exist because we can verify them through observation and prediction (and in doing so comparing it to argument such as you make that god just is, get over it). So here is what I said:
Nope - because the difference is one of consistency and prediction.
So to take gravity as an example - I can use the fundamental laws of physics to predict the orbits of the planets. I can use (and people have) anomalies in planetary orbits to predict the presence of a more distant planet affecting gravity - and guess what, you find that planet. I can use those fundamental laws (and their indirect measurement) to design a rocket with its trajectory to leave earths orbit and be capture by the moon's orbit to allow astronauts to visit the moon.
Sure the measurement may be indirect, but the concepts and the laws can be verified through prediction and through the predictable function of engineering systems or identification of physical phenomena.
None of that can be attributed to a purported god - people have at times tried to base predictions, observations and outcomes on god, but guess what ... the earth is at the centre of the universe, the rocket crashes, the church congregation aren't protected by god's love from dying from COVID-19.
-
It's not merely the lack of physical evidence, its the combination of a multiple contradictory claims in favour of multiple religious pantheons, the lack of consistency within most of those religious claims and their lack of compatibility with what we do have evidence for in reality and simply the logical implausibilities that arise if some of the most common claims are actually investigated.
O.
There is this to which I say, yes. I agree. This is why we simply can't argue, ever, who God is--even for those like me who believes in God. (I shrink back a little when I say this. I have this faith, that I can't explain, and that is unacceptable to all Christians who were part of my formative years. But, this faith is so powerful a part of my whole life. I just can't defend it. But, I'm always willing to try and rarely take offense. (Warning: I do disregard out of hand any comments that are critical of me rather than critical, in terms of offering a counter point, of what I've said.)
This is important as to any discussion going further. (I can't seem to find a way to quote others and reply here. I'll figure it out, just not in this post. I am a "newbie." That's the best defense I have right now. ;D)
-
Whilst quantum physics does undermine some of what Newtonian physics had sought to establish, that doesn't undermine Newtonian physics' place in life.
Again, agree. It's the "place in life" that is in question.
-
Not entirely sure what you mean by "that which we perceive" in this context, and what do you think the "proof" is?
That "what we perceive" or "can imperially know" is proof of evidence of all there is.
-
Newtonian physics breaks down at the scales of the very large and the very small, but that’s not to say that it doesn’t work perfectly well in between.
The beauty of Newtonian physics is that is it perfect, irrefutably able to predict precisely--even to the microscopically level--what will happen.
But, quantum physics challenges Newtonian physics as the final reality, that we've always truly "known" the physical world in which we live.
I'm just suggesting that looking for "proof" of God's existence is challenged by our own physical understanding of just exactly what "proof" is.
-
I'm just suggesting that looking for "proof" of God's existence is challenged by our own physical understanding of just exactly what "proof" is.
I think that before that there needs to be a definition of what the concept 'God' represents otherwise you won't know what to look for or whether you have found what you are looking for.
-
I'm just suggesting that looking for "proof" of God's existence is challenged by our own physical understanding of just exactly what "proof" is.
Welcome to our happy throng flower girl.
Moving on to your post - proof is a challenging concept, even in scientific terms. What is required is evidence. For an atheist like myself who does not believe in god or gods due to a lack of evidence, there needs to be sufficient evidence for the existence of god or gods that is compelling enough for me to change my position. So far I've not seen any evidence, let alone sufficient evidence.
Now Vlad often tries to shift the onus of proof/evidence onto atheists. That isn't where it lies - we make no claim for god or gods, so there is no onus on us to provide any evidence as we have made no claim. The onus rests squarely on the theists - if you make a claim that god or gods exists the onus is on you to provide the evidence in support of your claim. And if you fail to do so why would we atheists shift in our position that we do not believe in god or gods as we have not received evidence sufficient for us to believe in god or gods.
Now ekim is right that you need to define what you actually mean by god as there are as many definitions as you can shake a stick at. And also trying to wriggle out of providing evidence by claiming gods aren't amenable to normal evidential tests (as Vlad does) butters no parsnips with me as an atheist - frankly I don't really care whether the lack of evidence that has been provided for god or gods is because there is no evidence or because gods aren't amenable to evidence - they are one and the same in terms of my lack of belief in gods. That challenge is for you, as a theist, to sort out - not for me as an atheist.
-
Hi Flower Girl,
The beauty of Newtonian physics is that is it perfect, irrefutably able to predict precisely--even to the microscopically level--what will happen.
Depends what you mean by “microscopically”, but Newtonian physics (or mechanics) while incredibly useful for most day-to-day purposes becomes more approximate at the quantum level.
But, quantum physics challenges Newtonian physics as the final reality, that we've always truly "known" the physical world in which we live.
At a deeper, more precise level perhaps but we cannot say “final” because we can’t know whether there are underlying strata of reality yet to be discovered.
I'm just suggesting that looking for "proof" of God's existence is challenged by our own physical understanding of just exactly what "proof" is.
First, “proof” is freighted with meaning that’s superfluous here. Mathematicians and logicians use it, but science doesn’t. Rather it looks to reason and evidence that indicates provisionally the truth of a proposition. That’s why in science theories are in principle falsifiable.
Second though, what you’re attempting here is a fallacy in reasoning called shifting the burden of proof. If someone wants to argue for “god” (and if they can actually come up with a coherent meaning for that term) then the burden is with them to show that’s it’s more probably true than not. You cannot in other words assume god a priori, and then argue that the problem with demonstrating the claim lies with “our own physical understanding of just exactly what "proof" is”. If you think there’s a god and you want the claim to be taken seriously, then it’s your job to tell us how the claim can be investigated and justified.
-
First, “proof” is freighted with meaning that’s superfluous here. Mathematicians and logicians use it, but science doesn’t. Rather it looks to reason and evidence that indicates provisionally the truth of a proposition. That’s why in science theories are in principle falsifiable.
Second though, what you’re attempting here is a fallacy in reasoning called shifting the burden of proof. If someone wants to argue for “god” (and if they can actually come up with a coherent meaning for that term) then the burden is with them to show that’s it’s more probably true than not. You cannot in other words assume god a priori, and then argue that the problem with demonstrating the claim lies with “our own physical understanding of just exactly what "proof" is”. If you think there’s a god and you want the claim to be taken seriously, then it’s your job to tell us how the claim can be investigated and justified.
Blimey BHS - how frighteningly similar you post is in substance to mine - although our phrasing is different.
Unsurprisingly, I couldn't agree more with what you say.
-
Hi Prof,
Blimey BHS - how frighteningly similar you post is in substance to mine - although our phrasing is different.
Unsurprisingly, I couldn't agree more with what you say.
I hadn't seen yours Prof before I posted, but if you think that mine are more than the palest shadow of your own I'll take that as a compliment indeed ;)
-
Hi Prof,
I hadn't seen yours Prof before I posted, but if you think that mine are more than the palest shadow of your own I'll take that as a compliment indeed ;)
Yours has the advantage of being more succinct :)
-
Interesting Abstract on definition of atheism here
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/defining-atheism-and-the-burden-of-proof/DD148DAD681AF7CD8B772FF7651ED8FF
-
Interesting Abstract on definition of atheism here
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/defining-atheism-and-the-burden-of-proof/DD148DAD681AF7CD8B772FF7651ED8FF
Have you actually read the article Vlad - rather than just the abstract. Without having actually read the paper it is pretty difficult to assess whether the erstwhile ex-chemical engineer, turned muslim theological scholar in training has anything interesting to say.
His peers certainly don't seem to think his arguments are worthy of note as this paper has been cited in other scholarly articles (the key marker of the impact of a piece of academic work) exactly zero times.
-
……... it is pretty difficult to assess whether the erstwhile ex-chemical engineer, turned muslim theological scholar in training has anything interesting to say.
Oh dear, isn't that the genetic fallacy?
-
Oh dear, isn't that the genetic fallacy?
Pish and drivel
-
Oh dear, isn't that the genetic fallacy?
Look - squirrel.
So have you actually read the article Vlad?
-
Oh dear, isn't that the genetic fallacy?
In what respect? Surely it is perfectly reasonable to point out that someone trained as a chemical engineer (and with some reasonable papers in that filed that his academic colleagues have cited) might not actually have any credibility as an islamic theological scholar, let alone as a philosopher.
And his article (which I have read) is riddled with inaccuracies, schoolboy errors in misunderstanding between knowledge (which agnosticism relates to) and believe (which theism and atheism relate to). He tries to argue that being a agnostic in relation to knowledge of the existence of god or gods is incompatible with holding a believe about the existence of god or gods.
His language - regularly using the words 'denial' and 'reject' is woefully non-neutral blowing apart his academic credibility and objectively.
The most interesting part of the article, to my mind, is the description of local atheism (a lack of belief in some but not all gods) and global atheism (a lack of belief in all gods). This renders pretty well everyone (including you Vlad) as, at least, local atheists. However he goes and spoils is by arguing that local atheism is much more tenable than global atheism, when the reverse is the case. To be a local atheist you have to suspend the approach that leads you not to belief in some gods to the god you believe in - as there is no more evidence for the one you believe in than the ones you don't. To be a local atheist requires you to tie yourself up in logic knots. A global atheist is consistent in their approach - their evidence (or lack thereof) test is applied equally and consistently to each and every god purported to exist.
-
How on earth has the The Royal Institute of Philosophy got itself involved in this drivel? I actually feel a bit sorry for the author – he (presumably) has a hard-won reputation as an engineer yet he’s made himself look a complete plum by straying so cluelessly into (supposed) philosophy. Perhaps if he didn’t assume his premise a priori by trying to argue that “atheism should be better used as the propositional denial of God” and rather started with atheism actually being the refutation of the arguments attempted for “god(s)” he’d at least be on firmer opening ground. As the old Irish joke has it: (motorist stops to ask a local for directions) – “Excuse me, how do I get to Limerick please?”; “Well sir, I wouldn’t start from here if I was you…”.
-
How on earth has the The Royal Institute of Philosophy got itself involved in this drivel? I actually feel a bit sorry for the author – he (presumably) has a hard-won reputation as an engineer yet he’s made himself look a complete plum by straying so cluelessly into (supposed) philosophy. Perhaps if he didn’t assume his premise a priori by trying to argue that “atheism should be better used as the propositional denial of God” and rather started with atheism actually being the refutation of the arguments attempted for “god(s)” he’d at least be on firmer opening ground. As the old Irish joke has it: (motorist stops to ask a local for directions) – “Excuse me, how do I get to Limerick please?”; “Well sir, I wouldn’t start from here if I was you…”.
This is the bit from the article I like the best:
In his concluding paragraph he makes the following assertion:
'Nonetheless, all the major dictionaries quoted above have used ‘atheism’ to mean the denial of God’s existence.' (my emphasis).
Helpfully in an appendix he quotes the dictionary definitions he has used in his article (actually only three) which are as follows (direct words from his appendix).
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (MWD)
a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods
Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God
Cambridge Dictionary (CD)
someone who believes that God does not exist
So only one of the three uses the word 'denies', and even then in an either/or context - yet according to the ex chemical engineer - 'all the major dictionaries quoted above have used ‘atheism’ to mean the denial of God’s existence'. :o
-
Now ekim is right that you need to define what you actually mean by god as there are as many definitions as you can shake a stick at.
Yes, I so agree with you both. I realize I can never use what I've put out there as some way to prove God, much less prove whichever the heck one he (she? It?) is. On a personal note, my interest has more to do with what I am experiencing and there being a possible, quantum explanation as to why what I'm experiencing is at least not limited to proof from the Newtonian standard (which is the only one we perceive as real, and our perception is challenged by the quantum physics explanation of this very same existence.) But, you are both right. There is no measure by which I can prove what I believe.
-
Science does not do God and so any antitheistic argument proceeds from philosophy and not science.
Antitheists borrow arguments to explain the existence of the universe that they would normally dismiss namely the eternality of the universe, spontaneous appearance etc, infinity etc.
-
Science does not do God and so any antitheistic argument proceeds from philosophy and not science.
Antitheists borrow arguments to explain the existence of the universe that they would normally dismiss namely the eternality of the universe, spontaneous appearance etc, infinity etc.
Would you like to answer the question I asked yesterday in relation to the article you linked to:
Vlad - have you actually read the whole article, or just the abstract?
-
Science does not do God and so any antitheistic argument proceeds from philosophy and not science.
Antitheists borrow arguments to explain the existence of the universe that they would normally dismiss namely the eternality of the universe, spontaneous appearance etc, infinity etc.
*sigh*
Nobody needs an argument against a god, it's up to theists to provide a definition of their god(s) and a reason to take their ideas seriously.
Nobody needs to explain the existence of the universe in order to dismiss incoherent or unsupported god-concepts.
-
Are we sure that this "ex-chemical engineer" is not yet another one of Vlad'd innumerable alter egos?
From your post it certainly seems a possibility.
The article contains some pretty basic errors of logic and is pretty incoherent in its argument. But doesn't contain Vlad-esque levels of non-sense.
-
And his article (which I have read)...
You made it all the way through? I have to admit, I got about half way before I thought I'd got better things to do with my time.
-
*sigh*
Nobody needs an argument against a god, it's up to theists to provide a definition of their god(s) and a reason to take their ideas seriously.
And that is an argument which proceeds from empiricism and rather proves my point.
-
And that is an argument which proceeds from empiricism and rather proves my point.
Have you read the article Vlad - at least two of us here have.
-
And that is an argument which proceeds from empiricism and rather proves my point.
Pointless drivel
-
Have you read the article Vlad - at least two of us here have.
I'm not talking about the article. I'm writing in response to never talk to strangers.
I haven't read the article I just found the abstract intriguing particularly the part about atheism extending it's range. In my time on MB's I have seen Atheists co opt Deism, agnosticism, even panentheism, Sagan, Darwin, Science etc.
-
And that is an argument which proceeds from empiricism and rather proves my point.
Drivel. Why should I take anybody's ideas seriously unless they can both define them properly and provide some reason to take them seriously?
-
I'm not talking about the article. I'm writing in response to never talk to strangers.
I haven't read the article I just found the abstract intriguing particularly the part about atheism extending it's range. In my time on MB's I have seen Atheists co opt Deism, agnosticism, even panentheism, Sagan, Darwin, Science etc.
Ignorant drivel
-
I haven't read the article ...
So you post a link to an article that you haven't read and claim it to be interesting. You realise how pathetic that is.
The article is interesting in so far as how poorly argued it is and in its logical incoherence. Frankly most of the points he makes are ones that we've discussion on this MB for ages and have been batted away routinely by the non-theists around here as easily as Ben Stokes hitting a 6 off a club bowler.
-
Drivel. Why should I take anybody's ideas seriously unless they can both define them properly and provide some reason to take them seriously?
You do not take other peoples ideas seriously because you feel safer where you are and that is deeply into empiricist and naturalistic philosophy. To me there are 3 possible reasons for the universe personal creator, infinite universe, spontaneous appearance. To dismiss( an act in itself) the first can only be achieved by mental contortion.
-
... I just found the abstract intriguing particularly the part about atheism extending it's range.
But it is never the atheists who attempt to extend the range of atheism - it is always the theists trying to make claims about atheists that are unsubstantiated.
For me atheism is simply a lack of belief in god or gods - that's it - nothing more, end of. And I suspect that's true for most of the other atheists on this board.
-
So you post a link to an article that you haven't read and claim it to be interesting. You realise how pathetic that is.
No I only mentioned the abstract.
-
You do not take other peoples ideas seriously ...
At least he bothers to engage in other people's ideas - for example actually reading the article you linked to. You on the other hand haven't even bothered to do that.
-
You do not take other peoples ideas seriously because you feel safer where you are and that is deeply into empiricist and naturalistic philosophy. To me there are 3 possible reasons for the universe personal creator, infinite universe, spontaneous appearance. To dismiss( an act in itself) the first can only be achieved by mental contortion.
Witless drivel
-
But it is never the atheists who attempt to extend the range of atheism
That's bollocks. Atheists extend there range, make naturalistic arguments, frequently mention science, coopt deism and when they feel they are about to be found out resort to the atheism is just a lack of belief schtick.
-
No I only mentioned the abstract.
The abstract tells you nothing about the actual arguments presented. It's a bit like saying 'I found the back cover notes on a book interesting but never bothered to actually read the book'.
-
No I only mentioned the abstract.
Which illustrates your badly informed shallow approach that leads to the tsunami of drivel ( which would be an accurate pseudonym for you) that you post.
-
The abstract tells you nothing about the actual arguments presented. It's a bit like saying 'I found the back cover notes on a book interesting but never bothered to actually read the book'.
And that is a crime? You are falling into the trap of turning religious belief into everything you don't like. Then things as trivial as finding the back cover notes but not the book quite serious offences.
-
Which illustrates your badly informed shallow approach that leads to the tsunami of drivel ( which would be an accurate pseudonym for you) that you post.
Drivel.
-
Which illustrates your badly informed shallow approach that leads to the tsunami of drivel ( which would be an accurate pseudonym for you) that you post.
I never mentioned the full report.
-
I never mentioned the full report.
Drivel cubed
-
Drivel.
Plagiaristic drivel
-
Plagiaristic drivel
You are calling drivel, drivel.
-
Drivel cubed
Repetitive drivel
-
You do not take other peoples ideas seriously because you feel safer where you are and that is deeply into empiricist and naturalistic philosophy.
You need to ask for a refund from your mind-reading course.
To me there are 3 possible reasons for the universe personal creator, infinite universe, spontaneous appearance. To dismiss( an act in itself) the first can only be achieved by mental contortion.
I've already explained firstly, why your list does not contain all the possibilities, and secondly, why speculation about a "personal creator" doesn't actually address the problem of existence at all and is therefore nothing but a pointless guess.
I have no idea why something exists rather than nothing, or something entirely different, but guessing about a creator doesn't address the problem. Therefore you have failed to give a sound reason to take your guess seriously. For clarity, I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's an unjustified guess.
-
Repetitive drivel
Accurate post describing your own posting, Vlad.
-
You need to ask for a refund from your mind-reading course.
I've already explained firstly, why your list does not contain all the possibilities, and secondly, why speculation about a "personal creator" doesn't actually address the problem of existence at all and is therefore nothing but a pointless guess.
It's not about the problem of existence it's about the possibility of a personal creator or not.
-
You are calling drivel, drivel.
Another accurate post from Vlad pointing out that I am indeed calling his posts drivel and admitting that his posts are drivel.
-
Another accurate post from Vlad pointing out that I am indeed calling his posts drivel and admitting that his posts are drivel.
Drivel.
-
Drivel.
It is so much better that Vlad has decided just to accept that he writes drivel, and now posts it in its concentrated form rather than the tedious badly thought out posts filled with lying and evasion of previous posts. This will save a lot of everyone's time.
-
Science does not do God
that's a very bold claim. What's your justification that any putative god is outside of science?
-
that's a very bold claim. What's your justification that any putative god is outside of science?
If you take it that any 'god' is a supernatural entity then it would be unfalsifiable by a naturalist methodology.
That said, if any 'god' is a supernatural claim then, in the absence of any supernatural methodology, it is just white noise.
-
that's a very bold claim. What's your justification that any putative god is outside of science?
His independent existence from time space and matter and energy.
-
That said, if any 'god' is a supernatural claim then, in the absence of any supernatural methodology, it is just white noise.
Philosophically naturalistic.
-
Philosophically naturalistic.
Damn, just when you were doing so well you had to go back to the lying, and the philosophically illiterate drivel. But i have to admire the succintness and how you can pack so much fail into 2 words.
-
It's not about the problem of existence it's about the possibility of a personal creator or not.
Nobody here (that I'm aware of) denies the possibility - as you've been told many, many times. What's missing is any reason to think the possibility is in the least bit probable. That is, we have no reason to take it seriously.
-
Nobody here (that I'm aware of) denies the possibility - as you've been told many, many times. What's missing is any reason to think the possibility is in the least bit probable. That is, we have no reason to take it seriously.
What are your grounds for thinking it improbable? Why do you not take it seriously since it is an either or question.
-
What are your grounds for thinking it improbable? Why do you not take it seriously since it is an either or question.
Because it's a blind guess with no supporting reasoning, evidence, or alternative methodology to investigate it with. In addition, what evidence we do have about "personal creators" is that they arise via evolution, which requires biology, which requires a universe. We have no evidence of personal creators that are independent of biology, let alone of the universe.
And it isn't really an either or question because we could make endless guesses about things or beings or some other wider context that might caused, or allowed for the existence of, the universe - and some of them have the advantage of being extrapolations of what we already have evidence for.
-
Because it's a blind guess with no supporting reasoning,
Bollocks.
-
Because it's a blind guess with no supporting reasoning,
Bollocks.
You'll be able to supply reasoning and/or evidence, then. Jolly good, off you go....
-
Bollocks.
You'll be able to supply reasoning and/or evidence, then. Jolly good, off you go....
If it has no reasoning why do you say it's possible?
We know from the argument from contingency that the necessary may not be observable.
The absence of chaos or the presence of order.
Cosmic Fine tuning.
I could say I discount philosophical naturalism as unreasonable because science cannot establish it. But I don't... I just think God free isn't the case.
-
If you take it that any 'god' is a supernatural entity then it would be unfalsifiable by a naturalist methodology.
If a god intervenes in the Universe, it is detectable by scientific means in principle. The only way Vlad could be sure of his claim is if God does not intervene in the Universe and, of course, his god is notorious for intervening in the Universe.
-
His independent existence from time space and matter and energy.
So God doesn't intervene in the Universe. That's equivalent to "no god" from our point of view.
-
If a god intervenes in the Universe, it is detectable by scientific means in principle. The only way Vlad could be sure of his claim is if God does not intervene in the Universe and, of course, his god is notorious for intervening in the Universe.
Since God's interventions are miraculous and non repeated, how amenable to science is that? On the other hand since science does not do God it has nothing finally to say about God's interventions.
-
So God doesn't intervene in the Universe. That's equivalent to "no od" from our point of view.
Independent existence does not mean no intervention. It means God does not depend on the universe for his/her existence.
-
What are your grounds for thinking it improbable? Why do you not take it seriously since it is an either or question.
Either I will win the lottery tonight or I won't. Do you have grounds for thinking for thinking it is improbable that I will win? (Bear in mind that, for me to do so, somebody else has got to give me a ticket.)
Just because something is an either-or situation does not mean that both possibilities are equally probable.
-
If a god intervenes in the Universe, it is detectable by scientific means in principle. The only way Vlad could be sure of his claim is if God does not intervene in the Universe and, of course, his god is notorious for intervening in the Universe.
No, because the assumption in science is that all causes are natural. Everything that happens could be caused by supernatural pixies, or leprechauns, or a 'god' but we would have no way of establishing this without some form of supernatural method.
-
Vlad,
...empiricist and naturalistic philosophy...
Your problem here is that logic itself is a product of "empiricist and naturalistic philosophy". If you want to play on that territory by trying to demonstrate logically your faith beliefs then you can't complain when people use the same method to identify where you go wrong.
If you don't like that, then find some other means to demonstrate your beliefs. We both know though don't we that this is where you always make a sharp exit, so there we have it: a choice between wrong arguments or unqualified assertions.
-
Vlad,
Since God's interventions are miraculous and non repeated,...
Translation: "It's magic innit".
-
Either I will win the lottery tonight or I won't. Do you have grounds for thinking for thinking it is improbable that I will win? (Bear in mind that, for me to do so, somebody else has got to give me a ticket.)
Just because something is an either-or situation does not mean that both possibilities are equally probable.
We know how improbable winning the lottery is. We have no measure of the probability or improbability of God.
If you have some figures I would be happy to see them.
On the other hand a finely tuned universe throws up calculated improbabilities which favour a tuner and militate against chance.
-
Since God's interventions are miraculous and non repeated, how amenable to science is that?
There was only one Big Bang but science has detected it.
On the other hand since science does not do God it has nothing finally to say about God's interventions.
We already know that you can't justify the assertion "science doesn't do god". Why are you still waffling on about it?
-
There was only one Big Bang but science has detected it.
But God was neither factored in nor out. Because science doesn't do God. You seem to be arguing that was so therefore God improbable. That seems fallacious.
-
No, because the assumption in science is that all causes are natural.
Rubbish.
Everything that happens could be caused by supernatural pixies, or leprechauns, or a 'god' but we would have no way of establishing this without some form of supernatural method.
The term "natural" doesn't define science. Science defines the natural. If we find a way to detect these supernatural pixies, they immediately stop being supernatural and start being natural.
-
Vlad,
We know how improbable winning the lottery is. We have no measure of the probability or improbability of God.
If you have some figures I would be happy to see them.
We know how improbable winning the lottery is. We have no measure of the probability or improbability of leprechauns.
If you have some figures I would be happy to see them.
On the other hand a finely tuned universe throws up calculated improbabilities which favour a tuner and militate against chance.
Ooh, look at that. Despite your earlier protestations to the contrary you've now reverted to your earlier claim that you think there is a "fine tuned" universe that implies a tuner. You may recall that I blew that piece of circular reasoning out of the water awhile back, but hey - as a dog returns to its vomit eh?
-
But God was neither factored in nor out.
I didn't say it was.
I brought up the Big Bang to demolish your unfounded assertion that not being repeated means science can't deal with it.
Because science doesn't do God.
You keep saying that, but you cannot provide a shred of evidence that it is true.
-
Vlad,
Translation: "It's magic innit".
No, many of my own actions are miraculous. For example before I showed up back on religionethics the board was moribund, tumbleweed populated the threads, cobwebs hung like curtains from the quality of debate. I deigned to come back amongst you and a fragrance permeated the threads. A breeze cast out the cobwebs and colour returned to the board.
-
Vlad,
But God was neither factored in nor out. Because science doesn't do God.
But nor does anything else. That's your problem remember?
You seem to be arguing that was so therefore God improbable. That seems fallacious.
No he wasn't. What he was arguing was that any guess - god and leprechauns alike - is by magnitudes more likely to be not true than it is to be true.
-
We know how improbable winning the lottery is. We have no measure of the probability or improbability of God.
If you have some figures I would be happy to see them.
If you have any evidence that this figment of your imagination you call "God" exists, I'd be happy to see it.
On the other hand a finely tuned universe throws up calculated improbabilities which favour a tuner and militate against chance.
Who tuned the tuner?
-
Rubbish.
The term "natural" doesn't define science. Science defines the natural. If we find a way to detect these supernatural pixies, they immediately stop being supernatural and start being natural.
Completely arse about face. Science is based on an assumption of naturalism.
-
Vlad,
Your problem here is that logic itself is a product of "empiricist and naturalistic philosophy". If you want to play
Utter shit. Neither philosophical empiricism nor naturalistic philosophy can be reached by methodological empiricism or methodological naturalism.
-
Vlad,
No, many of my own actions are miraculous. For example before I showed up back on religionethics the board was moribund, tumbleweed populated the threads, cobwebs hung like curtains from the quality of debate. I deigned to come back amongst you and a fragrance permeated the threads. A breeze cast out the cobwebs and colour returned to the board.
Yes, but only if you think "colour" is a synonym for "trolling".
-
Completely arse about face. Science is based on an assumption of naturalism.
Rubbish.
Lightning was considered supernatural by our ancestors then science found out what causes it and it became natural
-
Vlad,
Utter shit. Neither philosophical empiricism nor naturalistic philosophy can be reached by methodological empiricism or methodological naturalism.
Oh dear. Still, on the bright side it's Saturday - they bring you cocoa and a nice garibaldi on Saturdays don't they...
-
Rubbish.
Lightning was considered supernatural by our ancestors then science found out what causes it and it became natural
Sorry, this is just a very bad argument from you. That there were and are supernatural claims of causes does not mean thar science shows the causes are natural without already assuming that causes are natural. Please show how you can rule out something that is unfalsifiable?
-
NS,
Sorry, this is just a very bad argument from you. That there were and are supernatural claims of causes does not mean thar science shows the causes are natural without already assuming that causes are natural. Please show how you can rule out something that is unfalsifiable?
Not so sure about that. Vlad’s a fan of god of the gaps fallacy (“X can’t be explained naturalistically, therefore it’s supernatural”). Jeremy was just pointing out I think that the absence currently of a naturalistic explanation does not justify the assumption of a supernatural one.
-
NS,
Not so sure about that. Vlad’s a fan of god of the gaps fallacy (“X can’t be explained naturalistically, therefore it’s supernatural”). Jeremy was just pointing out I think that the absence currently of a naturalistic explanation does not justify the assumption of a supernatural one.
No, jeremyp definitely claims (a) that supernatural causes can be ruled out, and (b) that science is not based on methodological naturalism.
-
NS,
No, jeremyp definitely claims (a) that supernatural causes can be ruled out, and (b) that science is not based on methodological naturalism.
Not sure how you got to there from Jeremy’s “Lightning was considered supernatural by our ancestors then science found out what causes it and it became natural” but doubtless he’s better positioned than I am to tell us what he meant by it.
-
If it has no reasoning why do you say it's possible?
Because there's nothing that falsifies it. Just like there's nothing that falsifies the idea that gravity is caused by pixies pulling at the fabric of space-time.
We know from the argument from contingency that the necessary may not be observable.
Still waiting for this argument...
The absence of chaos or the presence of order.
You still haven't made the case that no creator would mean disorder and we observe that conscious beings need order, not the other way around.
Cosmic Fine tuning.
Been dealt with multiple times - and again, it's not something a creator explains. A creator would be extremely "fine tuned".
I could say I discount philosophical naturalism as unreasonable because science cannot establish it.
That would be a non-sequitur and nobody is claiming philosophical naturalism anyway.
But I don't... I just think God free isn't the case.
But can't provide any reason to think that there is actually a god.
-
NS,
Not sure how you got to there from Jeremy’s “Lightning was considered supernatural by our ancestors then science found out what causes it and it became natural” but doubtless he’s better positioned than I am to tell us what he meant by it.
I got there mainly from his reply no 486 where he states that it 'rubbish' that science is based on an assumption of naturalism.
-
His independent existence from time space and matter and energy.
We await your evidence for your assertion.
Interesting that you feel something that exists independent of time space and matter and energy is gendered. Somehow suggests you are still unable to see anything beyond your anthropomorphising and human-centric blinkers.
-
Sorry, this is just a very bad argument from you.
No. I think you need to refute it before you have the arrogance to declare it bad.
That there were and are supernatural claims of causes does not mean thar science shows the causes are natural without already assuming that causes are natural. Please show how you can rule out something that is unfalsifiable?
Just think about it for a minute. How do you know that something is natural? You investigate it with science.
-
No, jeremyp definitely claims (a) that supernatural causes can be ruled out,
By definition. The supernatural/natural dichotomy isn't really coherent. If we investigate some supernatural phenomenon and discover it to be real, it automatically becomes natural.
and (b) that science is not based on methodological naturalism.
People like applying long words to things but often they just obfuscate the point.
-
I got there mainly from his reply no 486 where he states that it 'rubbish' that science is based on an assumption of naturalism.
Except I didn't say that. I was calling your claim that "science is based on the assumption that all causes are natural" rubbish.
You do this a lot: read your own incorrect meaning into other people's words. I suggest you take more time to understand what people are saying.
-
Because there's nothing that falsifies it. Just like there's nothing that falsifies the idea that gravity is caused by pixies pulling at the fabric of space-time.
You are confusing science with reason here. There are some questions not settled by science. Pixies are small chappies with wings and should be eminently observable so you've made a category error in order to commit a horse laugh fallacy
Been dealt with multiple times - and again, it's not something a creator explains.
of course a creator with volition could explain this...……... as far as being dealt with. It hasn't.
That would be a non-sequitur and nobody is claiming philosophical naturalism anyway.
it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what people claim they are or ''identify as'' it's the arguments they make around here and those are chiefly from philosophical naturalism
[/quote]
-
You are confusing science with reason here. There are some questions not settled by science.
Science doesn't come into it. If I have no way at all of testing a proposition, then it's possible that it's true (because I can't prove it false), but, conversely, I have no reason to think it is true.
Whether the test is evidential (science) or through reasoning (logic) or some other way, doesn't matter.
Pixies are small chappies with wings and should be eminently observable...
Not if they're outside of space-time and pulling at it.
...so you've made a category error in order to commit a horse laugh fallacy
You really do need to learn what a category error (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake) means and the difference between a reductio ad absurdum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) and a horse laugh fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule).
of course a creator with volition could explain this...
Only in a pointless just-so story sort of way. All it does is move the problem from the universe to the creator. A creator who creates what you regard as a "fine tuned" universe would have to be even more "fine tuned".
Postulating a creator does nothing to address any real problems, it just moves them from the universe (that we know exists) to the supposed creator (which is just a blind guess).
it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what people claim they are or ''identify as'' it's the arguments they make around here and those are chiefly from philosophical naturalism
Drivel.
-
Vlad,
You are confusing science with reason here. There are some questions not settled by science. Pixies are small chappies with wings and should be eminently observable so you've made a category error in order to commit a horse laugh fallacy
Your usual concoction of mistakes here I see. First, he was using an analogy to make a point. Analogies necessarily involve different objects – when someone says “finding a good man is like finding a needle in a haystack” for example the fact that “a good man” and “needle” are different objects doesn’t invalidate the analogy.
Second, whether you define your pixies as invisible or just assert that no-one’s managed to glimpse one yet there’s nor category error here because the “categories” aren’t god vs pixies; the single category is the group of supposed objects that haven’t been observed. It’s the same category whether it contains your god, any other god or pixies - or all of them.
Third, it’s not the “horse laugh fallacy” at all for reasons that have been explained to you many times – it’s actually the reductio ad absurdum, a perfectly legitimate rhetorical device.
…of course a creator with volition could explain this...……... as far as being dealt with. It hasn't.
It has, and “a creator with volition” explains nothing at all because it’s prone to exactly the same questions about origin etc as the naturalistic universe, only it require more assumptions. Just calling the answer "miraculous" doesn't mean that invoking magic gets you off that hook.
it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what people claim they are or ''identify as'' it's the arguments they make around here and those are chiefly from philosophical naturalism
If you want to use that term to mean the position that all there is is necessarily, absolutely naturalistic no-one I know of claims that. Even your unrequited bromance object Richard Dawkins says he’s a “6.9 atheist” when a 7 would be “there categorically are no gods” because that statement is untestable. He’s a “6.9” atheist for the same reason that you, presumably, are a “6.9 a-leprechaunist” – at least unless you’ve found some way categorically to disprove my assertion “leprechauns?
Just out of interest, what do you get out of making exactly the same mistakes, having them corrected and then repeating them over and over again?
-
Science does not do God and so any antitheistic argument proceeds from philosophy and not science.
And yet science does reality... interesting?
Antitheists borrow arguments to explain the existence of the universe that they would normally dismiss namely the eternality of the universe, spontaneous appearance etc, infinity etc.
Did you see that goalpost move, there - when did we jump from 'weak' atheism to antitheism? Antitheists, presumably, don't need to explain the existence of the universe, they just need to show the negative effects of religion outweigh any perceived benefits.
Scientists, on the other hand, posit provisional explanations for phenomena (such as the universe) which may or may not be experimentally validated or refuted at some point when we have sufficient technology. As for whether 'antitheists' would normally dismiss the eternality of the universe - I'm an atheist, I'm a scientist, I can accept that an eternal reality is possible explanation... I'm just not sure with the way your use of terminology wanders through the conversations whether that's 'the universe' to you, or whether I qualify as an 'anti-theist' this week?
O.
-
Outy,
Did you see that goalpost move, there - when did we jump from 'weak' atheism to antitheism? Antitheists, presumably, don't need to explain the existence of the universe, they just need to show the negative effects of religion outweigh any perceived benefits.
The irony here is that, having just misidentified a category error (ie, gods and pixies) Vlad has committed an actual category error of his own. Atheists are the category of people who find the arguments for gods to be wrong, regardless of whether they think the belief does more good than harm; antitheists on the other hand are the category of people who think believing in gods does more harm than good, regardless of whether they think the arguments attempted for them are sound.
-
And yet science does reality... interesting?
Science does physicality whether that is the extent of reality science cannot answer.
Did you see that goalpost move, there - when did we jump from 'weak' atheism to antitheism? Antitheists, presumably, don't need to explain the existence of the universe, they just need to show the negative effects of religion outweigh any perceived benefits.
Antitheism put simply is opposition to theism.
As for whether 'antitheists' would normally dismiss the eternality of the universe - I'm an atheist, I'm a scientist, I can accept that an eternal reality is possible explanation... I'm just not sure ……………. whether I qualify as an 'anti-theist' this week?
If you have opposed theism this week I would say so.
-
Outy,
The irony here is that, having just misidentified a category error (ie, gods and pixies)
Nope, God is in the same category as the multiverse, a physical infinity or spontaneous appearance of everything but not wee chappies with wings Vlad has committed an actual category error of his own. Atheists are the category of people who find the arguments for gods to be wrong, regardless of whether they think the belief does more good than harm; antitheists on the other hand are the category of people who think believing in gods does more harm than good, regardless of whether they think the arguments attempted for them are sound.
Antitheism is merely opposition to theism. I know your Lord and Master Christopher Hitchens made it sound more sexy than it basically is but that's just posterboy-ism on your part.
In any case I thought atheism was merely the lack of belief in Gods and here's you doing a Hitchens and trying to big up atheism.
-
Science does physicality whether that is the extent of reality science cannot answer.
Science does reality - if it can be shown to have an effect, science has a remit. If it can't be shown to have an effect... is it real?
Antitheism put simply is opposition to theism.
Philosophically, politically? Those are very different things.
If you have opposed theism this week I would say so.
What if I'm ideologically neutral, politically inactive on the issue, but I have opinions about particularly harmful aspects of some interpretations of some religious tenets?
O.
-
Philosophically, politically? Those are very different things.
What if I'm ideologically neutral, politically inactive on the issue, but I have opinions about particularly harmful aspects of some interpretations of some religious tenets?
O.
I think that is right - while I don't believe in god or gods I don't oppose the belief in the existence of god in any kind of political sense. Why, because the belief, of its self, doesn't impact on my life. It is the manifestation of that belief in the form of religion that impacts on lives. And I completely support the freedom of individuals to practice their religion I do oppose anything which creates an uneven playing field, by providing religions and religious people with special privileges not available to non religious people. That is discrimination against non religious people if you turn it on its head. But that isn't antitheism, it is secularism.
-
Nope, God is in the same category as the multiverse, a physical infinity or spontaneous appearance of everything but not wee chappies with wings
You still haven't looked up category error, have you? It depends entirely on the context and the exact claims being made.
-
You still haven't looked up category error, have you? It depends entirely on the context and the exact claims being made.
I think we know the context and claims around here thank you.
-
Vlad,
Nope, God is in the same category as the multiverse, a physical infinity or spontaneous appearance of everything but not wee chappies with wings
Wrong again. You accused Stranger of a category error (“Pixies are small chappies with wings and should be eminently observable so you've made a category error”) in the context of his comment that “…Just like there's nothing that falsifies the idea that gravity is caused by pixies pulling at the fabric of space-time”.
Both “god” and pixies are in the same category of unfalsifiable claims. Thus Stranger was right and your accusation of a category error was wrong. Again.
Antitheism is merely opposition to theism. I know your Lord and Master Christopher Hitchens made it sound more sexy than it basically is but that's just posterboy-ism on your part.
What a bizarre misrepresentation. Are you feeling unwell or something?
In any case I thought atheism was merely the lack of belief in Gods and here's you doing a Hitchens and trying to big up atheism.
I didn’t “big up” anything – I just corrected you on your sly attempt to elide atheism into anti-theism, which is the actual category error on display here.
-
I think we know the context and claims around here thank you.
I do. You seem to be very confused about it. If the context is falsifiability, then gods and higher-dimensional gravity pixies can indeed be placed in the same category, namely, those claims that cannot be falsified.
-
Vlad,
I think we know the context and claims around here thank you.
Not you apparently. An undetectable god and undetectable pixies are in the same category of claims with undetectable (and therefore unfalsifiable) objects.
Atheism and antitheism on the other hand (that you attempted to elide) are in different categories because one concerns the truth or otherwise of the claim, and the other its desirability whether or not it's true.
-
Vlad,
Not you apparently. An undetectable god and undetectable pixies are in the same category of claims with undetectable (and therefore unfalsifiable) objects.
Atheism and antitheism on the other hand (that you attempted to elide) are in different categories because one concerns the truth or otherwise of the claim, and the other its desirability whether or not it's true.
Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods......Antitheism is opposition to theism.
-
Vlad,
Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods......Antitheism is opposition to theism.
Yes I know – that’s what I’ve been explaining to you. Why then did you get that wrong when you said: “Antitheists borrow arguments to explain the existence of the universe that they would normally dismiss namely the eternality of the universe, spontaneous appearance etc, infinity etc.”?
Some antitheists may happen to do that, and so might some Zoroastrians or some postmen. Antitheism itself though doesn’t entail that at all, as you now seem to have grasped.
-
Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods
Blimey - finally you've got the definition right ... well nearly - shame you capitalised God - but nearly there.
-
Blimey - finally you've got the definition right ... well nearly - shame you capitalised God - but nearly there.
Capitalising "God" was correct in the context. It's effectively the name of the Christian god. Capitalising "gods" was wrong.
-
Capitalising "God" was correct in the context. It's effectively the name of the Christian god. Capitalising "gods" was wrong.
That is presuming there is only one purported monotheistic god - I suspect that's not true in practice (ie. actually purported gods over history) and certainly not true in theory.
-
Hi Prof,
Blimey - finally you've got the definition right ...
I know – it’s quite a moment. Perhaps we should mark the occasion with a glass of something?
I wonder if this means we’ll now be spared the endless repetition of “go on then, prove there’s no God” straw man he’s so assiduously pursued in the past.
-
Hi Prof,
I know – it’s quite a moment. Perhaps we should mark the occasion with a glass of something?
I wonder if this means we’ll now be spared the endless repetition of “go on then, prove there’s no God” straw man he’s so assiduously pursued in the past.
If you are saying ''There's no God'' then you need to give proof. If you are not proposing that but merely that you do not believe in Gods then according to what you once said to Alan Burns, we can expect sound reason and or evidence for a God free existence. If your belief is based on probability what then is that probability and how did you come by it?
-
That is presuming there is only one purported monotheistic god
The usage of the word without an article assumes that. Note that the possibility of multiple gods is covered in the same sentence.
- I suspect that's not true in practice (ie. actually purported gods over history)
There are many people called "Jeremy". We don't use a lowercase "J" though.
The convention I use is to capitalise when using it in the context of a name e.g. "God is not great" and use lower case in other contexts e.g. "the Christian god", "a religion's gods", "some gods".
and certainly not true in theory.
I wish I had your levels of certainty. Life must be so much easier.
-
If you are saying ''There's no God'' then you need to give proof.
No we don't. You don't even need proof to say "there is a god". What you do need though is evidence. So far all the evidence is on the side of the "no god" squad.
-
The usage of the word without an article assumes that. Note that the possibility of multiple gods is covered in the same sentence.
There are many people called "Jeremy". We don't use a lowercase "J" though.
The convention I use is to capitalise when using it in the context of a name e.g. "God is not great" and use lower case in other contexts e.g. "the Christian god", "a religion's gods", "some gods".
I understand that but I don't think it is correct as it implies a specific monotheistic god, namely the christian God. But I don't think that is the right way to define atheism which isn't interested in placing any god above any other for special mention.
So my reading of the definition is that people have proposed (or might propose) that in somewhere in the universe exist a god (monotheistic and includes the christian God but also any other monotheistic god) or there many be multiple gods. Atheists do not believe either proposition and therefore do not believe in god or gods. To capitalise God implies the only monotheistic god possible is the christian one, or that the christian God deserves special mention. Neither is appropriate in my mind - hence non-capitalisation is most appropriate in both cases.
Regarding capitalising J - that is because it is a proper noun - so you would never say 'I don't believe in Jeremy or jeremies' - you'd say 'I don't believe in Jeremy or Jeremies'.
Also there is no guarantee that every purported monotheistic god have the personalised characters that would warrant a capital letter and proper noun. In the absence of that surety it is most appropriate not to use a capital.
-
If you are saying ''There's no God'' then you need to give proof. If you are not proposing that but merely that you do not believe in Gods then according to what you once said to Alan Burns, we can expect sound reason and or evidence for a God free existence. If your belief is based on probability what then is that probability and how did you come by it?
And Vlad still doesn't get it...
I am (along with many atheists) not claiming "god free" (there isn't even a general definition of what "god" means) my only "claim" is that I've never seen a reasonable definition of a god and an accompanying reason to take the idea seriously. Hence, in this context, gods are in exactly the same category as my gravity pixies and leprechauns - namely, those things which we have seen no reason to take seriously.
This really isn't hard - if you think some god exists, then you need to define the term and provide a supporting argument. It's actually no different to somebody positing something in science (a new particle or a fifth force of nature, or whatever) - nobody is going to take the claims seriously until they see some sort of reasoning or evidence.
-
I wish I had your levels of certainty. Life must be so much easier.
What I mean is that in theory someone could propose a monotheistic god that isn't the christian one - I suspect they already have. In that respect it is perfectly reasonable to say:
'That is presuming there is only one purported monotheistic god - I suspect that's not true in practice (ie. actually purported gods over history) and certainly not true in theory.'
-
I understand that but I don't think it is correct as it impugns a specific monotheistic god, namely the christian God. But I don't think that is the right way to define atheism which isn't interested in placing any god above any other for special mention.
....
Implies rather than impugns?
-
Implies rather than impugns?
Woops, but Sunday morning pedant nonetheless ;)
-
No we don't. You don't even need proof to say "there is a god". What you do need though is evidence. So far all the evidence is on the side of the "no god" squad.
And what evidence is that?
-
And Vlad still doesn't get it...
I am (along with many atheists) not claiming "god free" (there isn't even a general definition of what "god" means) my only "claim" is that I've never seen a reasonable definition of a god and an accompanying reason to take the idea seriously.
Take it seriously as opposed to what though?
The answer of course is what you do take seriously or at least take for granted which is God Free. Since that then is your position what reasons/evidence or argument can you give?
-
What I mean is that in theory someone could propose a monotheistic god that isn't the christian one - I suspect they already have. In that respect it is perfectly reasonable to say:
'That is presuming there is only one purported monotheistic god - I suspect that's not true in practice (ie. actually purported gods over history) and certainly not true in theory.'
I think you are settling for the old I just believe in one less god than you schtick.
Many believe that the divine could be behind theistic belief but Christianity is Gods most comprehensive revelation.
That qualifies certainly my belief rather than your own 9.9 out of 10 Disbelief which you superimpose on believers.
-
Take it seriously as opposed to what though?
The answer of course is what you do take seriously or at least take for granted which is God Free. Since that then is your position what reasons/evidence or argument can you give?
I'll answer that one for myself.
Firstly I do not know that god or gods do not exist, hence I am an agnostic.
Secondly I have never seen any credible evidence for the existence of any god (despite people having to demonstrate their existence for centuries) and therefore I do not believe in the existence of god or gods - hence I am an atheist. However there are countless things for which there is amply evidence for their existence. Therefore I will base my understanding of the world and universe on things that have been demonstrated to exist, and not concern myself in that understanding with things for which there is no evidence that they even exist.
-
I think you are settling for the old I just believe in one less god than you schtick.
Which is true beyond question. Over the centuries people have claimed that thousands of god exist - let's define that number a n (a very big number). I do not believe in n gods, you do not believe in n-1 gods.
Many believe that the divine could be behind theistic belief but Christianity is Gods most comprehensive revelation.
But that is just a belief and you have no evidence to support either the existence of god, which you'd need to do before your claim that christianity is god's most comprehensive revelation becomes relevant. And of course other, just as firmly held, beliefs are available - including those from other non-christian theists who may just as fervently believe that their god or gods are top dog. But of course they have no more evidence for their belief than you do - in other words no evidence.
That qualifies certainly my belief rather than your own 9.9 out of 10 Disbelief which you superimpose on believers.
Actually I don't - while it is true that I do not believe in n gods and you do not believe in n-1 gods, I fully recognise that the -1 part is incredibly important to you.
Why the argument is valuable is when theists, in error, claim that atheists must prove that god does not exist, or provide evidence that god doesn't exist. It allows atheists to simply state to the theist that the approach I use for your purported god is effectively the same as you use for Thor, or Odin, or Vishnu. Despite the fact that you do not believe in those gods (presumably because you've never seen credible evidence for their existence) there is no onus on you to provide evidence for their lack of existence. And guess what - there is no onus on me to provide evidence that the christian god does not exist either. The onus rests entirely on those making a positive claim for existence, regardless of whether they are claiming that that god is Thor, or Odin, or Vishnu or the christian god.
-
Take it seriously as opposed to what though?
As oposed to not taking it seriously - that is, not believing it.
The answer of course is what you do take seriously or at least take for granted which is God Free. Since that then is your position what reasons/evidence or argument can you give?
The total lack of any reasonable definition of any god(s) and an associated reason to take it seriously, is all the reason I need not believe in any notion of god(s). I can do this without claiming that I know that there is no reasonable definition of some god that actually exists.
This is exactly what everybody does with fantastical stories or any other claims for that matter, such as a new particle or force, or anything else. You can't put all the thousands of god-ideas into some special category that requires people to need a reason not to accept them. They all individually stand or fall entirely on how well they can be justified.
The questions "do you believe in god?" or "do you believe in god-free?" are meaningless anyway, without an associated definition of the relevant god. I can, for example, conclude that reality does not contain the god that created the universe 6000 years ago in six literal 24 hour days - because there is good evidence that this did not happen. With respect to that god-idea, I do positively believe in god-free.
-
Vlad,
If you are saying ''There's no God''…
(Quietly puts away the bottle of Chateau d'Yquem ‘47...) Aw no, such a shame. For a minute there when a while back you correctly said “Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods” it really looked like we’d made a breakthrough, yet quick as you like you bollocksed it all up by changing that to “If you are saying ''There's no God''…”
See whether you can work out for yourself the fundamental difference between the following:
1. A lack of belief in God or Gods; and
2. Saying ''There's no God"
It's really not that difficult - I reckon even you could do it, or at least you could if you're not still hell-bent on trolling instead.
…then you need to give proof.
Well, reasoning a least but as no-one I know of actually says that it’s neither nor here there.
If you are not proposing that but merely that you do not believe in Gods then according to what you once said to Alan Burns, we can expect sound reason and or evidence for a God free existence. If your belief is based on probability what then is that probability and how did you come by it?
Oh dear. The only reason necessary to justify not believing in god(s) is not being aware of a sound argument to validate that belief. I am not aware of a sound argument for god(s), thus I do not believe in it/them. But then you knew this already didn’t you because, presumably it’s exactly the same rationale you would use to justify your non-belief in leprechauns.
-
And what evidence is that?
The fact that religionists have been scrabbling for centuries to find some evidence that there is a god and come up empty.
-
The fact that religionists have been scrabbling for centuries to find some evidence that there is a god and come up empty.
That might be true from a philosophical naturalists perspective.
But why should the rest of us buy it?
-
As oposed to not taking it seriously - that is, not believing it.
The total lack of any reasonable definition of any god(s) and an associated reason to take it seriously, is all the reason I need not believe in any notion of god(s). I can do this without claiming that I know that there is no reasonable definition of some god that actually exists.
This is exactly what everybody does with fantastical stories or any other claims for that matter, such as a new particle or force, or anything else. You can't put all the thousands of god-ideas into some special category that requires people to need a reason not to accept them. They all individually stand or fall entirely on how well they can be justified.
The questions "do you believe in god?" or "do you believe in god-free?" are meaningless anyway, without an associated definition of the relevant god. I can, for example, conclude that reality does not contain the god that created the universe 6000 years ago in six literal 24 hour days - because there is good evidence that this did not happen. With respect to that god-idea, I do positively believe in god-free.
God has been described as the creator and maintainer of the universe whose existence is independent of it's creation.
You have been noted as finding simulated universe reasonable and therefore you logically have to find God reasonable.
-
God has been described as the creator and maintainer of the universe whose existence is independent of it's creation.
Hobbits have been described as small people with hairy feet.
You have been noted as finding simulated universe reasonable and therefore you logically have to find God reasonable.
You have been noted as finding 'God' reasonable and, therefore, you logically have to find leprechauns reasonable.
-
Hobbits have been described as small people with hairy feet.
And Leprechauns have erroneously been likened to God having all his powers when I have informed them that they are small people dressed in green
You have been noted as finding 'God' reasonable and, therefore, you logically have to find leprechauns reasonable.
Poor analogy since Leprechauns are small people dressed in green and Stranger at one time thought that proposing a creator of the universe could, if shaved of ''religion'', be a reasonable proposition. He was unable to say why we should shave away religion nor why being a creator of the universe was not itself a religious notion.
-
God has been described as the creator and maintainer of the universe whose existence is independent of it's creation.
Those are some aspects of some god definitions.
You have been noted as finding simulated universe reasonable and therefore you logically have to find God reasonable.
Drivel. I do not find simulated universe to be particularly reasonable - certainly no more so than me being a Boltzmann brain - and using a universe simulator as a definition of "god" is mindless idiocy for reasons that I'm not going to go over yet again.
That's before we get to the car crash of a logical structure you seem to be attempting. You've got some otherwise undefined notion of "God" (G) that has a property of being "the creator and maintainer of the universe whose existence is independent of it's creation" (C), then you've got me finding some things that have this property reasonable (R) (leaving aside that I don't particularly) and you seem to be trying to imply that I must therefore regard this otherwise undefined "God" as reasonable.
So it goes:-
G is C (All G are C, since G is singular)
Some C are R
Therefore G is R (All G are R)
You're suffering from an undistributed middle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle) again.
-
As oposed to not taking it seriously - that is, not believing it.
or as opposed to taking philosophical naturalism seriously.
-
And Leprechauns have erroneously been likened to God having all his powers when I have informed them that they are small people dressed in green
I've never seen anybody do this. Do you have a link?
He was unable to say why we should shave away religion nor why being a creator of the universe was not itself a religious notion.
Blatant falsehood. I explained both at great length, several times, as did other posters, IIRC.
-
or as opposed to taking philosophical naturalism seriously.
No.
-
Vlad,
That might be true from a philosophical naturalists perspective.
But why should the rest of us buy it?
Even allowing for your redefinition of the term “philosophical naturalism”, have you ever come across anyone who actually argues for it? Fun as it is watching you tilt at a windmill entirely of your own making, what’s the point of it?
That might be true from a philosophical naturalists perspective.
But why should the rest of us buy it?
If by “it” you also mean your personal redefinition of the term, no-one I know of does “buy it”. Or propose it.
God has been described as the creator and maintainer of the universe whose existence is independent of it's creation.
“God” has been described as many things, but by all means throw that one into the mix if you want to.
You have been noted as finding simulated universe reasonable and therefore you logically have to find God reasonable.
It’s “plausible” rather than “reasonable”, and you still fundamentally fail to understand that a simulated universe would not have to entail the notion that everything that could possibly be actually is. It requires no such thing, and if you think it does then you'd have to include leprechauns too. So...?
And Leprechauns have erroneously been likened to God having all his powers when I have informed them that they are small people dressed in green
Can you find an example of anyone ever doing that, or is it just another of your straw men? What actually happens of course is entirely different from that – it’s the reductio ad absurdum, something you’ve either never grasped or never been honest about.
Poor analogy since Leprechauns are small people dressed in green…
And needles and haystacks are different objects too. “God” and leprechauns are still a perfectly good analogy though when the point of the analogy is that the same argument can lead equally to either conclusion.
…and Stranger at one time thought that proposing a creator of the universe could, if shaved of ''religion'', be a reasonable proposition.
No, so far as I recall he was correcting you about your conjecture “creator” leading to deism but not to theism, which requires many more assumptions.
He was unable to say why we should shave away religion nor why being a creator of the universe was not itself a religious notion.
No he wasn’t, and you should “shave away religion” when your argument (even if it wasn’t wrong) would lead to deism but not to theism.
A lie doesn’t become less of a lie because you repeat it. You do know that right?
-
or as opposed to taking philosophical naturalism seriously.
Random drivel
-
And Leprechauns have erroneously been likened to God having all his powers when I have informed them that they are small people dressed in green
Poor analogy since Leprechauns are small people dressed in green and Stranger at one time thought that proposing a creator of the universe could, if shaved of ''religion'', be a reasonable proposition. He was unable to say why we should shave away religion nor why being a creator of the universe was not itself a religious notion.
Vacuous drivel
-
That might be true from a philosophical naturalists perspective.
But why should the rest of us buy it?
Who said anything about philosophical naturalism. This is a case of balance of probabilities. The most obvious reason why Evidence for your god does it exist is that your god doesn’t exist.
-
And Leprechauns have erroneously been likened to God having all his powers when I have informed them that they are small people dressed in green
Poor analogy since Leprechauns are small people dressed in green and Stranger at one time thought that proposing a creator of the universe could, if shaved of ''religion'', be a reasonable proposition. He was unable to say why we should shave away religion nor why being a creator of the universe was not itself a religious notion.
Vlad
You have all the subtlety of a flying mallet (not to mention the insight).
-
And Leprechauns have erroneously been likened to God having all his powers when I have informed them that they are small people dressed in green
That's not the Leprechauns I believe in - heretic! Beardy, cloud-dwelling white men - no evidence. Leprechauns - rainbows! Case closed...
O.
-
That's not the Leprechauns I believe in - heretic! Beardy, cloud-dwelling white men - no evidence. Leprechauns - rainbows! Case closed...
O.
You'd be talking about the Donegal Leprechauns there.
-
Who said anything about philosophical naturalism. This is a case of balance of probabilities. The most obvious reason why Evidence for your god does it exist is that your god doesn’t exist.
I see no evidence for philosophical naturalism, so by your own logic that cannot be, but you are arguing from it.
-
Vlad,
Even allowing for your redefinition of the term “philosophical naturalism”, have you ever come across anyone who actually argues for it? Fun as it is watching you tilt at a windmill entirely of your own making, what’s the point of it?
People frequently argue from it amongst other things like scientism.
No he wasn’t, and you should “shave away religion” when your argument (even if it wasn’t wrong) would lead to deism but not to theism.
First of all I have to ask how deism helps atheism.
Secondly, the problem with deism is it requires faith that God isn't going ever to intervene in the universe he has created. That he is going to remain true to expectation that he has finally pissed off and is no longer concerned with us and we need not be about him? Where do these guarantees come from? The wishful thinking of deists?
-
I see no evidence for philosophical naturalism, so by your own logic that cannot be, but you are arguing from it.
People frequently argue from it amongst other things like scientism.
You keep on asserting this about people's arguments. Where is your evidence? What part of any argument here relies on philosophical naturalism?
-
You'd be talking about the Donegal Leprechauns there.
Splitter!
-
Secondly, the problem with deism is it requires faith that God isn't going ever to intervene in the universe he has created. That he is going to remain true to expectation that he has finally pissed off and is no longer concerned with us and we need not be about him? Where do these guarantees come from? The wishful thinking of deists?
Do I detect a faint whiff of No true Scotsman in the air?
-
First of all I have to ask how deism helps atheism.
Given there still isn't a coherent definition or argument for any form of deity, what makes you think atheism needs any help?
Secondly, the problem with deism is it requires faith that God isn't going ever to intervene in the universe he has created.
No, the problem with deism is that there's no evidence for the deity it presumes - it resolves many of the issues that things like the 'Problem of Evil' raise with the concept of a benevolent monotheistic deity.
That he is going to remain true to expectation that he has finally pissed off and is no longer concerned with us and we need not be about him?
Deism doesn't require that this will continue, it merely suggests that it's been the case until now.
O.
[/quote]
-
Vlad,
So you’ve made a string of mistakes and misrepresentations, I’ve corrected you on them, you’ve ignored the corrections and moved straight on to further mistakes and misrepresentations. ‘twas ever thus I guess, but why do you bother with it?
Oh well…
People frequently argue from it amongst other things like scientism.
Which people? I’ve never encountered one, certainly not here. Have you? Really though?
Incidentally, the term you’re actually trying to describe here is physicalism – “….the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical.” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/)
First of all I have to ask how deism helps atheism.
As no-one has suggested that it does, why? The cosmological arguments doesn’t justify deism, but is even less adequate for theism. So what?
Secondly, the problem with deism is it requires faith that God isn't going ever to intervene in the universe he has created. That he is going to remain true to expectation that he has finally pissed off and is no longer concerned with us and we need not be about him? Where do these guarantees come from? The wishful thinking of deists?
Bizarre. Is the problem for invisible leprechaunism that it requires faith that leprechauns will never be seen leaving pots of gold at the ends of rainbows? No part of deism requires that theism be not true – it’s just a conclusion that says, “on the basis of the available arguments, this is all that can be said about a deity”. That those arguments are wrong even for that purpose is a different matter.
-
Vlad,
So you’ve made a string of mistakes and misrepresentations, I’ve corrected you on them, you’ve ignored the corrections and moved straight on to further mistakes and misrepresentations. ‘twas ever thus I guess, but why do you bother with it?
Oh well…
Which people? I’ve never encountered one, certainly not here. Have you? Really though?
Incidentally, the term you’re actually trying to describe here is physicalism – “….the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical.” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/)
As no-one has suggested that it does, why? The cosmological arguments doesn’t justify deism, but is even less adequate for theism. So what?
Bizarre. Is the problem for invisible leprechaunism that it requires faith that leprechauns will never be seen leaving pots of gold at the ends of rainbows? No part of deism requires that theism be not true – it’s just a conclusion that says, “on the basis of the available arguments, this is all that can be said about a deity”. That those arguments are wrong even for that purpose is a different matter.
You have listed arguments that are wrong but these are by and large arguments that no one makes NPF....In fact you are notorious for it but nobody makes the arguments you claim namely ''you can't....therefore arguments.
Your modus though I would describe as horse laugh arguments.
I've never seen a good argument for contingency without necessity.
-
Vlad,
You have listed arguments that are wrong but these are by and large arguments that no one makes NPF....In fact you are notorious for it but nobody makes the arguments you claim namely ''you can't....therefore arguments.
To the contrary, the NPF, the argumentum ad consequentiam, the ad hom, the post hoc ergo proper hoc, the argument by assertion, shifting the burden of proof, the straw man, the etc are regularly trotted out here, not least by you. Each time I correct you though you just ignore the correction, go quiet for a bit and then select from exactly the same suite of fallacies. Why?
Your modus though I would describe as horse laugh arguments.
And to prove my point, there you go again with a straw man. I’ve explained to you several times that the “horse laugh” fallacy and the reductio ad absurdum are not the same thing, and that misdescribing the latter as the former is a straw man. Yet you continue to do it. Why?
I've never seen a good argument for contingency without necessity.
Only the first five words of the sentence were necessary, only maybe swap “seen” for “made”.
-
Vlad,
So you’ve made a string of mistakes and misrepresentations, I’ve corrected you on them, you’ve ignored the corrections and moved straight on to further mistakes and misrepresentations. ‘twas ever thus I guess, but why do you bother with it?
Because it allows him to have people like you running around like headless chickens explaining to him something upon which all his posts are based in order to get a reaction from other, non Christian, posters.
With me, he just corrects my typing mistakes!
-
I see no evidence for philosophical naturalism, so by your own logic that cannot be, but you are arguing from it.
You would do well to engage with people’s arguments rather than obsessing about what labels you can apply.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s philosophical naturalism or not, the fact is there’s no evidence that God exists in spite of the fact that theists have been looking for it for centuries. How many years are you going to search your house without finding evidence of any elephants do you need to do before you conclude there are no elephants in your house?
-
You would do well to engage with people’s arguments rather than obsessing about what labels you can apply.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s philosophical naturalism or not, the fact is there’s no evidence that God exists in spite of the fact that theists have been looking for it for centuries. How many years are you going to search your house without finding evidence of any elephants do you need to do before you conclude there are no elephants in your house?
Oddly Vlad decides leprechauns do not exist by using induction. And he does that in a leprechaunfree absolute. He then misrepresents other's positions as if they are doing the same but that is just Vlad's lying laid over his ineptitude.
-
You would do well to engage with people’s arguments rather than obsessing about what labels you can apply.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s philosophical naturalism or not, the fact is there’s no evidence that God exists in spite of the fact that theists have been looking for it for centuries. How many years are you going to search your house without finding evidence of any elephants do you need to do before you conclude there are no elephants in your house?
The impulse not to be labelled can be down to guilt or shame or evasion or seeing oneself as the scientist and not really part of what you are observing. So much for, then, 'engaging' with others.
To be fair the picture you paint of religion scrabbling to satisfy science for thousands of years isn't accurate.
Religion has largely been doing it's own thing which isn't science rather a philosophical, spiritual and moral undertaking things which science doesn't do or hasn't been successful in because basically it's physics.
-
Vlad,
And to prove my point, there you go again with a straw man. I’ve explained to you several times that the “horse laugh” fallacy and the reductio ad absurdum are not the same thing, and that misdescribing the latter as the former is a straw man. Yet you continue to do it. Why?
I've never used the term reduction ad absurdum. All I've ever said is that your argument is just ridicule . I have switched to using the term Horse laugh fallacy because you earlier confused argument by ridicule with reduction ad absurdum......once again a term I've never used.
You indulge in the old oriental art of Pistake( pronounced piss take ) In other words you are making a great Piss take.
-
Vlad,
The impulse not to be labelled can be down to guilt or shame or evasion or seeing oneself as the scientist and not really part of what you are observing. So much for, then, 'engaging' with others.
Bizarre reply. What you were actually asked to do was to engage with the arguments you’re given rather than ignore them, lie about them or distract from them. That science endeavours to be objective has nothing whatever to do with an observation about your behaviour here.
To be fair the picture you paint of religion scrabbling to satisfy science for thousands of years isn't accurate.
He didn’t say that at all. What he actually said was, “the fact is there’s no evidence that God exists in spite of the fact that theists have been looking for it for centuries”. See, all he referred to was evidence, not “scrabbling to satisfy science” at all.
Perhaps if you addressed his charge re your failure to engage with what’s being said you wouldn’t keep resorting to stunts like this?
Religion has largely been doing it's own thing which isn't science rather a philosophical, spiritual and moral undertaking things which science doesn't do or hasn't been successful in because basically it's physics.
And yet we see many times theists of various stripes trying to pray in aid science to support their faith beliefs. You for example often reference your (utter misunderstanding of) the multiverse conjecture as if that in some way validates your claims and assertions about the god in which you happen to believe. Why?
-
Vlad,
I've never used the term reduction ad absurdum.
It’s “reductio”, and I know you haven’t – that’s the problem. The argument you’re actually given though is in the form of a reductio ad absurdum, for example “any argument that leads equally to god and to leprechauns is probably a bad argument”. It’s a perfectly legitimate piece of rhetorical reasoning, whether or not you grasp the point of it.
All I've ever said is that your argument is just ridicule . I have switched to using the term Horse laugh fallacy because you earlier confused argument by ridicule with reduction ad absurdum......once again a term I've never used.
Yes you have, and “All I've ever said is that your argument is just ridicule” is precisely the fuck up you keep making.
You indulge in the old oriental art of Pistake( pronounced piss take ) In other words you are making a great Piss take.
Perhaps if you bothered to look up what "reductio ad absurdum" means you wouldn’t keep getting it so badly wrong? Look, I’ll even help you:
In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for '"reduction to absurdity"'), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is a form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.[4][5] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.[6]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)
You're welcome.
-
The impulse not to be labelled can be down to guilt or shame or evasion or seeing oneself as the scientist and not really part of what you are observing. So much for, then, 'engaging' with others.
To be fair the picture you paint of religion scrabbling to satisfy science for thousands of years isn't accurate.
Religion has largely been doing it's own thing which isn't science rather a philosophical, spiritual and moral undertaking things which science doesn't do or hasn't been successful in because basically it's physics.
I said religionists have been looking for evidence for centuries not trying to satisfy science for thousands of years. Science does finding about reality. If religion has been doing something that isn’t finding out about reality, I’m fine with that, but you can’t then claim your god is part of reality, at least not with any degree of honesty.
-
I said religionists have been looking for evidence for centuries not trying to satisfy science for thousands of years. Science does finding about reality. If religion has been doing something that isn’t finding out about reality, I’m fine with that, but you can’t then claim your god is part of reality, at least not with any degree of honesty.
Not sure about that. Surely if someone has a personal experience of their god then it is part of their reality that they are being honest about. Given the problem of hard solipsism science is not about objective reality either.
-
Not sure about that. Surely if someone has a personal experience of their god then it is part of their reality that they are being honest about. Given the problem of hard solipsism science is not about objective reality either.
Just because somebody thinks something is real, doesn’t mean it is real.
If science is not about objective reality, what is it about?
-
Just because somebody thinks something is real, doesn’t mean it is real.
If science is not about objective reality, what is it about?
It doesn't mean it is real but it does mean that they aren't being dishonest when they talk about it.
Science is intersubjective, not objective.
-
Science is intersubjective, not objective.
Science is objective, that's the whole point - it may also be intersubjective too (although that's a term that I'd not come across and doesn't seem particularly relevant).
-
Science is objective, that's the whole point - it may also be intersubjective too (although that's a term that I'd not come across and doesn't seem particularly relevant).
No, you can't avoid the problem of hard solipsism to claim objectivity.
-
Prof,
Science is objective, that's the whole point - it may also be intersubjective too (although that's a term that I'd not come across and doesn't seem particularly relevant).
Isn’t the point here that science strives to be objective, but cannot with certainty truly be so because it’s practised by subjective beings – ie, us? It’s a huge leap forward from superstition as a guide to what’s true of course, but the practice of it can still be prone to selection bias, confounding bias, information bias etc no matter how much its methods seek to eliminate these things
-
Prof,
Isn’t the point here that science strives to be objective, but cannot with certainty truly be so because it’s practised by subjective beings – ie, us? It’s a huge leap forward from superstition as a guide to what’s true of course, but the practice of it can still be prone to selection bias, confounding bias, information bias etc no matter how much its methods seek to eliminate these things
Completely agree. This would be where I might point out that science is methodologically naturalistic but jeremyp might object because using long words is wrong. Both PD and jp seem to me to being the philosophical naturalists that Vlad talks about.
-
NS,
Completely agree. This would be where I might point out that science is methodologically naturalistic but jeremyp might object because using long words is wrong. Both PD and jp seem to me to being the philosophical naturalists that Vlad talks about.
Not sure about PD and jp here, but yes science certainly is methodologically naturalistic. The cheat some theists will then try though is, “so if science can only address the natural/material how can it possibly answer questions about the supernatural/non-material?” as if something science doesn’t claim at all is in some way a failing with it. Worse, nor will such people trouble themselves with either:
- demonstrating that there is a supernatural/non-material in the first place; or
- providing an alternative method to that of science that can investigate and validate such claims.
I’ve tried asking about this many times, but always get only a tumbleweed moment in reply.
-
NS,
Not sure about PD and jp here, but yes science certainly is methodologically naturalistic. The cheat some theists will then try though is, “so if science can only address the natural/material how can it possibly answer questions about the supernatural/non-material?” as if something science doesn’t claim at all is in some way a failing with it. Worse, nor will such people trouble themselves with either:
- demonstrating that there is a supernatural/non-material in the first place; or
- providing an alternative method to that of science that can investigate and validate such claims.
I’ve tried asking about this many times, but always get only a tumbleweed moment in reply.
I am just using their posts about reality. I am uninterested in the problems of 'some theists'. Don't you think that the idea that science is objective as PD and jp seem to think is hugely problematic?
-
I said religionists have been looking for evidence for centuries not trying to satisfy science for thousands of years. Science does finding about reality. If religion has been doing something that isn’t finding out about reality, I’m fine with that, but you can’t then claim your god is part of reality, at least not with any degree of honesty.
I never said that the philosophical, spiritual or moral undertaking which is religion isn't finding out about reality. So I guess that clears me to claim God as a reality.
-
No, you can't avoid the problem of hard solipsism to claim objectivity.
Oh no NS - you've just morphed into Vlad.
-
Oh no NS - you've just morphed into Vlad.
Yawn! The fact that Vlad badly misuses some terms in philosophy doesn't remove all meaning in them. Rather than indulge in guilt by association, you could try and point out what you disagree with and why.
-
Prof,
Isn’t the point here that science strives to be objective, but cannot with certainty truly be so because it’s practised by subjective beings – ie, us?
But that doesn't mean that science, in its theoretical state, isn't objective - merely that scientist are sometime not able to meet that goal.
But the point about science and the scientific method is that it firstly recognises those issues and goes out of its way to mitigate against and eliminate any subjective interference in the objectivity of scientific data. So firstly, wherever possible the collection of data will be automated, removing human subjectivity. Secondly reproducibility - the key element of scientific that data are only valid where they are reproducible in another setting and 'another scientists hand' - this is effectively about eliminating the individual subjectivity. If many scientists, working independently are able to reproduce the data then we move toward true objectivity. Thirdly, and linked to the second, an understanding of variability in data - and in the most appropriately designed studies, the ability to undercover the source of that variability, be it inherent in the data (and therefore objective) or an artefact of the experiment, whether due to human variability or inherent in the method.
So although you may argue that the collection of scientific data is not truly objective in practice, it is in theory and the method itself is designed to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible to drive it as near as possible to true objectivity. As such I think it is perfectly valid to describe science as objective. Not to do so simply lumps it with other approaches that never aim at objectivity nor classify subjectivity as a flaw.
-
Yawn! The fact that Vlad badly misuses some terms in philosophy doesn't remove all meaning in them. Rather than indulge in guilt by association, you could try and point out what you disagree with and why.
No - you are doing the classic Vlad - throw in a term, don't define it - don't explain why you think it to be relevant to the discussion etc.
So please define hard solipsism and make your argument as to its relevance to this discussion on the objectivity (or otherwise) of science, and then I'll engage in a discussion.
Upthread I've already explained, in some details, why I think it is perfectly valid to describe science as objective.
-
No - you are doing the classic Vlad - throw in a term, don't define it - don't explain why you think it to be relevant to the discussion etc.
So please define hard solipsism and make your argument as to its relevance to this discussion on the objectivity (or otherwise) of science, and then I'll engage in a discussion.
Upthread I've already explained, in some details, why I think it is perfectly valid to describe science as objective.
And you are quite simply wrong. As bhs has already pointed out we are by definition subjective beings, and what science does is use our ability to communicate to get an agreed intersubjective position. But since we can never be sure that any of our own experiences are real including that anyone else exists then all of those experiences are questionable.
Objectivity is an absolute. Given we are subjective, we cannot achieve it.
In day to day discussion, it doesn't really matter. In that sense it is rather like the free will discussion. We go about pur lives acting as if there is such a thing as free will but at base it makes no sense. So with science we go about it as if it can achieve objectivity, but given our restrictions that makes no sense either.
That doesn't devalue the importance and value of science from our quotidian experience.
-
... from our quotidian experience.
There you go again - you've definitely morphed into Vlad. What the f*** are quotidian experiences. Why drop in terms that simply get people scrambling for google to work out what you are talking about, and then only to discover they seem to have no relevance.
-
Someone define "objective", "objectivity"
... then at least you will know if you are talking about the same thing!
-
There you go again - you've definitely morphed into Vlad. What the f*** are quotidian experiences. Why drop in terms that simply get people scrambling for google to work out what you are talking about, and then only to discover they seem to have no relevance.
It was simply a way to avoid the repetition of day to day. Quotidian means commonplace. Are you saying that I have to restrict my posts to words you know?
-
Objectivity is an absolute. Given we are subjective, we cannot achieve it.
You are confusing bias with error.
For scientific objectivity the method needs to eliminate bias (which is a manifestation of subjectivity if that bias is human) - it does not, and ultimately cannot eliminate error. The method will need to minimise and understand error, but if there error remains, but no bias then the method and the data meet the standards of objectivity.
A well designed double blinded clinical trial will be free from bias - it can be riddled with error which would mean it would be poor science, but provided there is no bias it remains objective - rubbish, but objective none the less.
-
It was simply a way to avoid the repetition of day to day. Quotidian means commonplace. Are you saying that I have to restrict my posts to words you know?
No - but it is a classic Vlad trope (which you often slip into too) effectively to throw obscure phrases and terms into the debate - but actually not to debate, which requires definition and argument to be placed around those terms.
Still waiting for you to define hard solipsism and to make an argument to its relevant in terms of scientific objectivity.
-
Someone define "objective", "objectivity"
... then at least you will know if you are talking about the same thing!
I am happy to go with
'Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination'
The issue is that we can't avoid the issue that our perceptions can be anything other than subjective. The reason for mentioning hard solipsism is that all external validation such as scientific tests are things we perceive as a subject.
-
You are confusing bias with error.
For scientific objectivity the method needs to eliminate bias (which is a manifestation of subjectivity if that bias is human) - it does not, and ultimately cannot eliminate error. The method will need to minimise and understand error, but if there error remains, but no bias then the method and the data meet the standards of objectivity.
A well designed double blinded clinical trial will be free from bias - it can be riddled with error which would mean it would be poor science, but provided there is no bias it remains objective - rubbish, but objective none the less.
Yes - you are talking about scientific objectivity, not NS's absolute objectivity - which remains a metaphysical ideal.
-
Yes - you are talking about scientific objectivity, not NS's absolute objectivity - which remains a metaphysical ideal.
Indeed I am as that is the relevant concept when talking about science, for obvious reasons. In science objectivity and subjectivity relate to human bias.
-
No - but it is a classic Vlad trope (which you often slip into too) effectively to throw obscure phrases and terms into the debate - but actually not to debate, which requires definition and argument to be placed around those terms.
Still waiting for you to define hard solipsism and to make an argument to its relevant in terms of scientific objectivity.
Why would I define the word 'quotidian"? It wasn't used in any specialised or technical sense. I just used another word to avoid a repetition of a phrase used earlier in the post. I don't think it is a particularly obscure word.
I am using the term hard solipsism in the sense that we can only be sure of our individual existence, and that all our experiences of external confirmation cannot ever be known to be real. I am using the term hard because solipsism entails the actual belief that only the individual exists - which I do not hold to be true - but because we cannot rule out that possibility we cannot claim objectivity - defined in my reply to Udayana.
-
Indeed I am as that is the relevant concept when talking about science, for obvious reasons. In science objectivity and subjectivity relate to human bias.
Except it's not useful in a conversation about 'objective reality' which is when I first used the term.
-
'Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination'
The issue is that we can't avoid the issue that our perceptions can be anything other than subjective. The reason for mentioning hard solipsism is that all external validation such as scientific tests are things we perceive as a subject.
But that isn't a relevant concept with regard to science, where objectivity is about eliminating personal bias in the conducting of scientific studies that may ultimately bias the results of that study:
'Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs. It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility.'
But in reality well constructed scientific studies meet the scientific objectivity test, but arguably also meet the philosophical definition - again I think you are confusing subjective bias (which emanates from 'perception, emotions, or imagination') and error, which is not purely restricted to human observers - there is error from automated systems just as much as human operators and observers. But error isn't subjectivity unless there is a bias rather than an error.
If I want to measure 100 microlitres of a reagent as part of a scientific experiment I will want to use accurate measuring equipment - that might be operated by a human or entirely automated. Both will have error associated with them, but it only impacts on subjectivity if the operator biases the measurement in a particular manner.
-
But that isn't a relevant concept with regard to science, where objectivity is about eliminating personal bias in the conducting of scientific studies that may ultimately bias the results of that study:
'Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs. It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility.'
But in reality well constructed scientific studies meet the scientific objectivity test, but arguably also meet the philosophical definition - again I think you are confusing subjective bias (which emanates from 'perception, emotions, or imagination') and error, which is not purely restricted to human observers - there is error from automated systems just as much as human operators and observers. But error isn't subjectivity unless there is a bias rather than an error.
If I want to measure 100 microlitres of a reagent as part of a scientific experiment I will want to use accurate measuring equipment - that might be operated by a human or entirely automated. Both will have error associated with them, but it only impacts on subjectivity if the operator biases the measurement in a particular manner.
It's the relevant concept on this thread as it was a metaphysical discussion of what is reality that started this part of it.
-
Except it's not useful in a conversation about 'objective reality' which is when I first used the term.
But 'objective reality' and science go hand in hand as we typically define the former as that which is demonstrated by the latter.
-
But 'objective reality' and science go hand in hand as we typically define the former as that which is demonstrated by the latter.
No, because objective reality is a metaphysical concept.
-
No, because objective reality is a metaphysical concept.
And how do you test that reality, to actually be ... err ... reality. I think that would be via science.
But the broader point is that if you claim that science is not objective you need to use the appropriate use of objective within a scientific concept - in other words the accepted definition of objectivity in science.
-
And how do you test that reality, to actually be ... err ... reality. I think that would be via science.
But the broader point is that if you claim that science is not objective you need to use the appropriate use of objective within a scientific concept - in other words the accepted definition of objectivity in science.
Why would I need to use the meaning of a term in a metaphysical discussion that it's inappropriate for?
-
NS
I am just using their posts about reality. I am uninterested in the problems of 'some theists'. Don't you think that the idea that science is objective as PD and jp seem to think is hugely problematic?
Yes, in the sense that the theoretical and the certainly actual are at odds. At an ontological level science gives us a reality, but there’s no way to know whether that’s just what you get when science looks in the only places it’s capable of looking. At a practical level too science is done by subjective beings, and no matter how much it seeks to eliminate our biases there’s no way to know for sure that it actually does that – in other words it’s ideal in principle can be misapplied in practice.
PD
But that doesn't mean that science, in its theoretical state, isn't objective - merely that scientist are sometime not able to meet that goal.
I’m not so confident about that. Axiomatically science even in its theoretical state can only investigate that which its tools and methods are capable of investigating. How would we know definitively that there isn’t a reality that’s beyond the reach of science to investigate? The best we can say I think is something like, “science is a method that seeks to eliminate biases in its practice to provide understandings of reality that most align with the available evidence, validated by intersubjective experience”.
But the point about science and the scientific method is that it firstly recognises those issues and goes out of its way to mitigate against and eliminate any subjective interference in the objectivity of scientific data. So firstly, wherever possible the collection of data will be automated, removing human subjectivity.
Yes I know, but the key phrases there are “goes out of its way” and “wherever possible”. I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment, but “objective” then has to mean “subject to science’s ability to do these things” and not “absolute”.
Secondly reproducibility - the key element of scientific that data are only valid where they are reproducible in another setting and 'another scientists hand' - this is effectively about eliminating the individual subjectivity. If many scientists, working independently are able to reproduce the data then we move toward true objectivity.
Except all scientists are people, and people tend to have the same biases. This reminds me of a TV programme about Airbus when an employee proudly explained that the software for the fly-by-wire controls had two back ups, and that each version was written by a different team of programmers. That way, even if the first system failed either system two or even system three would kick in to save the day. They then cut to a software guru at MIT (I think) who said something like, “yes, but essentially all software degrees are the same and so programmers are basically trained in the same way. This means that, in the unlikely event that a deep fault lies in system one, chances are it’ll exist in the other systems too”. I agree that reproducibility goes a long way toward eliminating bias but that’s all it can do – go a long way toward it.
Thirdly, and linked to the second, an understanding of variability in data - and in the most appropriately designed studies, the ability to undercover the source of that variability, be it inherent in the data (and therefore objective) or an artefact of the experiment, whether due to human variability or inherent in the method.
And yet there are cases – admittedly rare, but cases nonetheless – in which wrong answers have been arrived at nonetheless. There’s a case for example in 1950s America where babies were found to have enlarged oesophagi so they zapped them with radiation to shrink them. Decades later thousands of the patients died needlessly of throat cancer – turns out the baby oesophagi weren’t enlarged at all. The data for the typical size went back to Victorian studies, when the bodies the anatomists used were regularly provided by grave robbers. Wealthy cemeteries were properly protected, but the poor were buried in mass graves that were easier to plunder. Poor people were often malnourished, one indicator of which is – an enlarged oesophagus! In short, the data the 1950s doctors relied on was corrupted, and led to a disastrous outcome despite following all the provisions you’ve set out, but necessarily only to the best of their ability.
So although you may argue that the collection of scientific data is not truly objective in practice,…
Not quite – it may by chance be “truly" objective, but cannot knowably be so.
… it is in theory and the method itself is designed to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible to drive it as near as possible to true objectivity. As such I think it is perfectly valid to describe science as objective. Not to do so simply lumps it with other approaches that never aim at objectivity nor classify subjectivity as a flaw.
I don’t think it does. “Objective” here implies an absolute but it’s more of a spectrum I think. I’m content to say that science produces results that are more objective than, say, the claims of religion but we can’t know what’s further along the same axis.
NS
And you are quite simply wrong. As bhs has already pointed out we are by definition subjective beings, and what science does is use our ability to communicate to get an agreed intersubjective position. But since we can never be sure that any of our own experiences are real including that anyone else exists then all of those experiences are questionable.
Objectivity is an absolute. Given we are subjective, we cannot achieve it.
In day to day discussion, it doesn't really matter. In that sense it is rather like the free will discussion. We go about pur lives acting as if there is such a thing as free will but at base it makes no sense. So with science we go about it as if it can achieve objectivity, but given our restrictions that makes no sense either.
That doesn't devalue the importance and value of science from our quotidian experience.
Fully agree.
PD,
You are confusing bias with error.
For scientific objectivity the method needs to eliminate bias (which is a manifestation of subjectivity if that bias is human) - it does not, and ultimately cannot eliminate error. The method will need to minimise and understand error, but if there error remains, but no bias then the method and the data meet the standards of objectivity.
A well designed double blinded clinical trial will be free from bias - it can be riddled with error which would mean it would be poor science, but provided there is no bias it remains objective - rubbish, but objective none the less.
“A well designed double blinded clinical trial will be free from bias…” how so when, for example, the selection of the data to look at in the first place is done by subjective beings? Would the oesophagus case I mentioned above have passed a double blind clinical trial given that the basic data on which each trial would have relied was equally corrupted?
PD,
But that isn't a relevant concept with regard to science, where objectivity is about eliminating personal bias in the conducting of scientific studies that may ultimately bias the results of that study:
'Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs. It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility.'
“Attempt”, yes – but that’s all it can be: an attempt. You cannot therefore say “will be free from bias” when what you actually mean is “will attempt to be free from bias”.
But in reality well constructed scientific studies meet the scientific objectivity test,…
Yes.
… but arguably also meet the philosophical definition…
How so?
- again I think you are confusing subjective bias (which emanates from 'perception, emotions, or imagination') and error, which is not purely restricted to human observers - there is error from automated systems just as much as human operators and observers. But error isn't subjectivity unless there is a bias rather than an error.
What if the “error” is for example in a diagnostic algorithm on which an automated system relies?
If I want to measure 100 microlitres of a reagent as part of a scientific experiment I will want to use accurate measuring equipment - that might be operated by a human or entirely automated. Both will have error associated with them, but it only impacts on subjectivity if the operator biases the measurement in a particular manner.
How do you now that one in a bajillion times the software running the measuring equipment won’t produce a rogue result?
-
How do you now that one in a bajillion times the software running the measuring equipment won’t produce a rogue result?
You don't.
But if the automated system does that this is an indication of unreliability, inaccuracy or error. None of those are indications of bias or subjectivity in that measurement.
And humans likewise are at times unreliable, inaccurate or error prone - again even if these erroneous results are produced by a human that isn't an indication of subjectivity or bias.
Science can be conducted in an entirely objective manner even if there are sources of error or inaccuracy in the measurement. Sure you want to iron out those errors as you will improve the reliability of the data, but not its objectivity.
-
“A well designed double blinded clinical trial will be free from bias…” how so when, for example, the selection of the data to look at in the first place is done by subjective beings? Would the oesophagus case I mentioned above have passed a double blind clinical trial given that the basic data on which each trial would have relied was equally corrupted?
No - you are misunderstanding the situation.
A double-blind clinical trial doesn't lose objectivity if it involves humans (subjective beings) - no, it loses objectivity if those humans subjectively apply subjective bias towards the obtaining of data. And that's why double blinding is important - it means that neither the patients nor the people involving in data acquisition know which arm of the clinical trial each research subject belongs to. This avoids a situation where either the patient reports better outcome because they know they are on the 'new treatment' or the scientist consciously or unconsciously slants the data in favour of one outcome. They cannot do that as they have no idea whether sample X38485.2 comes from a patient taking the new drug or taking the old drug.
They may be crap at their job and therefore make all sorts of errors in their measurement of sample but that isn't subjective bias - just a useless operator.
-
And yet there are cases – admittedly rare, but cases nonetheless – in which wrong answers have been arrived at nonetheless. There’s a case for example in 1950s America where babies were found to have enlarged oesophagi so they zapped them with radiation to shrink them. Decades later thousands of the patients died needlessly of throat cancer – turns out the baby oesophagi weren’t enlarged at all. The data for the typical size went back to Victorian studies, when the bodies the anatomists used were regularly provided by grave robbers. Wealthy cemeteries were properly protected, but the poor were buried in mass graves that were easier to plunder. Poor people were often malnourished, one indicator of which is – an enlarged oesophagus! In short, the data the 1950s doctors relied on was corrupted, and led to a disastrous outcome despite following all the provisions you’ve set out, but necessarily only to the best of their ability.
I don't know the details of this case - but will look it up, but a few comments on the basis of what was written.
Firstly it would appear that the radiation treatment wasn't scientific research at all but treatment, and the failure here is not really 'science' but ethical and on safety grounds. Effectively to allow experimental treatment on the basis of insufficient scientific research.
Secondly on the earlier victorian study (which does look to be research, albeit performed well before the embedding of clears professionalism and objective standardisation in research) - it may indeed be the case that incorrect conclusions were drawn from the data, but that doesn't mean that there was necessarily subjective bias in data collection (the scientific method itself). For there to have been subjective bias the data collectors would have needed (consciously or unconsciously) to have skewed their data to obtain a desired result. Again from what I can see - this is a case of poorly controlled science (not recognising that the subset of samples available for analysis were not representative of the overall population) rather than non objective science. It would be non objective if victorian scientists measured the oesophageal tissue of (for example) children of different races and had a racial bias - and in doing so measured the samples while knowing which race they came from and introduced biases in their data collection to support a view of differences between, say black and white children.
-
Hi Prof,
You don't.
But if the automated system does that this is an indication of unreliability, inaccuracy or error. None of those are indications of bias or subjectivity in that measurement.
No, but it could be an example of any of these things in the people who designed or made the measuring machine. That’s the point: the machine will only measure “objectively” – ie, accurately - insofar as it’s capable of doing that. You can use the machine while observing the most meticulous protocols to avoid bias etc, but still you cannot thereby guarantee that your answer will be objectively correct.
And humans likewise are at times unreliable, inaccurate or error prone - again even if these erroneous results are produced by a human that isn't an indication of subjectivity or bias.
…or incompetence etc but in any case, why isn’t it?
Science can be conducted in an entirely objective manner even if there are sources of error or inaccuracy in the measurement. Sure you want to iron out those errors as you will improve the reliability of the data, but not its objectivity.
I just don’t see how you get to “entirely objective”. I understand perfectly well that you can incorporate into its methods every conceivable protocol to avoid bias, mistake etc as best you can but still that can give you only a good enough rather than certainty. Another example: in Los Angeles county IQ tests were anonymised so the markers couldn’t draw conclusions from the identities of the candidates (ethnic names, impoverished locales etc). That is, the test was “entirely objective” as you put it, yet still it produced statistically significant variations according to ethnicity in particular. How comes? Were the black kids especially just less able? Nope – turned out that questions asked were culturally skewed: when asked “what have water and salt got in common?” for example the white kids had been taught that they were both chemical compounds (2 points) whereas the black kids’ educational experience meant they were more likely to come up with answers like “they’re both found in the ocean” (0 points). Both answers are correct, but only the first one aligned with the cultural expectations of the question setters and of one portion alone of the candidate group. That is the IQ tests were actually tests of acquired knowledge, not of reasoning ability.
The point here is that it’s still possible to have tests designed specifically to eliminate bias, but you can never be certain that you actually have eliminated bias for bigger picture reasons.
No - you are misunderstanding the situation.
A double-blind clinical trial doesn't lose objectivity if it involves humans (subjective beings) - no, it loses objectivity if those humans subjectively apply subjective bias towards the obtaining of data. And that's why double blinding is important - it means that neither the patients nor the people involving in data acquisition know which arm of the clinical trial each research subject belongs to. This avoids a situation where either the patient reports better outcome because they know they are on the 'new treatment' or the scientist consciously or unconsciously slants the data in favour of one outcome. They cannot do that as they have no idea whether sample X38485.2 comes from a patient taking the new drug or taking the old drug.
They may be crap at their job and therefore make all sorts of errors in their measurement of sample but that isn't subjective bias - just a useless operator.
Yes I know, but in the “oesophagus” case (it was actually the thymus gland – sorry, I’d misremembered) for example a double blind test would have given half the babies the radiation and half a placebo, then compared the results. And sure enough the result would have been that the radiation treatment alone had the desired effect because the thymuses (thymi?) shrank. The point though is that the test would have been asking entirely the wrong question – which should have been, “is the data we’re using for this test accurate and reliable in the first place”? It’s a double whammy too – armed with the results for the test the researchers would have had even more confidence: “look, we know radiation is the thing to do because we’ve done a double blind test that proves it works!” In other words the very test intended to achieve an objective plan of action would actually have compounded the certainty about completely the wrong plan of action.
I don't know the details of this case - but will look it up, but a few comments on the basis of what was written.
It’s described in a very good episode of Radiolab (part 3 – “How to Cure What Ails You” – 11.05):
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/91662-diagnosis
Firstly it would appear that the radiation treatment wasn't scientific research at all but treatment, and the failure here is not really 'science' but ethical and on safety grounds. Effectively to allow experimental treatment on the basis of insufficient scientific research.
Secondly on the earlier victorian study (which does look to be research, albeit performed well before the embedding of clears professionalism and objective standardisation in research) - it may indeed be the case that incorrect conclusions were drawn from the data, but that doesn't mean that there was necessarily subjective bias in data collection (the scientific method itself). For there to have been subjective bias the data collectors would have needed (consciously or unconsciously) to have skewed their data to obtain a desired result. Again from what I can see - this is a case of oppression science (not recognising that the subset of samples available for analysis were not representative of the overall population) rather than non objective science. It would be non objective if victorian scientists measured the oesophageal tissue of (for example) children of different races and had a racial bias - and in doing so measured the samples while knowing which race they came from and introduced biases in their data collection to support a view of differences between, say black and white children.
But the point here is that scientific procedures like double blind tests don’t exist in isolation. They happen in a context, and contextual factors influence them. Thus you might be reinforced in you convictions about irradiating infantile thymuses precisely because you’d conducted a double blind trial. And taken in isolation, sure enough the trial confirms that irradiating is the right way to go!
In short, I understand very well what science tries to do and how it does it, but science happens in a cultural, societal, educational etc context and you cannot just wrench it out of that and assume that it thereby gives you “real” objectivity. Sure it give you a lot more of it than anything else we know of, but you need to see the bigger picture too if your claims for its objectivity aren't to overreach.
-
I just don’t see how you get to “entirely objective”. I understand perfectly well that you can incorporate into its methods every conceivable protocol to avoid bias, mistake etc as best you can but still that can give you only a good enough rather than certainty. Another example: in Los Angeles county IQ tests were anonymised so the markers couldn’t draw conclusions from the identities of the candidates (ethnic names, impoverished locales etc). That is, the test was “entirely objective” as you put it, yet still it produced statistically significant variations according to ethnicity in particular. How comes? Were the black kids especially just less able? Nope – turned out that questions asked were culturally skewed: when asked “what have water and salt got in common?” for example the white kids had been taught that they were both chemical compounds (2 points) whereas the black kids’ educational experience meant they were more likely to come up with answers like “they’re both found in the ocean” (0 points). Both answers are correct, but only the first one aligned with the cultural expectations of the question setters and of one portion alone of the candidate group. That is the IQ tests were actually tests of acquired knowledge, not of reasoning ability.
Beyond the notion that these types of sociology-type studies necessary become highly qualitative and therefore subjective, I think you are missing the point.
What the science says here is very simply - that there is an association between the results in a particular test and ethnicity in the population sample tested. Nothing more, nothing less. And that can be completely objective - the interpretation of the science and its use are another matter. That may be subjective but that doesn't mean the science isn't objective.
And taken in isolation, sure enough the trial confirms that irradiating is the right way to go!
No it doesn't - in isolation all the science say is that irradiation results in a reduction in the size of the thymus - it tells us nothing about whether this is the right way to go. That is a clinical decision/judgment, which is subjective but the science (provided there is no subjective bias in conducting that study) will tell us, with objectivity, whether irradiation (at a particular level in the study) results in a change in the size of the thymus in the sample of people tested.
I think you are confusing the science itself (which is purely about answering a tightly defined scientific question) and the interpretation and application of those results, for example by clinicians, engineers - or in your first example perhaps racists!
-
Hi Prof,
Beyond the notion that these types of sociology-type studies necessary become highly qualitative and therefore subjective, I think you are missing the point.
What the science says here is very simply - that there is an association between the results in a particular test and ethnicity in the population sample tested. Nothing more, nothing less. And that can be completely objective - the interpretation of the science and its use are another matter. That may be subjective but that doesn't mean the science isn't objective.
With respect, I think you are. What the “science” (ie, anonymised testing) actually said in real life was that there was a clear correlation between ethnicity and outcomes. The tests were anonymised, so they satisfied your test of objectivity right?
The problem though was that these tests, while conducted correctly according to the rules to eliminate bias, actually contained significant bias because of the context in which they were constructed rather than the way they were marked – that is, the question setters shared cultural biases with one sector of the candidates, but not with the other. No matter how anonymised and bias free the marking, the tests themselves were a rigged game. Science happens within a context, and the context can affect its results: that’s the point.
No it doesn't - in isolation all the science say is that irradiation results in a reduction in the size of the thymus - it tells us nothing about whether this is the right way to go.
Yes it did! The tests results were informed by fallible, bias-prone people and the results were adopted by fallible, bias-prone people. And because the tests asked the wrong question, they drew the wrong conclusion from the results. It’s no good saying, “but within the confines of a perfect isolated test there was nothing wrong with the results”. I know that, but you’re a bit like the surgeon who said, “The operation went perfectly. The patient died, but the operation went perfectly…” ;)
That is a clinical decision/judgment, which is subjective but the science (provided there is no subjective bias in conducting that study) will tell us, with objectivity, whether irradiation (at a particular level in the study) results in a change in the size of the thymus in the sample of people tested.
Yep, but see above.
I think you are confusing the science itself (which is purely about answering a tightly defined scientific question) and the interpretation and application of those results, for example by clinicians, engineers - or in your first example perhaps racists!
I’m not confusing it at all – I’m saying that’s what actually happens! Yes if in some way you could conduct a science experiment in a hermetically sealed bubble in which you could absolutely guarantee the accuracy and completeness of its inputs, and you could absolutely guarantee the use and application of its results then perhaps you could argue no bias. How though could such a thing be?
-
Science happens within a context, and the context can affect its results: that’s the point.
No the context may inform the type of research that is conducted, but it doesn't affect the results, which are independent of context. For the context to affect the results you'd have to argue that were the test to be conducted identically today (exactly the same test, exact same cohort of subjects) that you'd get a different result. You wouldn't - you'd get the same result even though we are (hopefully) far more culturally sensitive to ethnic diversity than was the case back then. But the results would be the same.
Yes it did! The tests results were informed by fallible, bias-prone people and the results were adopted by fallible, bias-prone people. And because the tests asked the wrong question, they drew the wrong conclusion from the results. It’s no good saying, “but within the confines of a perfect isolated test there was nothing wrong with the results”. I know that, but you’re a bit like the surgeon who said, “The operation went perfectly. The patient died, but the operation went perfectly…” ;)
Sorry, once again you are confused - this time confusing research and treatment - a common mistake in clinical research where it is often called therapeutic misconception.
The purpose of research is to answer a question and in the case of clinical research that research is conducted on people. Clinical treatment is to provide the best clinical outcome for a patient - research cannot guarantee that as, by definition, you are answering a question the answer to which isn't currently known. Sure this is an extreme example, but in any given clinical trial there will be one arm of that trial who do not, again by definition, get the best treatment.
How we deal with this is via ethical review - that's what determines whether the trial is ethically acceptable - in other words whether the question is valid enough, the potential results important enough to allow the trail members to be subject to potential risk. Sure previous science informs that ethical debate, but the science in itself is purely and objectively answering the question. Whether we should ask that question and what we do with the results are different societal matters.
-
Prof,
No the context may inform the type of research that is conducted, but it doesn't affect the results, which are independent of context.
What if the context is that bad data informs the research – wouldn’t that context affect the quality of the result?
For the context to affect the results you'd have to argue that were the test to be conducted identically today (exactly the same test, exact same cohort of subjects) that you'd get a different result. You wouldn't - you'd get the same result even though we are (hopefully) far more culturally sensitive to ethnic diversity than was the case back then. But the results would be the same.
I wouldn’t have to do that at all. Conceptually at least the same data in would produce the same marks out yes, but the point is that the test scores didn’t map to objective reality at all even though the marking was perfectly conducted. That is, they eliminated bias in the marking but failed to eliminate it in the tests themselves. That’s the point – the marking wasn’t independent of the context in which it was conducted. How could it have been?
Sorry, once again you are confused - this time confusing research and treatment - a common mistake in clinical research where it is often called therapeutic misconception.
No I’m not. I’m explaining that however perfect, bias free etc the conduct of a test it cannot exist in isolation – it has to connect with the world in its inputs and in its outputs. And both those things are variables the test itself cannot control.
The purpose of research is to answer a question and in the case of clinical research that research is conducted on people. Clinical treatment is to provide the best clinical outcome for a patient - research cannot guarantee that as, by definition, you are answering a question the answer to which isn't currently known. Sure this is an extreme example, but in any given clinical trial there will be one arm of that trial who do not, again by definition, get the best treatment.
Yes I know! But the research itself cannot decide whether the question is the right one to ask, the data it examines is accurate or complete, the outcome will be used appropriately etc. In a universe in which all those things (and more) could be rendered perfect, then yes – with the proper protocols the science in the middle of it could be said to be an “objective” window into reality. That’s not the real world though - the real world is contextualised, and science sits within its context. Much as you may want it to be guaranteed to map to an objective reality, there are simply too many variables outwith its control to be certain that it does. That’s why truth is probabilistic – science produce results that hang together as provisional truths, but that’s as much as can be said about them.
How we deal with this is via ethical review - that's what determines whether the trial is ethically acceptable - in other words whether the question is valid enough, the potential results important enough to allow the trail members to be subject to potential risk. Sure previous science informs that ethical debate, but the science in itself is purely and objectively answering the question. Whether we should ask that question and what we do with the results are different societal matters.
They may be “different societal matters” but science cannot escape them nonetheless. You can have a many ethical committee hearings as you like but you know well that ethics change over time – and societally. Thus an ethics committee may have concluded answer A twenty years ago and answer B today – whence then the objective truth you claim about “whether the question is valid enough, the potential results important enough” etc?
-
Prof,
What if the context is that bad data informs the research – wouldn’t that context affect the quality of the result?
I wouldn’t have to do that at all. Conceptually at least the same data in would produce the same marks out yes, but the point is that the test scores didn’t map to objective reality at all even though the marking was perfectly conducted. That is, they eliminated bias in the marking but failed to eliminate it in the tests themselves. That’s the point – the marking wasn’t independent of the context in which it was conducted. How could it have been?
No I’m not. I’m explaining that however perfect, bias free etc the conduct of a test it cannot exist in isolation – it has to connect with the world in its inputs and in its outputs. And both those things are variables the test itself cannot control.
Yes I know! But the research itself cannot decide whether the question is the right one to ask, the data it examines is accurate or complete, the outcome will be used appropriately etc. In a universe in which all those things (and more) could be rendered perfect, then yes – with the proper protocols the science in the middle of it could be said to be an “objective” window into reality. That’s not the real world though - the real world is contextualised, and science sits within its context. Much as you may want it to be guaranteed to map to an objective reality, there are simply too many variables outwith its control to be certain that it does. That’s why truth is probabilistic – science produce results that hang together as provisional truths, but that’s as much as can be said about them.
They may be “different societal matters” but science cannot escape them nonetheless. You can have a many ethical committee hearings as you like but you know well that ethics change over time – and societally. Thus an ethics committee may have concluded answer A twenty years ago and answer B today – whence then the objective truth you claim about “whether the question is valid enough, the potential results important enough” etc?
None of which changes the situation that science and the scientific method - the design of studies that can test a hypothesis through the generation of data with those studies being repeatable and therefore independent of individual experimenter bias - is inherently objective.
Sure society can ban or allow certain scientific questions to be answered, but if they are being answered by science then that process must be objective. Societies may like or not like the answers, and may interpret the data to fit their prejudices, but again that doesn't alter that fact of objectivity in that data generation, provided the science is done properly.
-
Prof,
None of which changes the situation that science and the scientific method - the design of studies that can test a hypothesis through the generation of data with those studies being repeatable and therefore independent of individual experimenter bias - is inherently objective.
If by “inherently objective” you mean something like, “in its methods does its best to eliminate the subjective” then I agree with you. That’s a narrow description of “objective” though, and it’s that very narrowness that means you can’t assume that science necessarily maps to an objective reality. I agree that it’s the most verifiable method we’ve come up with for doing that, but I don’t see how you can go further than that.
Sure society can ban or allow certain scientific questions to be answered, but if they are being answered by science then that process must be objective. Societies may like or not like the answers, and may interpret the data to fit their prejudices, but again that doesn't alter that fact of objectivity in that data generation, provided the science is done properly.
But you referenced ethics committees as the arbiters of “whether the question is valid enough, the potential results important enough to allow the trail members to be subject to potential risk”. What is an ethics committee if not something fundamentally rooted in its societal time and place? Would a Taliban-era ethics committee arrive at the same answers to these questions as a liberal Dutch ethics committee for example?
I understand entirely that once you’ve decided what to investigate, what data should be used, whether or not it’s accurate or complete etc then the piece in the middle called the scientific method is designed to be as bias-free as possible. So what though?
Consider our surgeon. The ethics committee approved the operation, the anaesthetic worked like a dream (ha ha), every stitch was properly in place, all the instruments were removed and accounted for. It was objectively perfect. Yet the patient died. Maybe someone forgot to note that he was allergic to the anaesthetic, maybe his records were mixed up with someone else’s, maybe anything. The “sciency” bit was in other words absolutely, objectively spot on. But it was still the wrong thing to do because of…yup, contextual factors outside its relatively narrow remit. That’s the point: science can only “do” objective within its own confines, but its own confines are effectively meaningless because there’s no such thing as science in isolation from the world.
-
I have not been following this topic at all, but decided to take a look at the latest page now. As a result, I have had the pleasure of reading through a most interesting set of posts, for which I thank you.