Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What was/is the purpose of...

O.

Is that the standard question though. It seems to me that those asking that one are assuming a God or purpose. Just like naturalists assume Godfree.

The question why the universe is the way that it is is and should be neutral in this respect.

[Outrider]

Is that the standard question though. It seems to me that those asking that one are assuming a God or purpose. Just like naturalists assume Godfree.

The question why the universe is the way that it is is and should be neutral in this respect.

Ideally. Science, by its nature, is founded on a presumption of natural cause and effect, which precludes the assumption of single-incident spontaneous events (which, implicitly, excludes most formulations of 'god'). However, given the success that science has had, it's the best explanation we have, and until something else comes along which has any sort of reliability or verifiability, it's all we've got.

O.

[Shaker]

Is that the standard question though. It seems to me that those asking that one are assuming a God or purpose. Just like naturalists assume Godfree.

The question why the universe is the way that it is is and should be neutral in this respect.

Those two assumptions don't have epistemic parity though. One gets a short back and sides from Mr. Occam's cutthroat, the other doesn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Practical realities link science with history - science is the best tool we have for determining what probably occurred for most of history.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at - time is intrinsic to pretty much all science.

O.

I question why then leading scientists e.g. Lee Smolin once beloved of his advocate Dawkins has been campaigning about the restoration of questions of time into science because apparently there are problems with a universe that begins with time rather than in time.

In other words what you are describing as ''most of history'' may not be.

[Shaker]

I question why then leading scientists e.g. Lee Smolin once beloved of his advocate Dawkins has been campaigning about the restoration of questions of time into science because apparently there are problems with a universe that begins with time rather than in time.

In other words what you are describing as ''most of history'' may not be.

What about Julian Barbour?

[Outrider]

I question why then leading scientists e.g. Lee Smolin once beloved of his advocate Dawkins has been campaigning about the restoration of questions of time into science because apparently there are problems with a universe that begins with time rather than in time.

Whilst Smolin is undoubtedly, a more than competent scientist, his commentary on the possibility that 'everything' must exist within time is (in his own determination) more in the realm of the philosophy of science than science itself. Part of his argument is that time is so intrinsic to the scientific 'rules' that we've established that to try to remove time from the equations for somewhere outside of time doesn't leave us any ability to compute what might occur.

In other words what you are describing as ''most of history'' may not be.

It truly might not; balance of the available evidence at the moment, though, suggests that it probably is. The question then becomes, what the hell is/was/will be going on outside of past, present and future history? That's when you get into the metaphysical areas of block time vs A-series (or even C-series, given subjectivity and Einstein's revelations about simultaneity) and how they kick on to determinism and the like. Again, though, these are more in the area of philosophy than even the most hypothetical of cosmology at the moment.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Those two assumptions don't have epistemic parity though. One gets a short back and sides from Mr. Occam's cutthroat, the other doesn't.

I think even Mr Occam would have recognise that the only options for why the universe is the way it is are definitionally supernatural and miraculous too.

Vis.

The universe popped out of nothing-contradicting cause and effect
The universe is eternal - contradicting cause and effect but not explaining the dynamic nature of the universe.
The universe was created by an eternal creator- preserving sciences dependence on cause and effect but needing something above nature
The universe is eternal and self moving-Contradicting cause and effect and raising the need for something which does not have derived ability.

The universe just is- a halt sign for science.

[Outrider]

I think even Mr Occam would have recognise that the only options for why the universe is the way it is are definitionally supernatural and miraculous to.

Vis.

The universe popped out of nothing-contradicting cause and effect
The universe is eternal - contradicting cause and effect but not explaining the dynamic nature of the universe.
The universe was created by an eternal creator- preserving sciences dependence on cause and effect but needing something above nature
The universe is eternal and self moving-Contradicting cause and effect and raising the need for something which does not have derived ability.

The universe just is- a halt sign for science.

The universe is a result of activity in an extra-universal region with its own 'physics'.

BTW: 'The universe is eternal' does not contradict cause and effect, it just suggests that there's an infinite chain of causes and effects.

O.

[Shaker]

I think even Mr Occam would have recognise that the only options for why the universe is the way it is are definitionally supernatural and miraculous too.

Vis.

The universe popped out of nothing-contradicting cause and effect
The universe is eternal - contradicting cause and effect but not explaining the dynamic nature of the universe.
The universe was created by an eternal creator- preserving sciences dependence on cause and effect but needing something above nature
The universe is eternal and self moving-Contradicting cause and effect and raising the need for something which does not have derived ability.

The universe just is- a halt sign for science.

Scratch out each 'universe' above and replace with 'God' - how does it read now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whilst Smolin is undoubtedly, a more than competent scientist, his commentary on the possibility that 'everything' must exist within time is (in his own determination) more in the realm of the philosophy of science than science itself. Part of his argument is that time is so intrinsic to the scientific 'rules' that we've established that to try to remove time from the equations for somewhere outside of time doesn't leave us any ability to compute what might occur.

It truly might not; balance of the available evidence at the moment, though, suggests that it probably is. The question then becomes, what the hell is/was/will be going on outside of past, present and future history? That's when you get into the metaphysical areas of block time vs A-series (or even C-series, given subjectivity and Einstein's revelations about simultaneity) and how they kick on to determinism and the like. Again, though, these are more in the area of philosophy than even the most hypothetical of cosmology at the moment.

O.

History though presents a problem for science though in the realm of repeatability. There can for instance only be one moment in which anything could have popped out of absolute nothing.On the other hand there is no such problem in an infinitely large universe for most of history except the one moment it came into existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Scratch out each 'universe' above and replace with 'God' - how does it read now?

It makes God look pretty much as supernatural as the universe has to be.

Sorry to piss on your bonfire.

[Shaker]

It makes God look pretty much as supernatural as the universe has to be.

Sorry to piss on your bonfire.

Er, no. My bonfire is still fully alight and un-pissed-on. There's a glaring error there - let's see if you can spot it.

[Outrider]

History though presents a problem for science though in the realm of repeatability.

On the contrary, without a demonstrable history of consistent behaviour, there is no basis for the presumption of repeatability. It's specifically because we have a history of consistent behaviour that science can start to make qualified assumptions about patterns of behaviour.

There can for instance only be one moment in which anything could have popped out of absolute nothing.

Assuming that this is what happened, then ... well, no. We see fundamental particles 'spontaneously' emerging in matching pairs and then breaking down again in a number of situations. Of course, whilst to our timeframe they are emerging from nothing, without any conceptualisation of what extra-temporal physics might involve, we've no idea what they might actually be emerging from.

On the other hand there is no such problem in an infinitely large universe for most of history except the one moment it came into existence.

Presuming that it did come into existence, and didn't simply change state from something without time to something with it - it's the extent of our understanding that is currently limited by the big bang, not necessarily the extent of 'the universe', and perhaps not the extent of a possible greater reality 'beyond' the universe.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Er, no. My bonfire is still fully alight and un-pissed-on. There's a glaring error there - let's see if you can spot it.

My first reaction to that is that you can't provide one and want me to take the Rap for that.

If you are talking about Occam. A God/universe set up satisfies cause and effect problems. I think even Occam could see that.
God also satisfies the need for actual ability in the universe. So God fulfils Occams rule concerning entities.

I think it was Hillside who proposed the idea of God finding energy and making it work. God satisfies that since energy is work.

So where does a universe which is eternal and self perturbing stand?........I would say as a magical, unnessesary entity.

Of course we don't know .....which is why Occam might not be at all a tool you could legitimately use.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the contrary, without a demonstrable history of consistent behaviour, there is no basis for the presumption of repeatability. It's specifically because we have a history of consistent behaviour that science can start to make qualified assumptions about patterns of behaviour.

Assuming that this is what happened, then ... well, no. We see fundamental particles 'spontaneously' emerging in matching pairs and then breaking down again in a number of situations. Of course, whilst to our timeframe they are emerging from nothing, without any conceptualisation of what extra-temporal physics might involve, we've no idea what they might actually be emerging from.

Presuming that it did come into existence, and didn't simply change state from something without time to something with it - it's the extent of our understanding that is currently limited by the big bang, not necessarily the extent of 'the universe', and perhaps not the extent of a possible greater reality 'beyond' the universe.

O.

I'm not saying there is not repeatability in the universe. What I am saying is that it is a problem on a macroscopic scale. My breakfast may never Occur again since I might walk under a bus, when man is extinct no one will have breakfast ever again and so forth.

We can never go back to the thrirties, fifties or wherever. Yesterday cannot be completely recreated.

For much of history Christianity has considered an eternal universe a possibility and has investigated philosophic al options to accommodate.

Todays prevailing belief system scientism finds some concepts extremely hard to deal with and comes up with bizarre philosophical formulations like ''we don't know, but we know it isn't God'.

[Outrider]

I'm not saying there is not repeatability in the universe. What I am saying is that it is a problem on a macroscopic scale. My breakfast may never Occur again since I might walk under a bus, when man is extinct no one will have breakfast ever again and so forth.

We can never go back to the thrirties, fifties or wherever. Yesterday cannot be completely recreated.

True, but we do have evidence of what happened then, and by comparing various pieces of evidence we can build up a model of how reliable and accurate each one is, and give a degree of justifiability to any individual claim.

Todays prevailing belief system scientism finds some concepts extremely hard to deal with and comes up with bizarre philosophical formulations like ''we don't know, but we know it isn't God'.

I'll accept that 'scientism-light' is probably a fairly broadly accepted view in the world: I don't think 'the majority' of the world think that the scientific method is the only acceptable method, or that it's applicable to every facet of existence, but I do think that the majority of the world probably see it is as the most reliable method worldview for judging reality.

As such, I'd say that 'we don't know, but we know it isn't God', isn't the scientific standpoint. The scientific standpoint is 'we don't know'. Alongside that is the scientific standpoint 'if you think it's God, demonstrate why', with the proviso that science operates on a presumption of naturalism and cause and effect, so attempts to devolve to uncaused causes and the like take you outside of the realm of science and into philosophy.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

True, but we do have evidence of what happened then, and by comparing various pieces of evidence we can build up a model of how reliable and accurate each one is, and give a degree of justifiability to any individual claim.

I'll accept that 'scientism-light' is probably a fairly broadly accepted view in the world: I don't think 'the majority' of the world think that the scientific method is the only acceptable method, or that it's applicable to every facet of existence, but I do think that the majority of the world probably see it is as the most reliable method worldview for judging reality.

As such, I'd say that 'we don't know, but we know it isn't God', isn't the scientific standpoint. The scientific standpoint is 'we don't know'. Alongside that is the scientific standpoint 'if you think it's God, demonstrate why', with the proviso that science operates on a presumption of naturalism and cause and effect, so attempts to devolve to uncaused causes and the like take you outside of the realm of science and into philosophy.

O.

But science doesn't do God......... amongst other things. The presumption when asking the question why God is therefore that God is caused and effected which is not the God of the philosophers or Christians.......But there is conceivably a theology to be had for a God like that ....although that wouldn't actually be the God of the etc......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The universe is a result of activity in an extra-universal region with its own 'physics'.

BTW: 'The universe is eternal' does not contradict cause and effect, it just suggests that there's an infinite chain of causes and effects.

O.

It doesn't get around the question why an eternal chain of cause and effect and not nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The universe is a result of activity in an extra-universal region with its own 'physics'.

That's interesting. Where did that region come from? and what is the connection between that region and this universe? Why did the rules of physics change in that region to make new rules possible?........sounds like another miracle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's interesting. Where did that region come from? and what is the connection between that region and this universe? Why did the rules of physics change in that region to make new rules possible?........sounds like another miracle.

S'funny how the argument from personal incredulity recurs so often here. After being corrected on it so many times, you'd think even its most ardent fan would have given it up by now as a bad job.

Yet again:

1. Just because you don't know how science answers certain questions doesn't mean that it doesn't answer certain questions.

2. Even when science doesn't have the answers, that does not create a gap to pop in any superstitious belief that happens to appeal but that offers nothing to test to validate it. "Don't know" just means don't know - nothing more.

3. Just because science may not have the answers just now says nothing to whether it may have them in the future. Thunder seemed miraculous to those who thought Thor was the answer too before the better explanation arrived.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

S'funny how the argument from personal incredulity recurs so often here. After being corrected on it so many times, you'd think even its most ardent fan would have given it up by now as a bad job.

Yet again:

1. Just because you don't know how science answers certain questions doesn't mean that it doesn't answer certain questions.

2. Even when science doesn't have the answers, that does not create a gap to pop in any superstitious belief that happens to appeal but that offers nothing to test to validate it. "Don't know" just means don't know - nothing more.

3. Just because science may not have the answers just now says nothing to whether it may have them in the future. Thunder seemed miraculous to those who thought Thor was the answer too before the better explanation arrived.

No....I am genuinely interested in Shakers proposal and there was no evidence for your accusation that I personally don't believe it.

It has merit and when a) you stop wasting time with red herring non secateurs and b)Shaker deigns to elaborate I will enjoy discussing and who knows help build his proposal.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

S'funny how the argument from personal incredulity recurs so often here. After being corrected on it so many times, you'd think even its most ardent fan would have given it up by now as a bad job.

Yet again:

1. Just because you don't know how science answers certain questions doesn't mean that it doesn't answer certain questions.

2. Even when science doesn't have the answers, that does not create a gap to pop in any superstitious belief that happens to appeal but that offers nothing to test to validate it. "Don't know" just means don't know - nothing more.

3. Just because science may not have the answers just now says nothing to whether it may have them in the future. Thunder seemed miraculous to those who thought Thor was the answer too before the better explanation arrived.

3. Er no, Platonism's the one or the Hebrews God probably had the edge.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No....I am genuinely interested in Shakers proposal and there was no evidence for your accusation that I personally don't believe it.

It has merit and when a) you stop wasting time with red herring non secateurs and b)Shaker deigns to elaborate I will enjoy discussing and who knows help build his proposal.

Perhaps if you looked up what "argument from personal incredulity" means you'd see where you keep going wrong?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Perhaps if you looked up what "argument from personal incredulity" means you'd see where you keep going wrong?

What is it i'm supposed to be 'personal increduling'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hillside what possible suggestion do you have that I cannot believe or have believed in?

New Atheists are as definitionally excluded from permission to accuse people of argument from incredulity as people who live in glasshouses are from throwing stones.