"I don't believe in God" versus "I beleive God doesn't exist" [Archive]

nd_n8

04-05-2008, 07:10 AM

"I don't believe in God" versus "I beleive God doesn't exist"

To my mind those two statements have slightly different fundemental meanings.

The former implies that this is your chosen way of thinking.

The latter implies that you think this is the way things are

I am the latter type of atheist. My assesment of my life experience so far leads me to think that [I]the God which everyone else is believing in doesn't exist.

It's like the difference between saying "I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but you are welcome to" and saying "I think the tooth fairy doesn't exist, so if you believe in it/her/him then I think you are suffering from delusuion"
Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Alan Watts. When asked, "Do you believe in God?" he replied, "If you do, I don't. If you don't, I do."

What does it mean? Well, since "God" is a handy Anglo-Saxon monosyllable generally used as a shorthand for your understanding of the universe from the point of view of your corporeal self, it's impossible to believe in anyone else's god. Those that claim to do so are either delusional or just going along with their particular crowd.

That's why I think that the really bright people (Joseph Campbell, Meister Eckhart...) favor spirituality over religion. Religion is based upon someone else defining God and your relationship thereto and you following along in the hymnal. Not possible. May as well admit it. If you're going to have a relationship with the universe, you'll have to define it yourself. Good luck.Bolding mine.

I think these two make pretty good points. As a "thumper" I would have to say that these two statements mean two different things to me. Both statements imply personal choice due to the qualifier "Believe". A person can either choose to believe something or not. Even when the facts are 99.999% proven and universally accepted one still has the choice of either believing them or not. That doesn't necessaraly make them delusional, it may or may not be a poor choice based or not based on poor information but the person making the assesment may be totally sane either way.

Personally, based on the conditions outlined in the two bolded statements above, I fall along the lines of the first one but not the second. Do I think current dogma and apologetics are correct? Absolutely not. God, in so much as man understands Him, is a man made concept and can never be more than that. Just as we are bound by our physical limitations to be unable to run as fast as a train or lift a building; we are bound by our mental and "spiritual" limitations to be unable to conceive anything beyond that which fits into our reality, no matter how abstract that reality is. As apologetic as it sounds, the very nature of God is beyond the nature of man and therefor unapproachable. So no, I don't believe in the God they speak about in church just as I don't believe the Allah spoken about in mosques or the YHWH specifically not spoken about in temple. Yes, I fall in line with the first one.

As to the second one, I have to disagree with it's concept. Because of the real physical, mental, spiritual and social limitations that we have as human beings there are many things that are quite simply unknowable or incomprehensable to us. Apologetics I know but when we are speaking of God and man we are speaking of apples and oranges. The various scriptures, mythologies, wood carvings, whatever may or may not be true but to know for sure whether they are true or false is simply not possible in our current state. Either this is it, when you die you stop like a dead battery or this isn't it and when you die you move on to a different form, possibly in a reality governed by an omnipotent being, with a long white beard if you insist. We can speculate all we want, and build great empires, create and distroy civilizations, serve some funny almond scented kool-aid if you wish. Until we reach the end of the jouney we have no way of knowing for sure. It is precisely the acceptance of this Great Mystery, the acceptance of The Unknowable and the acceptance that there are just a few too many coincidences in the universe for my liking to make it all accidental, is exactly why I believe God exists. So no, I don't agree with the second statement.

Your mileage may vary though.

-N8

JustThinkin'

04-05-2008, 08:48 AM

This is a situation in which the language used can affect how the statement is perceived, even if only sub-consciously.

Both statements, "I don't believe in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist," seem to say, "there's a god but I don't believe in him."

I'm very careful to say, "I don't believe that any gods exist."

Liberal

04-05-2008, 12:20 PM

Cisco

04-05-2008, 01:08 PM

Define God.

God the Father - I actively believe he does not exist. I believe most people who claim to believe in him are caught up in an emperor's new clothes effect.

God the Creator - More likely, perhaps "necessary" for a loose enough definition of God (i.e. "first cause"), but I still don't necessary believe, and don't think "it" needs or wants to be worshipped.

BrainGlutton

04-05-2008, 02:11 PM

"I don't believe in God" versus "I beleive God doesn't exist"

The latter view, as held by most atheists, could better be expressed as, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

Lobsang

04-05-2008, 02:20 PM

The latter view, as held by most atheists, could better be expressed as, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

To me that's a step backwards. Like saying "I have no need for God".

I prefer to say "That hypothesis is false [whether I need it or not]"

Voyager

04-05-2008, 02:26 PM

To me that's a step backwards. Like saying "I have no need for God".

I prefer to say "That hypothesis is false [whether I need it or not]"
But you're really saying (assuming the hypothesis is about any god) that you believe the hypothesis is false, since it is not falsifiable.

Lobsang

04-05-2008, 02:32 PM

But you're really saying (assuming the hypothesis is about any god) that you believe the hypothesis is false, since it is not falsifiable.

:confused:

What I'm saying is the hypothesis that God exists is false.

Also that the existence of God is falsifiable.

I have a problem with the view that "Until evidence for his existence is presented to me I do not believe in God" because you might as well say "Until evidence for the existence of Superman is presented to me I do not believe in Superman"

But I would MUCH rather say "I strongly believe that Superman doesn't exist because the idea of superman is just too far-fetched to possibly be true"

Which is different, a BRAVER point of view to hold.

Snag

04-05-2008, 02:47 PM

Define God.

That's where I start from: a position of Ignosticism. That is: Define god in a way that satisfies all believers, be they monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, whatever their culture, background, etc. in a way that all can generally agree on.

It's hard to ask someone to believe or disbelieve in something if you can't come up with a general conceded agreement of what it is, assuming we're asking about a concept that is abstract such as love as opposed to something concrete like a basketball. At least we can show specific examples, empirical evidence if you will, of acts of love. But where does one start doing so with god(s)? Other than probably being the creator(s) of everything there is and (usually) supposed interaction with humans, is little common ground beyond that .

I'm not sure that one can even get past the first example to the next question which is: Why is / are the deity(s) of any one religious belief more likely to exist that another? In other words, prove that Christianity is more valid than Hinduism or that Shintoism is more valid than Deism.

pingnak

04-05-2008, 08:06 PM

Consensus doesn't make an opinion correct.

As I've said in another topic, I'm an apathetic agnostic, so I'll keep this concise, if possible, unless I start ranting and am too lazy to edit.

I can't believe in any particular god, because there are so many to choose from, and I've got a good enough imagination to invent more. If not, I'll just define variables for these unanswerable questions and iterate them. It doesn't really take that many unfalsifiable variables about beliefs before you have possible gods hiding behind every atom in the observable universe, and since they're all unfalsifiable, there's an infinite supply of possible things to damn you or save you or get you dipped in cosmic marmalade and fed to interdimensional fruitbats in order to keep gravity working.

Even if you limit questions to yes/no, you have a billion possible gods to worry about after 30 questions. People go to college for years studying this stuff, so unless the courses are downright non-challenging, there are more than 30 things that any particular god may or may not have instructed or mandated or will punish you for doing, ignoring the fact that there have been LOTS of gods in the past who were believed in just as fervently as the current batches.

Voyager

04-05-2008, 11:14 PM

:confused:

What I'm saying is the hypothesis that God exists is false.

Also that the existence of God is falsifiable.

Which God? The existence of the god who created the universe 6,000 years ago is indeed falsifiable. The existence of the deistic god isn't. Some of the more clever modern religions have defined their God to be unfalsifiable - like theistic evolution.

I have a problem with the view that "Until evidence for his existence is presented to me I do not believe in God" because you might as well say "Until evidence for the existence of Superman is presented to me I do not believe in Superman"

But I would MUCH rather say "I strongly believe that Superman doesn't exist because the idea of superman is just too far-fetched to possibly be true"

Which is different, a BRAVER point of view to hold.
Strong belief is different from an absolute statement about something. Superman isn't a good example, because there is only one of him - well, before the Crisis, that is, and we know where he comes from. God is an ill-defined term.

The null hypothesis is no god, there is no reason to believe in any god until someone brings a bundle of good evidence, and it is perfectly reasonable to strongly believe no gods exist. I believe that also. But belief is different from proof and knowledge.

Plus, it keeps the theists from saying "prove it."

vison

04-05-2008, 11:55 PM

It's the word "belief" that irks me.

I think there is no god. Or: I don't think there is a god.

I see no reason to think there is a god and my reason stops me from thinking there is one - without reason.

I'm pretty certain there is no god. (But as I said on another thread in this forum, I admit it is possible that I am wrong.)

Sam Stone

04-06-2008, 03:34 PM

I don't see the current conceptions of God being any different than the Viking's belief in Valhalla and Odin and Thor, or the Roman's belief in their various Gods, or the Egyptian belief in their various Gods. All were constructs of pre-technological societies, in an attempt to understand the universe they lived it and to be able to emotionally deal with the concept of dying.

Now we know better. We have the scientific method, and the tools with which to peer out into our universe and understand it. We have logic and science and reason to guide our thinking.

I don't 'believe' in God because I have no reason to believe in God. There is no evidence at hand that requires God to explain. There are no anomalies we have found in our search of the universe that can only be explained through divine intervention. There are no testable theories that require a God to exist.

Futhermore, with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, we have plenty of evidence that contradicts the suppsedly infallible word of God as written in the Bible.

Therefore, I simply don't consider God a factor, just as I don't waste my time wondering about whether my current cold is caused by tiny dwarves living in my stomach, or whether there's a face on Mars that signifies an advanced civilization. It's all created out of whole cloth by the mind of man. Life's too short, and REAL mysteries too numerous, to waste time believing in human fictions that have no evidence to support them.

Measure for Measure

04-06-2008, 03:36 PM

:confused: What I'm saying is the hypothesis that God exists is false.

Also that the existence of God is falsifiable.

... But I would MUCH rather say "I strongly believe that Superman doesn't exist because the idea of superman is just too far-fetched to possibly be true"

Which is different, a BRAVER point of view to hold. Is this a good time for a SDMB agnostic/atheist smackdown? Of course! [1]

Belief, courage and dread
I don't have an opinion on whether Mugabe of Zimbabwe will remain in power in 2011. It's not that I think such a question is unknowable at the moment. It's just that I personally don't have sufficient information to move to a conclusion.

So I suspend judgment, which is something rather different than B~P, where P is "proposition", B is "Believe" and ~ is "not".

However, if I did conduct a careful investigation my conclusion would be probabilistic: I'd lay odds of Mugabe remaining in power based upon his age, his health and the record of tyrants who seek to overturn (or "redo") lost elections.

Which is to say that while belief may be binary on an emotive level, it is more of a continuum within a decision-theory context.

Ok, what about G-d?

Subjectively (for some reason) I don't want to get this question wrong: I don't want to make a decision with a insufficiently strong basis, so I reject BP and B~P, pending a better understanding of the issue.

Metaphysical concepts I don't understand

The precise extent of G-d's power and benevolence is a matter of some controversy. But it seems to me that most notions endow Him with a consciousness.

I have very little sense of how consciousness is created: if there were a better model of it, then I might know whether it is necessarily tied to grey matter or whether it could arise from other material or nonmaterial stuff.

Conceivably, we could have a workable model of consciousness within the next 50 years.

I've come across a 2nd puzzle. Apparently most (not all) mathematicians believe that math is not created by humanity, but rather exists independently of it. Fractals, in particular the the Mandelbrot set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set), are a good example of this. Somebody certainly discovered it (though apparently is wasn't Mandelbrot). But its intricacy is basically without bound: sure, some individual worked out the formula, but the actual image of it (or rather the conceptual graph) follows from the math.

But if math is discovered, and math is not made of matter, what the heck is it? Basically, I would require a taxonomy of what we mean by "Existence". What sorts of nonmaterial things exist, and how do we assess their evidence?

This problem may be solvable as well. Indeed, there already may be a workable treatment of the issue.

But pending better information, I suspend judgment on the G-d question.

---------------
[1] It's odd how seldom this occurs.

Vorpal Blade

04-07-2008, 03:07 PM

... there could be a God, yet he is completely absent, in every form, in our universe. ....

This is one way to define non-existence.

awk.pine

04-08-2008, 10:25 PM

I think the original poster is asking about the differences between the following two phrases: "I do not believe that borogoves exist" and "I believe that borogoves do not exist." Put that way, the analysis is straightforward. The difference between the two is what is negated: belief in the first and existence in the second. With the first, with no belief, a paraphrase might be that "I do not have an opinion as to whether borogoves exist or not." But with the second, with no existence, a paraphrase might be that "I know what you mean when you talk about borogoves, but I believe that such things do not occur in reality." Consequently, if you want to convince a person that borogoves exist, you would respond to the first by teaching them about borogoves--followed, perhaps, by evidence--but to the second by immediately presenting evidence to counter an existing belief.

There's also "believe in" as a phrasal verb, which could mean an assertion of truth ("I believe in gravity"), an opinion of propriety ("I believe in chastity"), or an expression of confidence in the subject ("I (do not) believe in the President"). But I think the original poster meant to use it in the first sense, which is why I paraphrased above as I did.

In any of these interpretations, the statements are functionally equivalent if there is a belief that borogoves do not exist. When this belief is shared among all participants in the conversation, the differences between these statements may be ignored. And, of course, people don't expect their language to be critiqued like this in common use, and so there too the differences may be ignored. But the statements may convey different things if the person making or receiving the statement does not have the belief that borogoves do not exist. Context makes all the difference.

I think the context of a statement is particularly important when talking about God. "God," to me, is shorthand for a set of social realities, even when believing in God is understood to mean believing in a physical entity. (And I am one who believes in God in the physical sense.) God, then, is a context; believing God exists means believing that the world is incomprehensible yet navigable if we follow these guidelines handed down by tradition, while believing God does not exist means believing that the world is navigable if we follow whatever guidelines we can reason out from what we know.* The conclusion is that if you're having a good discussion with someone but find a dead-end at a religious belief--one of you saying "I believe God requires this answer" and the other saying "I believe God does not exist"--that dead-end can be avoided by examining what implications both answers have in the context of their respective societies. Examine what you (and they) mean, not just what you (and they) say; the same words have different meanings in different contexts, and "God" is an easy context to misunderstand.

The context when talking about God is particularly important to me because I use God-as-context, and often do not use the word "God," when talking with atheists or to agnostics in regards to a subject other than theology, but I use God-as-physical-entity when talking with other people who share my basic beliefs.

In brief: "I don't believe in God" leads me to wonder "do you care whether God exists?" while "I believe God doesn't exist" leads to me think "you've thought about this and made up your mind," yet the two statements may be synonymous when heard by someone else.

*My argument against that latter, atheistic approach is that "reason out from what we know" is inescapably bound to irrational tradition anyway, and so is inherently irrational and unreasonable. Preemptively, I do acknowledge that this argument doesn't lead to the constructive conclusion of God's existence, that this argument doesn't found my belief in God (in all three phrasal verb senses), that I don't expect it to change anyone's mind on the subject, and also that reason is required even when following tradition.

awk.pine

04-08-2008, 10:36 PM

Minor correction: in the third paragraph, when the second belief (borogoves do not exist) is shared among all participants, the differences between these statements may be ignored because the belief that borogoves do not exist necessarily implies no belief that borogoves do exist.

magellan01

04-09-2008, 02:15 AM

I don't see the current conceptions of God being any different than the Viking's belief in Valhalla and Odin and Thor, or the Roman's belief in their various Gods, or the Egyptian belief in their various Gods. All were constructs of pre-technological societies, in an attempt to understand the universe they lived it and to be able to emotionally deal with the concept of dying.

It does not work to do away with the concept of a god by deny, disproving even, specific religious expressions of the God. Every religion to ever grace the face of the earth could be 100% wrong, yet there still could very well be a creator God.

Now we know better. We have the scientific method, and the tools with which to peer out into our universe and understand it. We have logic and science and reason to guide our thinking.

Finally! Now can you tell me the scientific facts as to how life was created, where the first particles came from (or the energy that formed them) and what happens to us when we die.

I don't 'believe' in God because I have no reason to believe in God. There is no evidence at hand that requires God to explain.

Except that fact that we are here. And according to the laws of physics, if you have an event, it must have a cause. So the first cause was...?

I'd just like to add, that I think most defensible position is completely fine as long as it leaves room for: "but I may be wrong". And that goes for thumpers and atheists alike.

MrDibble

04-09-2008, 07:20 AM

And according to the laws of physics, if you have an event, it must have a cause.
You, of course, have a cite for the law of physics that says that?

Czarcasm

04-09-2008, 08:32 AM

I am very uncomfortable with the thinking that God exists, if you use a loose enough definition of God. Using this "logic", you can state that anything exists, if you just loosen the definition enough.
Santa Claus exists, if we define the spirit that some feel during that season as a collective "Santa Claus"
Superman exists, if we define Superman as the strongest person in the world.
The Easter Bunny exists, if we define the Easter Bunny as the person who fills the basket and hides the eggs.
God exists, if we define God as whatever caused our current universe to spring into exstence.

I see this approach as nothing more than a desparate refusal to let go of mythology by redefining said mythology until it fits the real world.

Voyager

04-09-2008, 07:48 PM

It does not work to do away with the concept of a god by deny, disproving even, specific religious expressions of the God. Every religion to ever grace the face of the earth could be 100% wrong, yet there still could very well be a creator God.

Sure. But why believe in him? There could be six foot purple bunny rabbits on some other planet (more likely than God) but I wouldn't want to believe in any.

Finally! Now can you tell me the scientific facts as to how life was created, where the first particles came from (or the energy that formed them) and what happens to us when we die.

Where did Sam say we had all the answers?

Czarcasm

04-09-2008, 08:02 PM

Measure for Measure

04-09-2008, 11:15 PM

I am very uncomfortable with the thinking that God exists, if you use a loose enough definition of God. ...

I see this approach as nothing more than a desperate refusal to let go of mythology by redefining said mythology until it fits the real world. I'm not uncomfortable with that.

It's generally understood in certain churches that the Bible is not literally true: the founding fathers biblical authors are thought to be inspired though they necessarily interpret said inspiration within the context of their times. (Similarly the Catholic church notes that any part of the Bible can be interpreted in 3? 5? (http://www.bsw.org/journal/bsw3/bsw00-1m.html) ways, only one of which is literal.)

Even some fundamentalists (that I've spoken with) concede that Biblical times were different in important ways: apparently less developed societies are thought to require flashy miracles to a greater extent.

So a fair amount of wiggle room is built into received wisdom. I don't know, yet. But I am going to try to find out. ...and speaking for myself, I'll form hypotheses where I have a workable intellectual framework, and suspend judgment in other cases. 1

1...and reserve the right to recast this particular criteria if it doesn't bear scrutiny.

groo

04-11-2008, 02:07 AM

I was raised with no exposure to religion whatsoever. I don't believe in god because the notion doesn't make any sense. Why would a belief in god occur to anyone? I'm not trying to sound contemptuous or anything, but it really doesn't seem to merit much consideration. I don't dwell on the non-existence of a god pretty much the same way I don't dwell on the non-existence of vampires.

I do think I'm at least a little spiritual, and think a lot about how society has evolved, how we deal with our own mortality and the curses of self-awareness, but I rarely connect these issues to the existence or non-existence of a god.

OTOH, I have a friend who is a very angry athiest, and he is so virulent in his opinions that it seems obvious to me that not only does he believe in god, but he's really angry with him.

Voyager

04-11-2008, 09:30 AM

Even some fundamentalists (that I've spoken with) concede that Biblical times were different in important ways: apparently less developed societies are thought to require flashy miracles to a greater extent.

That's an odd position. In an ancient culture, miracles were all around - the sun coming up, a rainbow, flowers growing, even birth. Today we don't need a divine explanation for those miracles, so an inexplicable miracle would be very handy for us unbelievers. (Notice they've ceded the evidence destroys faith position.) Do they think scientific progress has somehow strengthened the position of theists?

Measure for Measure

04-14-2008, 02:48 AM

Voyager: I think I framed the declining incidence of miracles as a puzzle rather than a challenge: recall that I'm an agnostic. Yes, I would say that it's an odd position: my take is that flashy Hollywood-style miracles emerged in the manner of modern urban legends. I was raised with no exposure to religion whatsoever. I don't believe in god because the notion doesn't make any sense. Another meme was that since the concept of God occurred across lots of civilizations, it must reflect some kind of underlying reality.

Well, that's not especially learned and papers over the divisions between polytheism, monotheism and Buddhism. Moreover, many of those who were raised as atheists (like groo) disprove the hypothesis that theism arises spontaneously.

begbert2

04-14-2008, 03:53 PM

OTOH, I have a friend who is a very angry athiest, and he is so virulent in his opinions that it seems obvious to me that not only does he believe in god, but he's really angry with him.So it's not possible that he could just be pissed off at theists? Or the harm he might percieve to be a side effect of theistic beliefs and practices?

Voyager

04-14-2008, 06:14 PM

Voyager: I think I framed the declining incidence of miracles as a puzzle rather than a challenge: recall that I'm an agnostic. Yes, I would say that it's an odd position: my take is that flashy Hollywood-style miracles emerged in the manner of modern urban legends. Another meme was that since the concept of God occurred across lots of civilizations, it must reflect some kind of underlying reality.

I understand it is their position, not yours. I'm not sure about the urban legends, which are not spread because they benefit anyone. I rather think that those depending on belief would tend to expand the scope of the miracles of the past to be more convincing, in the same way that ancient kings would magnify the number of enemies they personally killed. It was something I wasn't aware fundamentalists say - I have heard your second meme repeated many times.

Measure for Measure

04-14-2008, 11:28 PM

Well... this was one guy I spoke with. He grew up in a fundamentalist sect (http://www.ptm.org/); his Mom was religious, but he and his Dad were mere churchgoers. He had moved to NYC when I spoke to him and wasn't currently enrolled in a church to my knowledge.

If there's a point here, it's that it's understood that lots of miracles reportedly occurred a long time ago, but that today things are ...different. I think he was rattling off an observation from the top of his head.

On the emergence of New Testament scripture, I trust that Diogenes The Cynic could provide more detail and accuracy than my brief take. And yes, self interest (and self-promotion) probably played a role.

magellan01

04-15-2008, 01:40 AM

Repeat after me: "I don't know, yet. But I am going to try to find out."
Again: "I don't know yet. But I am going to try to find out."
Once more: "I don't know yet. But I am going to try to find out."

Now, isn't that a lot more satisfying than "The God of the Gaps"?

I would say it is, for all but something that defies logic, which is what you'll depend on in your search for answers. Something cannot come from nothing.

magellan01

04-15-2008, 01:55 AM

Sure. But why believe in him? There could be six foot purple bunny rabbits on some other planet (more likely than God) but I wouldn't want to believe in any.

You once again mistakenly assume I have a particular notion of God in mind. And you once again feel the need to be insulting in the process. God can be your purple fucking spaghetti bunnicorn or whatever the fuck else you think generates guffaws amongst your brethren. Why believe in Him? Because it makes the most sense. It is the most logical explanation. Everything has a cause. Go back far enough and you have the first event, which, by definition, cannot have a cause. It is an non-natural event. Something had to be willed to happen. You can say that it was willed to happen by an alien from another dimension. Fine, then we'll be in agreement.

Where did Sam say we had all the answers?

I was replying to this notion:

There is no evidence at hand that requires God to explain.

MrDibble

04-15-2008, 02:38 AM

magellan01, still no cite for that "law of physics"?

magellan01

04-15-2008, 09:42 AM

magellan01, still no cite for that "law of physics"?

I missed your post. I meant a tenet of physics. Science could not be done, beyond assigning mere correlation to events, if there was not an underlying premise that certain events cause certain other events to happen. And conversely, if an event occurs, something is responsible for its occurrence. Newton's Laws of Motion are an example of this understanding of how the universe works.

MrDibble

04-15-2008, 10:41 AM

I missed your post. I meant a tenet of physics. Science could not be done, beyond assigning mere correlation to events, if there was not an underlying premise that certain events cause certain other events to happen. And conversely, if an event occurs, something is responsible for its occurrence. Newton's Laws of Motion are an example of this understanding of how the universe works.

That makes more sense (with the caveat that causality is a strictly within-universe concept as far as I understand it)

Voyager

04-15-2008, 01:10 PM

You once again mistakenly assume I have a particular notion of God in mind. And you once again feel the need to be insulting in the process. God can be your purple fucking spaghetti bunnicorn or whatever the fuck else you think generates guffaws amongst your brethren.

The bunnies are actually more like Russell's teapot than the IPU. The bunnies are not god or even close, they are just one of many things we don't believe in without good evidence.

And no, I am not assuming any particular notion of god, except one that somehow is a prime mover. The lack of evidence for even a prime mover is what is up for discussion. Gods with particular characteristics have to be examined one by one.

Why believe in Him? Because it makes the most sense. It is the most logical explanation. Everything has a cause. Go back far enough and you have the first event, which, by definition, cannot have a cause. It is an non-natural event. Something had to be willed to happen. You can say that it was willed to happen by an alien from another dimension. Fine, then we'll be in agreement.

I see later that you equate the "tenet" of cause with Newtonian physics. That's an excellent analogy - they both make sense, seem to be true in our experience, yet are incorrect in extreme cases.

As for Sam, he said there is no evidence to require a god. You are saying that there is a lack of explanations for certain things, and that this requires a god. (Classic God of the Gaps argument.) They are two totally different things.

magellan01

04-15-2008, 02:54 PM

As for Sam, he said there is no evidence to require a god. You are saying that there is a lack of explanations for certain things, and that this requires a god. (Classic God of the Gaps argument.) They are two totally different things.

I do not see my argument as being a God of the Gaps argument. In that argument someone points to a specific (an eyeball) thing that seemingly cannot be explained, and attributes God to it. The evidence I offer for the existence of a Prime Mover is logic itself. This differs in that even if this universe was not created by God, but by some alien being from a neighboring universe, something had to have created him, and so on. If there is movement, there must have been a Prime Mover. Even if you are to posit that we are part of some multiverse that gives birth to universes every now and then, or routinely for that matter, something had to begin the process.

MrDibble

04-15-2008, 03:40 PM

Voyager

04-15-2008, 04:04 PM

I do not see my argument as being a God of the Gaps argument. In that argument someone points to a specific (an eyeball) thing that seemingly cannot be explained, and attributes God to it. The evidence I offer for the existence of a Prime Mover is logic itself. This differs in that even if this universe was not created by God, but by some alien being from a neighboring universe, something had to have created him, and so on. If there is movement, there must have been a Prime Mover. Even if you are to posit that we are part of some multiverse that gives birth to universes every now and then, or routinely for that matter, something had to begin the process.
The Prime Mover part is the cosmological argument. The we can't explain how the universe got here yet, so it must be god, is the God of the Gaps argument.

Which brings up my favorite question: do you worship a generic creator god or some specific god? The deistic god is just a good explanation of the universe as any other, and it is pointless to worship him - he doesn't care and is probably not listening. In fact he is a better explanation, since pretty all the Western god religions include specifics in how the world and universe were created, all of which turned out to be wrong. Anyone who is a Christian, Muslim or Jew because of the prime mover argument had better explain how you get from a general god to their specific god. For all we know god may be a personal one - but for some other world, where that god directly gave his people the true story in their Bible. We might be accidental even in a universe with a god.

ETA: Personally I don't buy a Prime Mover at all, for the reasons MrDibble gave. My question assumes one, since I don't think one helps the cause of any religion I know of.

magellan01

04-15-2008, 04:16 PM

Not necessarily. That's what I meant by causality being a strictly in-universe thing. The universe can just appear, uncaused. There is nothing in physics that prevents this, AFAIK.

I look forward to your cite from scientists in another universe—peer-reviewed, of course) backing your position here. I'll wait.

Seriously, while the laws of physics might change from one universe to the other, are you of the opinion that the laws of logic can change also?

magellan01

04-15-2008, 04:28 PM

The Prime Mover part is the cosmological argument. The we can't explain how the universe got here yet, so it must be god, is the God of the Gaps argument.

Forget the universe. My argument id broader than that. Everything has a cause. The only thing that need not have a cause would be God.

Which brings up my favorite question:...

Now, why would this be your favorite question, because it has nothing to do with the discussion? Becuase you think it's some inescapable trap for your game of "Gotcha?And as a bonus you get to jab your finger in the eye of religionists? Why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

To refresh the memory that God saw fit to give you a stingy serving of, I have never argued for any specific religion. I do not practice a religion. I've said, more than once in discussion to which you have been part that for all we know every religion ever known to man is 100% wrong. Religion is an act of faith. Period. For all we know this Prime Mover was building some really cool world someplace and we're the detritus on the shop floor. So, unless you have another "favorite question" as titillating as your previous one, I think we're done.

Strinka

04-15-2008, 06:31 PM

Forget the universe. My argument id broader than that. Everything has a cause. The only thing that need not have a cause would be God.

So, what you're saying is that you worship the big bang?

The problem with the cosmological argument is that it says absolutely nothing about god. So, he was the unmoved mover. That doesn't imply will and intelligence, let alone omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, and other characteristics generally attributed to god.

Measure for Measure

04-15-2008, 07:35 PM

Presumably, that which initiated the big bang could be a consciousness or a process. If it's a consciousness, it could be a hacker, a hobbyist, a scientist, a zookeeper, a pet-owner, a parent or some combination of the above.

The consciousness is less likely to be internal to the system, since complexity has tended to rise since the big bang, not fall. Still, we can't rule an internal first cause (eg, perhaps an entity at the end of the universe causes its beginning - it's like a big circle!) [1].

If the initiator came from outside the big-bang, it could be either process or consciousness.

Furthermore, there could also be a God who is not a first cause.

----
That aside, what I'd really like to do is circle back to here: But I would MUCH rather say "I strongly believe that Superman doesn't exist because the idea of superman is just too far-fetched to possibly be true"

Which is different, a BRAVER point of view to hold. There are 2 sources of anxiety here. One involves giving up cherished beliefs, beliefs taught from a very young age.

The other involves uncertainty. Mammals don't handle uncertainty well. Laboratory mice receiving constant electric shocks are not exactly happy, but they are apparently less stressed than those receiving shocks at random. Or so I recall from introductory psychology.

So the relative bravery of the agnostic and strong atheist is unclear, since both receive comfort in some ways and stress in others.

----
[1] My understanding though is that the universe is not expected to end in a big crunch.

Measure for Measure

04-15-2008, 07:43 PM

Dang! The "BRAVER" quote was by Lobsang, not Voyager. Apologies.

Voyager

04-15-2008, 07:52 PM

Forget the universe. My argument id broader than that. Everything has a cause. The only thing that need not have a cause would be God.

But, back when the argument was formed, there was thought to be no problem with the cause for everything in the universe - except for the cause of the universe itself. Certainly that is true for the Big Bang view. The flaw of God having no cause being somehow more plausible than the universe having no cause is so well known as to be not worth elaborating on.

Now, why would this be your favorite question, because it has nothing to do with the discussion? Becuase you think it's some inescapable trap for your game of "Gotcha?And as a bonus you get to jab your finger in the eye of religionists? Why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

To refresh the memory that God saw fit to give you a stingy serving of, I have never argued for any specific religion. I do not practice a religion. I've said, more than once in discussion to which you have been part that for all we know every religion ever known to man is 100% wrong. Religion is an act of faith. Period. For all we know this Prime Mover was building some really cool world someplace and we're the detritus on the shop floor. So, unless you have another "favorite question" as titillating as your previous one, I think we're done.
Sigh. Notice I was not assuming anything about your religion or view of god. As far as I can tell from your answer, besides it making you feel good in some way, your actions are identical to those you'd do without faith in a Prime Mover.
For all I know the universe was created by some grad student in another universe, and his might have been created by yet another grad student, and so forth. It had to start somewhere, though. The point is, and you seem to agree with it, that besides the origin there is no evidence at all for a God in our universe, and certainly no reason to follow a given set of moral laws that are supposedly god given. That's not something I can argue with.

MrDibble

04-16-2008, 04:42 PM

I look forward to your cite from scientists in another universe—peer-reviewed, of course) backing your position here. I'll wait.
Why do you need one? The stance is obvious - what is causality that it is paramount? causality is intimately linked to the arrow of time, as far as I ca tell. But we know that time begins with the Big Bang. so...before that, we can't say anything about time. ergo, we can't say anything about causali8ty. QED.

Seriously, while the laws of physics might change from one universe to the other, are you of the opinion that the laws of logic can change also?
Yes.

Ludovic

04-16-2008, 05:01 PM

Forget the universe. My argument id broader than that. Everything has a cause. The only thing that need not have a cause would be God.
This assumes, of course, that our human understandings of causality apply to the universe and whatever meta-universe it exists in, if any. For all we know our conventional understanding of causality might be flawed. We might not be physically able of comprehending the true basis of causality.

JohnnieEnigma

04-16-2008, 07:42 PM

magellan01

04-16-2008, 11:52 PM

Notice I was not assuming anything about your religion or view of god.

Sure you did. You assumed my positive theistic view necessarily implied a religious view.

For all I know the universe was created by some grad student in another universe, and his might have been created by yet another grad student, and so forth. It had to start somewhere, though.

(bolding mine)
Yes, that is my point. And you funnel back far enough and you get that which had no previous cause, i.e., the Prime Mover.

The point is, and you seem to agree with it, that besides the origin there is no evidence at all for a God in our universe, and certainly no reason to follow a given set of moral laws that are supposedly god given. That's not something I can argue with.

First, the piece of evidence you acknowledge is mighty important. As far as other evidence, it may or may not exist. If we find it, great, as it will end some arguing. If not, as I suspect, that's fine. For the record, I have not expressed any opinion as to whether or not there is evidence or the quality of it. I will say that there is nothing that should be considered conclusive.

magellan01

04-17-2008, 12:02 AM

Why do you need one? The stance is obvious - what is causality that it is paramount? causality is intimately linked to the arrow of time, as far as I ca tell. But we know that time begins with the Big Bang. so...before that, we can't say anything about time. ergo, we can't say anything about causali8ty. QED.

Huh? Your QED is a bit presumptuous, don't you think? You've asserted plenty, assumed more, but have proven nothing.

Yes.

Well, that makes any discussion moot then, doesn't it. If the logic that guides our very thought processes and discussion can change to one of a trillion unknown logic models, there's not much point in discussing anything. But do you really think that in some other universe 2+2 will not equal 4? That x can be equal to x+1? That this will not hold true:

All humans are mortal
Dibble is human
Therefore, Dibble is Mortal

?

magellan01

04-17-2008, 12:05 AM

This assumes, of course, that our human understandings of causality apply to the universe and whatever meta-universe it exists in, if any. For all we know our conventional understanding of causality might be flawed. We might not be physically able of comprehending the true basis of causality.

Yeah, there are a lot of mights. There might be a God, there might not. For me, the proposition that there is no Prime Mover and there is something that can operate outside the rules of causality is MUCH harder to allow than the apparent necessity of a First Cause.

Measure for Measure

04-17-2008, 12:47 AM

Seriously, while the laws of physics might change from one universe to the other, are you of the opinion that the laws of logic can change also? Logic is defined as the rules of valid inference. There is actually more than one system of logic: some logical systems do not include the law of the excluded middle, for example.

I'd have to think harder about which logical systems are null, collapsing due to internal contradictions and which are workable, but fail to apply to this universe. (BTW, I won't think harder about this, as it is way outside my area of knowledge).
For me, the proposition that there is no Prime Mover and there is something that can operate outside the rules of causality is MUCH harder to allow than the apparent necessity of a First Cause. Well a circle might be defined as a line without a beginning or an end.

I might also note that while we have an intuitive sense of causality, we have not defined that term here. (Furthermore, it's not that easy to describe: necessary and sufficient conditions don't do the idea justice.)

Voyager

04-17-2008, 01:35 AM

(bolding mine)
Yes, that is my point. And you funnel back far enough and you get that which had no previous cause, i.e., the Prime Mover.

No, there is still no requirement for a Prime Mover. Our universe may or may not have been caused from elsewhere - nothing prevents an outside cause, but nothing requires it. The same for other universes. It may be turtles a lot of the way down, but not all the way.

If our universe does have net zero energy, no laws are violated by an uncaused creation.

magellan01

04-17-2008, 01:41 AM

Logic is defined as the rules of valid inference. There is actually more than one system of logic: some logical systems do not include the law of the excluded middle, for example.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But while we may move the line as to what we would consider fallacies, the logic that is derived from mathematical principles, set theory, etc. I think will hold up.

I might also note that while we have an intuitive sense of causality, we have not defined that term here. (Furthermore, it's not that easy to describe: necessary and sufficient conditions don't do the idea justice.)

Okay, I'll give it a stab: The relationship between two events, one former, one latter, where the former event directly results in the latter occurring.

magellan01

04-17-2008, 01:45 AM

It may be turtles a lot of the way down, but not all the way.

What does this mean?

MrDibble

04-17-2008, 02:28 AM

Huh? Your QED is a bit presumptuous, don't you think? You've asserted plenty, assumed more, but have proven nothing.
I've assumed nothing, and haven't set out to prove anything. I'm talking about what we can't know. Physics tells us Time begins with the Big Bang. There is no "before the Big Bang". So outside of our universe, we don't know how time works, if at all. In other universes, it may run backwards, it may skip alternate seconds, everything might happen at once, it may do the hokey-pokey. We don't, and can't, know. That's what I mean by the in-this-universe law of causality not holding outside this universe. There may be other causalities, there may be a meta-law, but we can't say. We can only talk about causality within the universe we know. Unfortunately, that means we can't talk meaningfully about a cause for the Universe we know.

Well, that makes any discussion moot then, doesn't it.
Not as long as we stick to the universe we know, no, it doesn't. It's only when one presumes to talk about anything outside the universe that any knowing or even guessing becomes impossible.If the logic that guides our very thought processes and discussion can change to one of a trillion unknown logic models, there's not much point in discussing anything.
Only if you're planning on going to another universe, which is definitionally impossible. It's not going to suddenly change here. But do you really think that in some other universe 2+2 will not equal 4? Yes, it might not. That x can be equal to x+1? Again, yes it might. That this will not hold true:
All humans are mortal
Dibble is human
Therefore, Dibble is Mortal

Yes, there might be a logic (I suspect there were attempts at formulating such logics even on this Earth) where that doesn't hold - where the notion of modus ponens is not supported. Possibly because there's no stable sets, so statements like "all humans" are meaningless, a category error. But I can't say how such a logic would look, bound as I am in this universe.

Plus, that's a valid argument, but that doesn't speak to its truth, BTW. Sentient Meat's been shaming me into being a bit stricter with the language of logic up in here.

Mellivora capensis

04-17-2008, 06:58 AM

So, what you're saying is that you worship the big bang?

...

Don't we all? C'mon, admit it, we all pray to have at least one group sex experience before we die.

Voyager

04-17-2008, 12:14 PM

What does this mean?
That while each universe might be supported on the back of (created from) another, it has got to start somewhere.
Unless of course time is circular. I've never seen that hypothesized, but it would be a good sf story.

Measure for Measure

04-17-2008, 09:22 PM

Turtle joke: I'm familiar with the Scalia variant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But while we may move the line as to what we would consider fallacies, the logic that is derived from mathematical principles, set theory, etc. I think will hold up. Just as there are multiple logical systems, there are also multiple geometries, based upon different axioms. There is no "true" geometry. The Euclidian variant for example models the every-day world well, but doesn't play nice with Einstein.

Is there an ultimate metalogic? I honestly don't know, but Wikipedia has a stub on the subject. Okay, I'll give it a stab: The relationship between two events, one former, one latter, where the former event directly results in the latter occurring. Show me an effect with one cause. "Directly results" is a synonym for causality: you haven't really defined it. (Or maybe you have, see below.)

Here's an essay on causation. I've read the first 4 paragraphs of it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-process/

Oo! Here's another:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/

And a third! With Hume's definition of causality!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/ The first explicit definition of causation in terms of counterfactuals was, surprisingly enough, given by Hume, when he wrote: “We may define a cause to be an object followed by another, and where all the objects, similar to the first, are followed by objects similar to the second. Or, in other words, where, if the first object had not been, the second never had existed.” (1748, Section VII). It is difficult to understand how Hume could have confused the first, regularity definition with the second, very different counterfactual definition. Tut, tut Hume!

And, apropos nothing, here's Stanford's take on God as a necessary being:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

Apologies for the flippant tone: it's just I know very little about this. It's not easy material.

magellan01

04-18-2008, 01:33 AM

Just as there are multiple logical systems, there are also multiple geometries, based upon different axioms. There is no "true" geometry. The Euclidian variant for example models the every-day world well, but doesn't play nice with Einstein.

I don't think you disproved the point here. There's no reason to think that equations adequate to deal with a two dimensional world will work in a three dimensional world. That does not, though, invalidate, the dependability of those equations for two dimensions. Similarly, just because a series of equations and relationships might not work in an extra-three dimensional world does not invalidate those equations either. We need additional equations that embrace the relationships as they might exist when this other dimension(s) is taken into account. In other words, if you went to another world with additional dimensions, the Pathagorean Theorem would still hold true when trying to understand the two-dimensional aspect of your new world.

Is there an ultimate metalogic? I honestly don't know, but Wikipedia has a stub on the subject. Show me an effect with one cause. "Directly results" is a synonym for causality: you haven't really defined it. (Or maybe you have, see below.)

Maybe we have different definitions of "definition". I think it works fine. What are you looking for?

I found your second link of the three to be the most interesting. BUt the totality of them has caused my brain to glaze over.

And, apropos nothing, here's Stanford's take on God as a necessary being:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

Yeah, that is a different argument. Not one that I've made.

magellan01

04-18-2008, 01:50 AM

There may be other causalities, there may be a meta-law, but we can't say. We can only talk about causality within the universe we know. Unfortunately, that means we can't talk meaningfully about a cause for the Universe we know.

True, we cannot KNOW. But does it not make sense to think that the laws that logic itself would hold up on other worlds. There is no reason to believe otherwise. Sure, we should make allowance for it, but why shouldn't the assumption be that they do?

Yes, there might be a logic (I suspect there were attempts at formulating such logics even on this Earth) where that doesn't hold - where the notion of modus ponens is not supported. Possibly because there's no stable sets, so statements like "all humans" are meaningless, a category error. But I can't say how such a logic would look, bound as I am in this universe.

So, we even entertain it. Seriously. You are turning a blind eye to a wealth of knowledge. As I said, I understand making the allowance, but the assumptive position should be that logic would work every bit as well. The Pathagorean theory will be just as valuable understanding two dimensions whether your world has three or thirteen. No? Why not?

Plus, that's a valid argument, but that doesn't speak to its truth, BTW.

It doesn't attempt to. (One of Measure to Measure's links touched on this.) It's a commentary on the relationships of the items only. Not the factual reality of them. It's validity would hold up every bit as well, while it's truthiness :D be just as suspect.

magellan01

04-18-2008, 01:52 AM

That while each universe might be supported on the back of (created from) another, it has got to start somewhere.
Unless of course time is circular. I've never seen that hypothesized, but it would be a good sf story.

I'm confused. That's MY point: that you need a beginning. ANd that beginning, by definition, must not necessitate that something else started IT. That's God, baby.

Or am I not seeing your point?

SentientMeat

04-18-2008, 03:26 AM

I'm confused. That's MY point: that you need a beginning. No you don't (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=203743). In any case, I don't see how making the Prime Mover supernatural rather than natural sidesteps the (non-)argument one whit: what laws govern the nature and existence of Prime Movers of any kind?

And I can't believe you're still positing the eye (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.eb.com/eb/image%3Fid%3D79543%26rendTypeId%3D4&imgrefurl=http://www.britannica.com/eb/art/print%3Fid%3D74661&h=310&w=593&sz=47&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=SKFsC65gDUKGiM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Deye%2Bevolution%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN) as a possible instance of Intelligent Design, nearly 150 years after Darwin addressed it himself.

Strinka

04-18-2008, 07:18 AM

I'm confused. That's MY point: that you need a beginning. ANd that beginning, by definition, must not necessitate that something else started IT. That's God, baby.But why call it god? God generally is considered to have characteristics such as omnipotence and omniscience, or at least will and sentience. There's no reason to think that such a prime mover would have any of those things.

If that's your intention, and you think god doesn't (or at least might not) have those things, that's fine, but don't be surprised when people misunderstand you.

magellan01

04-18-2008, 11:28 AM

No you don't (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=203743). In any case, I don't see how making the Prime Mover supernatural rather than natural sidesteps the (non-)argument one whit: what laws govern the nature and existence of Prime Movers of any kind?

Thanks for the link to that thread. I'll have to spend more time with it this weekend. But I have a simple question for you. Do you hold it as a possibility, remote as it might be, that there is a God and he created everything?

[ And I can't believe you're still positing the eye (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.eb.com/eb/image%3Fid%3D79543%26rendTypeId%3D4&imgrefurl=http://www.britannica.com/eb/art/print%3Fid%3D74661&h=310&w=593&sz=47&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=SKFsC65gDUKGiM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Deye%2Bevolution%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN) as a possible instance of Intelligent Design, nearly 150 years after Darwin addressed it himself.

I think you're confused here. The only mention I made of it was to explain that which argument I was NOT making. See the first post on Page 2.

magellan01

04-18-2008, 11:31 AM

But why call it god? God generally is considered to have characteristics such as omnipotence and omniscience, or at least will and sentience. There's no reason to think that such a prime mover would have any of those things.

If that's your intention, and you think god doesn't (or at least might not) have those things, that's fine, but don't be surprised when people misunderstand you.

Well, you're really getting into a different question that would be better fro its own thread. And that is the nature of God. The degree to which he is perfect, omniscient, etc. I will say that the Prime Mover must have will. Not will necessarily to create the earth and us, but will to make something happen, of which all we know is the, or a, result.

Strinka

04-18-2008, 01:02 PM

I will say that the Prime Mover must have will. Not will necessarily to create the earth and us, but will to make something happen, of which all we know is the, or a, result.But clearly, things can cause other things without the will to do so. A chemical reaction, for example. I see no reason to believe that this uncaused cause would necessarily have been trying to do what it did.

SentientMeat

04-18-2008, 01:52 PM

Thanks for the link to that thread. I'll have to spend more time with it this weekend. You might also want to read up on the "something from nothing" phenomenon of the Casimir effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) and the violation of causality inherent in the Bell inequality experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments). Big Bang cosmology requires quantum mechanics, which has a habit of making human preconceptions about cause and effect, and spacetime itself, seem rather quaint
But I have a simple question for you. Do you hold it as a possibility, remote as it might be, that there is a God and he created everything?Yes. I judge it highly unlikely - less than one in a million (indeed, less likely than my inhabiting a computer simulation built by future historians, so gods will find it very difficult to convince me of their existence even by appearing before my very eyes). But even if gods did exist, the questions of why they exist rather than not and whether there are "laws" relating to which kind of gods exist and which don't would still not be sidestepped (at least, not in any way which could not simply be applied to the universe itself).
I think you're confused here. The only mention I made of it was to explain that which argument I was NOT making. See the first post on Page 2.Ah, apologies. But note that replacing "eye" with "universe", "conscious mind" or even "subjective religious experience" does not qualitatively change the argument (as indeed I set forth here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=461559)).

magellan01

04-19-2008, 01:11 AM

But clearly, things can cause other things without the will to do so. A chemical reaction, for example. I see no reason to believe that this uncaused cause would necessarily have been trying to do what it did.

Of course. But the Prime Mover, having nothing acting upon him, would have to have volition coming from within.

magellan01

04-19-2008, 01:29 AM

You might also want to read up on the "something from nothing" phenomenon of the Casimir effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) and the violation of causality inherent in the Bell inequality experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments). Big Bang cosmology requires quantum mechanics, which has a habit of making human preconceptions about cause and effect, and spacetime itself, seem rather quaint

I do not think that it can be proven that QM negates my argument. As far as the apparent appearance of particles, it is my understanding that the issue has to do with the location of a particle, and not it's manufacture.

Yes.

Then most of what you posted in your other thread is what you think to probably be the case. You couch many premises as facts. But your allowing for the existence of a Creator God shows them to be what they are: theories and opinions. Correct?

But even if gods did exist, the questions of why they exist rather than not and whether there are "laws" relating to which kind of gods exist and which don't would still not be sidestepped (at least, not in any way which could not simply be applied to the universe itself).

You lost me again here. Can you rephrase this? Thanks.

And here is a question, why do you use "gods" plural? Wouldn't you think it more likely that there be one god rather than multiple gods. Sure there might be, but it strikes me as odd that someone who doubts the existence of God is more willing to accept "gods". I see this as hostility to theism in general, probably stemming from a deeper hostility to the monotheistic religious expressions it has given birth to. Am I wrong?

MrDibble

04-19-2008, 02:38 AM

True, we cannot KNOW. But does it not make sense to think that the laws that logic itself would hold up on other worlds.
"Make sense" by what measure? The laws of logic that hold within this universe? Are you even aware of the logical flaw there? Incidentally, are you aware of the meaning of completeness as it applies to logics?
There is no reason to believe otherwise.There is every reason to believe otherwise. Physics tells us that TIME itself is a property of this universe. How can we even have causality without it? No causality, no "if...then...". No "if..then...", no modus ponens. No modus ponens, no deductive logic. Sure, we should make allowance for it, but why shouldn't the assumption be that they do? Because it's not he best assumption. Sure, it seems like it's the most comforting for you, but that's just seductive reasoning on your part. It doesn't agree with the facts as well as the alternative
So, we even entertain it. Seriously. You are turning a blind eye to a wealth of knowledge. Actually, I think it's your ignorance of the state of the art that makes you doubt me. I think your knowledge of Physics is sadly lacking (and I say this as an utter layman) As I said, I understand making the allowance, but the assumptive position should be that logic would work every bit as well. No, this is false reasoning. The null hypothesis in this case is that no logic holds. The Pathagorean theory will be just as valuable understanding two dimensions whether your world has three or thirteen. No?Why not? No.What if you have mu dimensions? What if the very idea of "dimensions" has no possible consistency?

You're just not getting the idea that we can't say anything, are you? That anything you say about "outside the universe" is meaningless. Including that it's meaningless. I can see this by the way you sometimes substitute "worlds" for "universes". We're not talking about some Sci-Fi parallel universe here. Far, far from it.

It doesn't attempt to. (One of Measure to Measure's links touched on this.) It's a commentary on the relationships of the items only. Not the factual reality of them. It's validity would hold up every bit as well, while it's truthiness :D be just as suspect.
Then the words you wanted were "is valid", not "holds true".

SentientMeat

04-19-2008, 02:48 AM

I do not think that it can be proven that QM negates my argument.Not your argument, no, but your premise that everything requires a "beginning" and/or a "cause". As far as the apparent appearance of particles, it is my understanding that the issue has to do with the location of a particle, and not it's manufacture.Read up - these particles pop into existence from empty space, they weren't simply "somewhere else". And also read up on Bell and Aspect - noncausality and nonlocality are pretty inescapable.
Then most of what you posted in your other thread is what you think to probably be the case. You couch many premises as facts. But your allowing for the existence of a Creator God shows them to be what they are: theories and opinions. Correct?No, we can still have facts even if gods are possible. Lightning still flashes whether or not it is natural electricity or divine energy. The planets still move whether or not angels push them or gravity stops them flying off in a straight line. And galaxies are still redshifted and the cosmic microwave background still has a characteristic spread regardless of whether the universe was divinely created or is solely natural and has never not existed. Sure, you can call it a "theory" or "opinion" that lightning and planetary motion are natural rather than supernatural, but his would be to discard Ockham's Razor completely, and modern cosmology is merely an extension of this approach.
You lost me again here. Can you rephrase this? Thanks.I am denying that supernatural beings are any kind of explanation in the first place since so many more questions, such as how and why they exist and whether there are laws governing such, are begged.
And here is a question, why do you use "gods" plural? Wouldn't you think it more likely that there be one god rather than multiple gods.No - I consider a plurailty equally as improbable, I'm just covering the bases as far as world religions and those of history and prehistory are concerned. As the old saying goes, I just disbelieve in one more god than you. Why do you consider one more likely than many? Antyhing to do with the aforementioned Ockham, perchance?
it strikes me as odd that someone who doubts the existence of God is more willing to accept "gods".I'm not.
I see this as hostility to theism in general, probably stemming from a deeper hostility to the monotheistic religious expressions it has given birth to. Am I wrong?Yes.

Argent Towers

04-19-2008, 03:17 AM

This would be a great question to put on a Philosophy test.

(I hate philosophy.)

magellan01

04-19-2008, 12:42 PM

"Make sense" by what measure? The laws of logic that hold within this universe? Are you even aware of the logical flaw there? Incidentally, are you aware of the meaning of completeness as it applies to logics?

Makes sense by the only measure of it we have: the same logic that has guided scientific inquiry since "Hey, I'm thirsty. The last time I was thirsty and drank that stuff flowing in the stream it helped, maybe it will help again." What other metric do you propose we use.

And why don't you point out the logical flaw?

There is every reason to believe otherwise. Physics tells us that TIME itself is a property of this universe. How can we even have causality without it? No causality, no "if...then...". No "if..then...", no modus ponens. No modus ponens, no deductive logic.

Do you know—as a matter of FACT—that there was nothing preceding the big bang. That it was caused by nothing? Not even perhaps, another universe birthing this one?

Because it's not he best assumption. Sure, it seems like it's the most comforting for you, but that's just seductive reasoning on your part.

It what way is it comforting to me? I pray to no God. My conclusion is based on the logic of what I've laid forth. That doesn't mean its correct, but it is a reasoned position. I get no more comfort from it than you do from believing your position to be true. To attempt to ascribe other motivations to my position is a cheap trick on your part, in an attempt to portray my position as non-rational and emotional. As I've stated earlier in the thread, I think any position is best ended with the notion of "...but I may be wrong." You might want to thinking about adding it to yours.

It doesn't agree with the facts as well as the alternative.

Which FACTS are you referring to?

Actually, I think it's your ignorance of the state of the art that makes you doubt me.

And the god of hubris speaks.

I think your knowledge of Physics is sadly lacking (and I say this as an utter layman)

So why don't you lay out the FACTUAL premises you think I should adopt? Not opinion. NOt accepted theory. FACTS.

No, this is false reasoning. The null hypothesis in this case is that no logic holds.

Do you mean exactly what you say here that "no logic" holds, meaning that there will be no logic one can depend on? Or that A logic will be present, not just the one we've come to depend on? And how do you KNOW that either is the case?

No.What if you have mu dimensions? What if the very idea of "dimensions" has no possible consistency?

So what? I hope you would agree that we understand very little beyond our three dimension. There is not even agreement how many there are. The last I read the best estimate seems to be eleven, if I recall correctly. I have no doubt that we have much to learn in regard to what these extra dimensions mean for our understanding of the world. But just as we can use tools to understand two dimensions in our three dimensional world, through tools like the Pythagorean Theorem, why do you believe that we will be unable to do the same thing in a 4,7, or eleven dimensional world?

You're just not getting the idea that we can't say anything, are you? That anything you say about "outside the universe" is meaningless. Including that it's meaningless.

Because YOU say so? It is a possibility that our logic will not hold up. It is possible that it will hold up. Neither of us can KNOW which position is ultimately correct. But, somehow, you seem to think you do know. Interesting.

Revenant Threshold

04-19-2008, 03:32 PM

Well, you're really getting into a different question that would be better fro its own thread. And that is the nature of God. The degree to which he is perfect, omniscient, etc. I will say that the Prime Mover must have will. Not will necessarily to create the earth and us, but will to make something happen, of which all we know is the, or a, result. I'm interested to know why it is you've gone to God (and i'd point out that you'd probably do better at indicating you're referring to a generic god rather than a specific god if you didn't capitalise it, "God" generally being used to refer to the Christian God).

I mean, let's break it down into its smallest parts. A Prime Mover must, logically, have the quality of not having been caused. I would disagree that it must have will, in that the creation of the universe could have been a mechanical process inevitably arising from the form of the PM. But it seems like to me you're answering the question of how a PM, a god, may avoid itself being a creation by using a concept that isn't. IOW, that the god isn't itself a creation because you've defined it as such. Assuming that's true (and I could easily be wrong); could you tell me a reason why I couldn't suggest for example the existence of a prime mover singular particle? What logical argument would you use to refute a particle PM that you can't also use on a god PM?

MrDibble

04-19-2008, 03:35 PM

Makes sense by the only measure of it we have: the same logic that has guided scientific inquiry since "Hey, I'm thirsty. The last time I was thirsty and drank that stuff flowing in the stream it helped, maybe it will help again." What other metric do you propose we use.

None. That's my point - no metric. Don't try and say anything about what's outside the Universe, because it will be meaningless. "Outside the Universe" is a category error on a par with "Married Bachelor", within the logic applicable in this Universe. Your logic.

And why don't you point out the logical flaw?
You're using logic to assert that logic holds. That's circular reasoning. Logic isn't a self-complete system, AFAIK - you need MP to prove MP.

Do you know—as a matter of FACT—that there was nothing preceding the big bang. That it was caused by nothing? Not even perhaps, another universe birthing this one?

No - I can't know. There might have been, but I can't say. Neither can you, neither can anyone. That's what "Universe" means in this context. Physicists can speculate, but they can never know. As soon as they know of another universe, it ceases to be separate from the Universe. Do you see how that works?

It what way is it comforting to me? I pray to no God. My conclusion is based on the logic of what I've laid forth.
That's what I mean - you take comfort in a world where cause follows effect - that things always happen as they have. That logic always works. You can't conceive of a place where logic doesn't work.
To attempt to ascribe other motivations to my position is a cheap trick on your part, in an attempt to portray my position as non-rational and emotional.
Well, I don't know what other basis you have for your position. By your own standard, which seems to be classic deductive logic, your position isn't logical. It's internally contradictory. But you haven't addressed the contradiction.
As I've stated earlier in the thread, I think any position is best ended with the notion of "...but I may be wrong." You might want to thinking about adding it to yours.

I don't see the need to tack on something that should be as self-evident as that. But add it in your head if it makes you happy. Is that the problem? You don't think I'm being humble enough? Sorry, that's not how I debate.

Which FACTS are you referring to?

That the Universe is by definition self-contained. That we can not observe another universe at all. That Time as we know it is a property of this Universe only, by definition.

And the god of hubris speaks.

It's not hubris to point out that you don't seem to know the fields you're attempting to argue in. I'm not trying to shame you, I'm replying to YOUR assertion that I lack a "wealth of knowledge," when you know nothing about my knowledge of logic, only that I don't agree with you on its applicability in this case.

So why don't you lay out the FACTUAL premises you think I should adopt? Not opinion. NOT accepted theory. FACTS.

Time is a property of the Universe. This is a fact. Sorry, this is a FACT. It's the only one needed to posit possible noncausality, which is where we started this.

Do you mean exactly what you say here that "no logic" holds, meaning that there will be no logic one can depend on? Or that A logic will be present, not just the one we've come to depend on? And how do you KNOW that either is the case?

Either. Neither. And I don't "KNOW". That's the whole point. No-one can "KNOW".

So what? I hope you would agree that we understand very little beyond our three dimension.
Speak for yourself. I live in four dimensions, myself.
There is not even agreement how many there are. The last I read the best estimate seems to be eleven, if I recall correctly.
Depends who you believe. String theory is by no means universally accepted.
I have no doubt that we have much to learn in regard to what these extra dimensions mean for our understanding of the world.
So far, they don't seem to have any impact at all outside of cosmology conferences. They aren't even experimentally proved, and may never be, or even be able to be. I'm skeptical of string theory, personally. I'll stick with 4 dimensions for now, and upgrade when I need to.
But just as we can use tools to understand two dimensions in our three dimensional world, through tools like the Pythagorean Theorem, why do you believe that we will be unable to do the same thing in a 4,7, or eleven dimensional world?

There you go again, mistaking what I'm talking about - I'm not referring to this "world", however many dimensions it has. I'm referring to anything OUTSIDE the Universe. What you're talking about there, with your multi-dimension physics? That's still THIS Universe. Not what I'm talking about at all. I have no doubt that the laws of logic and geometry hold for this "world", however many dimensions it may have wrapped up around each other. That tells us nothing about OUTSIDE our Universe.

Because YOU say so? It is a possibility that our logic will not hold up. It is possible that it will hold up. Neither of us can KNOW which position is ultimately correct. But, somehow, you seem to think you do know. Interesting.
I didn't invent noncausality. But even if I did, it's built into the common definition of "Universe" that I can't know.

You are still misunderstanding me, it seems. I'm NOT saying that logic definitely won't be the same outside our Universe. That would be wrong. I'm saying you can't say anything meaningful about it at all. I've repeatedly laid out why, with the idea that Time is a property of this Universe, not a multiversal property.

Answer me one question:
Without Time as we know it, flowing arrowlike from Past to Future, how can we have Causality?

SentientMeat

04-19-2008, 04:12 PM

Do you know—as a matter of FACT—that there was nothing preceding the big bang. That it was caused by nothing?I would invite all the theists here (and atheists, actually) to think about this sentence/question carefully. If you consider that it is equivalent to "Is there no such thing as 'before' the big bang?" I would agree that this is a question worth asking (though, admittedly, we don't know the answer yet). If you consider that the question means "was there a nothing-to-something transition at the big bang?" I would strongly disagree that such a question even makes sense. Given that spacetime is a something, how can there be nothing then something without a "then"?

Modern physics takes everything you ever thought you knew about "nothing" and turns it on its head. Indeed, the experiments at the Large Hadron Collider this year (hopefully!) could be said to be cutting edge nothingology.

magellan01

04-19-2008, 10:25 PM

Not your argument, no, but your premise that everything requires a "beginning" and/or a "cause". Read up - these particles pop into existence from empty space, they weren't simply "somewhere else".

Cite, that these particles are created from nothing and for no reason. Cite, for them not possibly popping into a paricular location from another location.

And also read up on Bell and Aspect - noncausality and nonlocality are pretty inescapable.

I take that to mean that they are not completely inescapable. Is that right?

No, we can still have facts even if gods are possible.

You misunderstood me. You attempted to refute my position that there need be a beginning by pointing me to your thread where in your OP you state as facts that you now admit (correctly) are not FACTS. So, your refutation doesn't hold the water you seem to think it did.

I am denying that supernatural beings are any kind of explanation in the first place since so many more questions, such as how and why they exist and whether there are laws governing such, are begged.

Yes those questions all arise, and are relevant only if we get past the first hurdle. Your first sense is patently false, meaning that IF everything was create by God or gods, that would indeed explain how it all came into being. We might still not now why or through what process, and they would be interesting to discuss, AFTER we get pass the first hurdle.

No - I consider a plurailty equally as improbable, I'm just covering the bases as far as world religions and those of history and prehistory are concerned. As the old saying goes, I just disbelieve in one more god than you. Why do you consider one more likely than many? Antyhing to do with the aforementioned Ockham, perchance?

Applying Ockham here should lead you to say that there is one God, not many. It is a simpler construct.

magellan01

04-19-2008, 10:39 PM

I'm interested to know why it is you've gone to God (and i'd point out that you'd probably do better at indicating you're referring to a generic god rather than a specific god if you didn't capitalise it, "God" generally being used to refer to the Christian God).

I use God partly out of habit, partly out of the belief that if we were in fact created by him, he deserves the big G, and partly to combat the demeaning of Him by many atheists.

I mean, let's break it down into its smallest parts. A Prime Mover must, logically, have the quality of not having been caused. I would disagree that it must have will, in that the creation of the universe could have been a mechanical process inevitably arising from the form of the PM. But it seems like to me you're answering the question of how a PM, a god, may avoid itself being a creation by using a concept that isn't. IOW, that the god isn't itself a creation because you've defined it as such. Assuming that's true (and I could easily be wrong); could you tell me a reason why I couldn't suggest for example the existence of a prime mover singular particle? What logical argument would you use to refute a particle PM that you can't also use on a god PM?

You raise a good point. I ascribe will to him because it seems the cleanest way to have an uncaused event. For instance, if, as you say, all came into being as a result of a mechanical process, we need to then ask what began the mechanical process. Correct? Your Particle PM is even more interesting to me. But then we have the problem of where did the matter (particle) come from? But if god has form, it cold very well be what you describe. But I don't think physicality is, or can be, an aspect of a PM. There's that matter of matter.

But it seems like to me you're answering the question of how a PM, a god, may avoid itself being a creation by using a concept that isn't.

I pulled this from your first paragraph to say I am not completely clear on what you're saying here. I think I got the gist of your paragraph, but wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something crucial. Am I?

magellan01

04-19-2008, 11:15 PM

None. That's my point - no metric. Don't try and say anything about what's outside the Universe, because it will be meaningless. "Outside the Universe" is a category error on a par with "Married Bachelor", within the logic applicable in this Universe. Your logic.

Then how is it you find the desire to spend so much time telling me my view is wrong? When it may very well be correct? Odd, that.

That's what I mean - you take comfort in a world where cause follows effect - that things always happen as they have. That logic always works. You can't conceive of a place where logic doesn't work.

True. But I have no reason to. What reason do you have the logic itself would fail us in another realm? True, either of us can be wrong, but I'd say that the most logical default position is that the logic framework that has proved itself so useful to understanding this realm would be just as useful in other realms. Not taking that position seems to be the illogical position—right here in this world.

Well, I don't know what other basis you have for your position. By your own standard, which seems to be classic deductive logic, your position isn't logical. It's internally contradictory. But you haven't addressed the contradiction.

Okay, what contradiction?

That the Universe is by definition self-contained. That we can not observe another universe at all. That Time as we know it is a property of this Universe only, by definition.

How do you speak with such certainty about things unknown yet continue to tell me that's what I'm doing. To help this discussion I just might have to send you my Teleporter and have you travel around to these other universes and see what role Time plays and how it relates to our universe.

It's not hubris to point out that you don't seem to know the fields you're attempting to argue in. I'm not trying to shame you, I'm replying to YOUR assertion that I lack a "wealth of knowledge," when you know nothing about my knowledge of logic, only that I don't agree with you on its applicability in this case.

You misunderstood me. I don't want to go back and track the exact exchanges, but I do remember that my comment had to do with why you would ignore logic, turn a blind eye to a wealth of knowledge. That was probably awkward. Maybe if had referred to it as "such a valuable tool" it would have been better. Though still not perfect. That said, my apologies if you took it as an insult in any way. That was not my intent.

Time is a property of the Universe. This is a fact. Sorry, this is a FACT. It's the only one needed to posit possible noncausality, which is where we started this.

No need to be sorry. We agree that time is a property of the universe—our universe. But you seem to also be of the opinion that time could not be part of other universes as well. So, as far as what role time plays elsewhere, you so far have listed no facts.

Either. Neither. And I don't "KNOW". That's the whole point. No-one can "KNOW".

Again, we agree. But you seem to KNOW that I'm wrong. How? And again, I maintain that believing that logic will indeed hold up is the MORE logical position.

Speak for yourself. I live in four dimensions, myself.

Nice. But you might in fact be living in 7, or 11, or 23...

There you go again, mistaking what I'm talking about - I'm not referring to this "world", however many dimensions it has. I'm referring to anything OUTSIDE the Universe. What you're talking about there, with your multi-dimension physics? That's still THIS Universe. Not what I'm talking about at all. I have no doubt that the laws of logic and geometry hold for this "world", however many dimensions it may have wrapped up around each other. That tells us nothing about OUTSIDE our Universe.

Again, you misunderstood me. I was talking about other universes. Let's say there is another universe somewhere. And that it has 17 dimensions. And two of those dimensions operate on a pane, like two of ours do. My point is that the tools we use to understand that two dimensional plane wold be as valid there as here.

You are still misunderstanding me, it seems. I'm NOT saying that logic definitely won't be the same outside our Universe. That would be wrong. I'm saying you can't say anything meaningful about it at all. I've repeatedly laid out why, with the idea that Time is a property of this Universe, not a multiversal property.

But isn't that, too, just an assumption?

Answer me one question:
Without Time as we know it, flowing arrowlike from Past to Future, how can we have Causality?

I don't see how we can. But we don't know how we came into being. The big bang is mum on what caused the big bang or if nothing caused it. It explains what happens at as the big bang is happening. If the big bang is at Time = 0, all the theory is talking about T+1. So we do not know ANYTHING about what preceded it or caused it. Including the role time would play, whether it is related to the time we know or not.

SentientMeat

04-20-2008, 01:04 AM

Cite, that these particles are created from nothing and for no reason. Cite, for them not possibly popping into a paricular location from another location.Do, please, read the wikis - they're a good place to start. Is there anything in them you think contradicts my statements? I don't know how one could demonstrate a reason for partilces appearing in vacuo, but I assure you that they in fact do.
I take that to mean that they are not completely inescapable. Is that right?
Well, the most brilliant physicists in the world haven't. If you think you can, I'd be interested in discussing how here (and possibly sharing your Nobel prize).
You misunderstood me. You attempted to refute my position that there need be a beginning by pointing me to your thread where in your OP you state as facts that you now admit (correctly) are not FACTS.The galactic redshift, CMB and modern cosmology show that you don't need a beginning just as planetary motion, Newtonian gravity and General Relativity show that you don't need planet-pushing angels. My OP is as factual as you get in science since one still can't prove that planet-pushing angels don't exist. But if you believed in them, or indeed predicated an argument on the possibility of their existence, your argument would be anti-scientific and counterfactual.

Yes those questions all arise, and are relevant only if we get past the first hurdle. Your first sense is patently false, meaning that IF everything was create by God or gods, that would indeed explain how it all came into being. We might still not now why or through what process, and they would be interesting to discuss, AFTER we get pass the first hurdle.Which, of course, we never will.

Applying Ockham here should lead you to say that there is one God, not many. It is a simpler construct.And zero is simpler again, given the solely natural explanations of modern science.

Listen, I get where you're coming from - I've participated in these threads many times. I would ask you only to genuinely explore the science related to the premises on which you're basing your argument, in this case quantum physics and cosmology. At the moment you seem to be tilting at the rather weak "But they're just theories!" windmill, which is what Evolution Deniers do and what Moving Earth deniers did in the 16th Century. I'd be happy to discuss anyhting you find difficult first time round.

Snag

04-20-2008, 01:40 AM

Of course. But the Prime Mover, having nothing acting upon him, would have to have volition coming from within.

As far as we know - and perhaps a likely possibility when considering Everett's Many Worlds theory for one - is that our universe may be one of many within a multiverse or omniverse or what have you. This states that all possibilities play out, if a coin is flipped and we see heads it also has to be tails somewhere else. In other words, there is some possibility of other versions, other timelines, of the universe we live in.

Then there is another notion for the existence of multiple universes, a different one. A singularity such as a black hole, it is also suggested by quantum physics, may be singularities that create new universes in time / space outside our universe. That may be how ours came to be. Other universes may not have the same physical laws as ours, thus 2+2=4 could be gibberish in some other space with different laws of physics. This raises another possibility of more than one universe may exist.

It is just as likely that there is no prime mover, simply a multiverse that has always existed and always will even if individual universes come and go. In fact, we have more evidence for the existence of such things than we do of any gods, thus making it more likely. At least there is some math that works in describing our universe which suggests the possibility. No such evidence of gods.

I can't see how the idea of a possibly infinite, eternal universe is anywhere less probable than a prime mover who is supposed to have the same characteristics. In fact, it's a simpler answer that the universe may have been created by the natural processes of a multiverse opposed to having somecomplex being with a will who has to say the word to create us. No man has created a black hole (yet), yet these enormous singularities in our universe may be calving new universes at this very moment. We know that black holes exist as singularities.

No one has yet come up with a universal definition of god(s) much less pointed a telescope at him/them/it.

MrDibble

04-20-2008, 05:42 AM

Then how is it you find the desire to spend so much time telling me my view is wrong? When it may very well be correct? Odd, that.I'm saying the very HAVING OF A VIEW is wrong. It's boneheaded. It can NEVER, EVER, EVER be confirmed. It is as useful as me having a view on what happens behind the scenes in Care Bear Land. More useless, even - Care Bear Land might possibly exist, somewhere. "Outside the Universe" does not.

True. But I have no reason to. What reason do you have the logic itself would fail us in another realm? Not would, might. Because of the "No Time, No Causality, No MP" thing.
True, either of us can be wrong, but I'd say that the most logical default position is that the logic framework that has proved itself so useful to understanding this realm would be just as useful in other realms. This is NOT, NOT, NOT the logical default position. Do you even know what "NULL HYPOTHESIS" means?
Not taking that position seems to be the illogical position—right here in this world.
BUT We not talking about this "world"!

Okay, what contradiction?
That you use the rules of logic to prove logic. Self-circularity.

You didn't answer my question - Do you know what "Completeness" means in this context?

How do you speak with such certainty about things unknown yet continue to tell me that's what I'm doing.If you get "such certainty" from me shouting "We CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW!" then you are being somewhat willfully obtuse.
To help this discussion I just might have to send you my Teleporter and have you travel around to these other universes and see what role Time plays and how it relates to our universe.
THERE. RIGHT ^ THERE is where you show that you just don't get it - that you do not have the first iota of a glimmering of a clue of what I'm talking about. You are ignorant of the meaning of the term "Universe" in the context I've been using it. In which case talking with you about "before the Universe" has been wasted pixels.
You misunderstood me. I don't want to go back and track the exact exchanges, but I do remember that my comment had to do with why you would ignore logic, turn a blind eye to a wealth of knowledge. I'm not ignoring logic. I'm using your own logic system to show that your own stance is illogical.
That was probably awkward. Maybe if had referred to it as "such a valuable tool" it would have been better.Not really - I've shown why you can't use the tool to make itself. Deductive logics rely on some default axioms, one of which is MP. You yourself have admitted you can't have MP without Time. So Outside, your tool is useless.

Your entire argument amounts to "Logic is a useful tool here, so I wish it was useful there". I'm not saying it definitely isn't useful there, I'm saying you can't use it on There FROM HERE. It's a logical impossibility. An oxymoron. A category error. A giant honking mistake.
Though still not perfect. That said, my apologies if you took it as an insult in any way. That was not my intent.
OK, no problem. .

No need to be sorry. We agree that time is a property of the universe—our universe. Time as we know it is EXCLUSIVELY a property of our Universe.
But you seem to also be of the opinion that time could not be part of other universes as well. Not the SAME Time, no.So, as far as what role time plays elsewhere, you so far have listed no facts.
Yes, I have - Time as we know it is part of This Universe, BY DEFINITION. That is a fact. Everything else flows from that.

Again, we agree. But you seem to KNOW that I'm wrong.I don't KNOW you're "Wrong", for whatever that means in this context. I just know that we CAN NEVER KNOW.
How?By the definition of Universe And again, I maintain that believing that logic will indeed hold up is the MORE logical position.
No, it isn't. It may be the experientially-correct opinion, I can't fault you there. But I've been using your own system of logic to show that we can't say what holds outside the universe:
1) Deductive Logic requires Modus Ponens. (if A then B. A, therefore B)
2) Modus Ponens requires Causality as we usually know it. (hell, MP is just a statement of causality really)
3) Causality requires Time as we know it (arrow, past->future.)
4) TAWKI is an exclusive property of this Universe (From the DEFINITION of Universe)
5) So Outside the Universe there is no TAWKI (Negation of 4)
6) So Outside the universe, no causality, no MP, no deductive logic.

There may be something else, something that looks an awful lot like DL, but WE CAN'T SAY, because we CAN KNOW NOTHING about Outside The Universe.

Nice. But you might in fact be living in 7, or 11, or 23...
But definitely NOT 3.

Again, you misunderstood me. I was talking about other universes. That wasn't clear from your statement. You do understand that the 11-dimensional superstring universe is still OUR Universe, yes?
Let's say there is another universe somewhere. And that it has 17 dimensions. And two of those dimensions operate on a pane, like two of ours do. My point is that the tools we use to understand that two dimensional plane wold be as valid there as here.So a triangle would still have angles that add up to 180°, type of thing? You're aware that doesn't even hold true in our Universe, right?Standard Pythagorean Theorem only holds for a particular, highly artificial set of conditions (there are more involved formulations for other geometries) - in some ways, Euclidean geometry is like Newtonian Mechanics. Very anthropocentric, useful on a day-to-day human scale, but breaks down in the larger Universe.

But isn't that, too, just an assumption?
No, it's definitional.

I don't see how we can. Good
But we don't know how we came into being.
And we can never know.
The big bang is mum on what caused the big bang or if nothing caused it.It CAN'T say.
It explains what happens at as the big bang is happening. If the big bang is at Time = 0, all the theory is talking about T+1. So we do not know ANYTHING about what preceded it or caused it. Including the role time would play, whether it is related to the time we know or not.
NO. Are you listening to yourself? "Time we know" IS "Time". There is no other Time, for us. "T-1" CANNOT EXIST. "preceded the Big Bang" is a meaningless term. You keep saying it, but it is WRONG. It is a category mistake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_error) . Like "Married Bachelor" or "Living Dead".

Revenant Threshold

04-20-2008, 05:57 AM

I use God partly out of habit, partly out of the belief that if we were in fact created by him, he deserves the big G, and partly to combat the demeaning of Him by many atheists. That's fair. But like I said, I would say that if people do get confused and think you're talking about the Christian God, that could easily contribute to that. When you say demeaning, though, if you mean just demeaning in general fair enough, but if you mean by not capitalising a generic god we're being demeaning, I would say (at least in my case) it's really not intended. You raise a good point. I ascribe will to him because it seems the cleanest way to have an uncaused event. For instance, if, as you say, all came into being as a result of a mechanical process, we need to then ask what began the mechanical process. Correct? Your Particle PM is even more interesting to me. But then we have the problem of where did the matter (particle) come from? But if god has form, it cold very well be what you describe. But I don't think physicality is, or can be, an aspect of a PM. There's that matter of matter. We certainly need to ask what began the mechanical process, but I don't see that itself being much different from a god. After all, a god is (usually) suggested to have thoughts, a personality; essentially these too are if not mechanical but moving functions, assumed to come into existence with the god. If we accept as possible the existence of a god with motivations in place, then it doesn't seem a big jump to me to assume the existence of a PM likewise with mechanical functions working.

I'm not entirely convinced that a PM can't have physicality, though. The problem essentially is what does it have physicality in, but then the universe has physicality despite general unknowing of what it's in (or if that even makes sense as an idea). Besides, if we're talking about the existence of a Prime Mover, then likewise the spiritual "realm" doesn't exist either; a god is (I would guess) composed of some spiritual matter, and would likewise need to exist in a void at first.I pulled this from your first paragraph to say I am not completely clear on what you're saying here. I think I got the gist of your paragraph, but wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something crucial. Am I? Yeah, looking back on it I don't think it was that clear either. Sorry!

Basically what I was trying to say was that you seemed to be answering the question of what a Prime Mover could be with a definition, and not an answer. I mean, it seems like your definition of God in this particular case can be summed up pretty entirely as "that which has no cause", but without saying why it is or what other definitions it would match (though you've later expounded on that point). So it's essentially answering the question "What was the first cause of the universe?", "That which was first caused". It's true, assuming the presmises are correct, but it doesn't mean we have an answer, just that we have an idea of what the answer would have to be like.

Snag

04-20-2008, 11:08 AM

I can't see how the idea of a possibly infinite, eternal universe is anywhere less probable than a prime mover who is supposed to have the same characteristics. In fact, it's a simpler answer that the universe may have been created by the natural processes of a multiverse opposed to having somecomplex being with a will who has to say the word to create us.

Oops. I meant to say I can't see how the idea of a possibly infinite, eternal multiverse is anywhere less probable than a prime mover who is supposed to have the same characteristics.

magellan01

04-20-2008, 02:49 PM

Do, please, read the wikis - they're a good place to start. Is there anything in them you think contradicts my statements? I don't know how one could demonstrate a reason for partilces appearing in vacuo, but I assure you that they in fact do.

I think we should just agree to disagree. You seem to derive some comfort in the fantasy that I have no experience with the subject. Expecting me to believe that the books on my bookshelves are not there, that the recollection I have of reading them is false, that I have never subscribed to and read either Discover or Scientific American, that I have not attended lectures held by cosmologists at Stanford University.

I have offered a proposition, you attempt to refute it with things you couch as FACTS in your other thread. Except we've since determined they are not facts. You attempt to crush my position by throwing theories at it that conflict with it to varying degrees. Some of which (QM) you claim says things it does not. So, I see no reason to abandon my position with what you have offered. I am sure there are a hundred other theories that would conflict with my position, and some of them will conflict with each other, so what? Where does that get us? Nowhere. You seek to confuse the forest by examining pine needles. Much of what you offer simply doesn't interest me, in that my proposition is looking at things from a higher elevation, i.e, I believe there is a Prime Mover. Why, because of our understanding of causality.

I'lljust add, that intentionally or not, your posts are getting increasingly insulting. Either way, thanks for the back and forth, but I think we should just leave things where they are. Except for...

Which, of course, we never will.

Oh, so you can see the future. Quick, get off the computer and go to the race track.

And zero is simpler again, given the solely natural explanations of modern science.

Nice try. The question went to one god versus multiple gods. You cited Ockham's Razor and argued for multiple gods being at least as plausible as a single god. I'd ask you to be a little more careful with your future responses. I'm in no need of straw. But as I said, I think we should just agree to disagree.

magellan01

04-20-2008, 03:16 PM

As far as we know - and perhaps a likely possibility when considering Everett's Many Worlds theory for one - is that our universe may be one of many within a multiverse or omniverse or what have you. This states that all possibilities play out, if a coin is flipped and we see heads it also has to be tails somewhere else. In other words, there is some possibility of other versions, other timelines, of the universe we live in.

Then there is another notion for the existence of multiple universes, a different one. A singularity such as a black hole, it is also suggested by quantum physics, may be singularities that create new universes in time / space outside our universe. That may be how ours came to be. Other universes may not have the same physical laws as ours, thus 2+2=4 could be gibberish in some other space with different laws of physics. This raises another possibility of more than one universe may exist.

I don't disagree with any of this, I think. But I'd qualify a few things. One even if universes pop into existence, it seems to me that something caused them to "pop" at that particular point in time, and not a second sooner or later. As far as 2+2=4, of course my point is that that would hold wherever the concept of twoness, fourness, addition and equality hold.

It is just as likely that there is no prime mover, simply a multiverse that has always existed and always will even if individual universes come and go. In fact, we have more evidence for the existence of such things than we do of any gods, thus making it more likely.

I don't see what evidence there is for anything eternal or infinite. Can you point to something?

I can't see how the idea of a possibly infinite, eternal universe is anywhere less probable than a prime mover who is supposed to have the same characteristics.

Where did matter come from? It it was birthed through energy, what provided the energy? I see a Prime Mover as a much less problematic proposition.

No one has yet come up with a universal definition of god(s) much less pointed a telescope at him/them/it.

I guess. But that doesn't have anything to do with what I've been discussing. EHWn I say Prime Mover or god or God, I ascribe no qualities to Him other than He operates outside of the laws of causality. And that He made it all possible.

magellan01

04-20-2008, 04:40 PM

I'm saying the very HAVING OF A VIEW is wrong. It's boneheaded. It can NEVER, EVER, EVER be confirmed. It is as useful as me having a view on what happens behind the scenes in Care Bear Land. More useless, even - Care Bear Land might possibly exist, somewhere.

Boneheaded? Hmmm. I think the concept is interesting and that one CAN have a view, wrong as it might be. YOU think that even having a view is boneheaded—"more useless" than opining on Care Bear Land, yet you have posted many very long posts about the very subject. You may want to look up the term "boneheaded". But thanks for the chuckle.

Outside the Universe" does not.

Cite, please, for your omniscience.

Not would, might. Because of the "No Time, No Causality, No MP" thing.
This is NOT, NOT, NOT the logical default position. Do you even know what "NULL HYPOTHESIS" means?

You can construct a null hypothesis to support either position. But neither would be very helpful. I don't see how what is most usefully a statistical tool can help when we will have no statistics to test they hypothesis against. I am not arguing there is evidence for god. And you have no evidence for there not being a god.

That you use the rules of logic to prove logic. Self-circularity.

Ah, cute. So the whole discussion is moot, a waste of time, because if we take away logic, we have no other tool to "prove" anything. Not helpful to the discussion, but cute.

You didn't answer my question - Do you know what "Completeness" means in this context?

Yes. Though I admit that my symbolic logic class that introduced it to me was quite a ways ago. I do get hung up on the nuances. Perhaps you'd be so good as to point to where you'd like me to focus:

Logical completeness

In logic, completeness is the converse of soundness for formal systems. A formal system has "completeness" when all tautologies are theorems whereas a formal system has "soundness" when all theorems are tautologies. Kurt Gödel, Leon Henkin, and Post all published proofs of completeness. (See History of the Church-Turing thesis.) A system is consistent if a proof never exists for both P and not P. The proof of Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves that no system that is sufficiently powerful (recursive), such as the Peano axioms, can be both consistent and complete.

- A language is expressively complete if it can express the subject matter for which it is intended.
- A formal system is complete with respect to a property iff every sentence that has the property is a theorem.
- A formal system is functionally complete if it has adequate logical connectives to express all of the theorems of the language.
- A formal system is strongly complete or complete in the strong sense iff no sentence which is not a theorem can become a theorem through the addition of a new basic rule to the deductive apparatus of the formal system (a rule of inference or an axiom) without the system becoming unsound. First-order sentential calculus is strongly complete.
- A formal system is extremely complete or complete in the extreme sense iff every sentence is a theorem.
- A formal system is deductively complete iff there are no formulas constructed on the base of the system (the axioms) which are derivable by the rules of the system as theorems and which are not tautologies.

In one sense, a formal system S is syntactically complete or maximally complete iff for each formula A of the language of the system either A or ~A is a theorem of S. This is also called negation completeness. In another sense, a formal system is syntactically complete iff no unprovable schema can be added to it as an axiom schema without inconsistency. Truth-functional propositional logic is semantically, and syntactically complete. First-order predicate logic is semantically complete, but not syntactically or negation complete.
An effective method (or decision procedure) is complete if, the method always produces the correct answer to a decision problem.
[edit]

If you get "such certainty" from me shouting "We CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW!" then you are being somewhat willfully obtuse.

Right back at ya.

THERE. RIGHT ^ THERE is where you show that you just don't get it - that you do not have the first iota of a glimmering of a clue of what I'm talking about. You are ignorant of the meaning of the term "Universe" in the context I've been using it. In which case talking with you about "before the Universe" has been wasted pixels.

You can stop wasting them any time you'd like. Look, you're really starting to be a jerk here. "Ignorant" of the term of the way you've been using it? That's an add way to put something. First, I think you are misunderstanding my use of the terms. Second, IF I were mistaken in how you were using a term, whose fault is that? Maybe you haven't been clear. But if you want to throw around "ignorant" as a chickenshit backhanded insult in a way that skirts being a violation, knock yourself out. Here. let me help you: I'll even admit to actual ignorance. I am ignorant as to why someone who doesn''t think logic applies to a discussion extra-universally has spent so much time using logic to tell me my position isn't one worth holding onto. I'll also admit ignorance as to why your wife married you and why your family loves you. Or if they do. and why you wore that shirt today. There: ignorant on many levels. Happy?

I'm not ignoring logic. I'm using your own logic system to show that your own stance is illogical.

You're asking that I abandon the very tool we have to understand things. No thanks.

Not really - I've shown why you can't use the tool to make itself. Deductive logics rely on some default axioms, one of which is MP. You yourself have admitted you can't have MP without Time. So Outside, your tool is useless.

But you're assuming that there is no time. Tell me, do you assume there is no length width and depth, too? Why? Why not? PLease be sure to answer this.

Your entire argument amounts to "Logic is a useful tool here, so I wish it was useful there". I'm not saying it definitely isn't useful there, I'm saying you can't use it on There FROM HERE. It's a logical impossibility. An oxymoron. A category error. A giant honking mistake.

No. I'm saying it is useful here. and it is so useful here, so consistently, that I have no reason to accept the default proposition that it will be not be useful elsewhere. SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS NOT A LOGICAL POSITION. IN FACT, SHOW ME HOW THAT IS NOT THE MOST LOGICAL POSITION. Please answer both independently. Note that I'm not saying it is necessarily correct, only that it is a logical position.

The latter half of what you wrote in that passage I see as nothing more than your opinion, which you are entitled to but which I am by no means bound to accept.

Time as we know it is EXCLUSIVELY a property of our Universe.
Not the SAME Time, no.Yes, I have - Time as we know it is part of This Universe, BY DEFINITION. That is a fact. Everything else flows from that.

Time "as we know it". Yes. But we cannot know the relationship between our time and whatever (if any) construct of time might exist in another universe. It may be 1) non existent or 2) existent. And if 2, it may be nothing like our construct or it may be very similar, even identical. So you are arguing from a position of which you have no knowledge.

I don't KNOW you're "Wrong", for whatever that means in this context. I just know that we CAN NEVER KNOW.

Maybe. Probably even. But I don't see why I can't think about it. and I really don't see why you, having the position you do, really give a shit one way or another.

By the definition of UniverseNo, it isn't. It may be the experientially-correct opinion, I can't fault you there. But I've been using your own system of logic to show that we can't say what holds outside the universe:
1) Deductive Logic requires Modus Ponens. (if A then B. A, therefore B)
2) Modus Ponens requires Causality as we usually know it. (hell, MP is just a statement of causality really)
3) Causality requires Time as we know it (arrow, past->future.)
4) TAWKI is an exclusive property of this Universe (From the DEFINITION of Universe)
5) So Outside the Universe there is no TAWKI (Negation of 4)
6) So Outside the universe, no causality, no MP, no deductive logic.

I've already pointed out the problems with NUmber 4, which bleeds into 5 and 6.

So, I may—may—be 100% correct. Good. That's comforting. I'm glad you see that.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]That wasn't clear from your statement. You do understand that the 11-dimensional superstring universe is still OUR Universe, yes?

SHeezus! How can we be so much on different pages. Yes. Eleven dimensions. One Universe. Our universe. Or so the theory goes.

So a triangle would still have angles that add up to 180°, type of thing? You're aware that doesn't even hold true in our Universe, right?Standard Pythagorean Theorem only holds for a particular, highly artificial set of conditions (there are more involved formulations for other geometries) - in some ways, Euclidean geometry is like Newtonian Mechanics. Very anthropocentric, useful on a day-to-day human scale, but breaks down in the larger Universe.

I'm talking about simple, two-dimensional plane geometry, which is pure in a sense. When you introduce variables such as curvature, it's no longer as valuable a tool. I'm talking about Pi. I'm talking about relationships that have been proven to hold true in a two dimensional world.

And we can never know.

Again, that's an assumption. Not a fact. "And we will never know" wold be closer to a fact, but still an assumption as well.

NO. Are you listening to yourself? "Time we know" IS "Time". There is no other Time, for us. "T-1" CANNOT EXIST. "preceded the Big Bang" is a meaningless term. You keep saying it, but it is WRONG. It is a category mistake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_error) . Like "Married Bachelor" or "Living Dead".

Nope. Again, you are assuming that there can be no time construct outside of our universe. You are assuming that our universe, big bang included, is not an event inside a larger framework.

magellan01

04-20-2008, 04:53 PM

That's fair. But like I said, I would say that if people do get confused and think you're talking about the Christian God, that could easily contribute to that. When you say demeaning, though, if you mean just demeaning in general fair enough, but if you mean by not capitalising a generic god we're being demeaning, I would say (at least in my case) it's really not intended.

No, I don't see not capitalizing God as demeaning. That's not the what I was referring to.

We certainly need to ask what began the mechanical process, but I don't see that itself being much different from a god. After all, a god is (usually) suggested to have thoughts, a personality; essentially these too are if not mechanical but moving functions, assumed to come into existence with the god. If we accept as possible the existence of a god with motivations in place, then it doesn't seem a big jump to me to assume the existence of a PM likewise with mechanical functions working.

For me the term "mechanical" implies physicality, matter. And as I've said earlier, I think that raises problems avoided by having a non-physical entity.

I'm not entirely convinced that a PM can't have physicality, though. The problem essentially is what does it have physicality in, but then the universe has physicality despite general unknowing of what it's in (or if that even makes sense as an idea). Besides, if we're talking about the existence of a Prime Mover, then likewise the spiritual "realm" doesn't exist either; a god is (I would guess) composed of some spiritual matter, and would likewise need to exist in a void at first.

I think we agree here. Though I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about a spiritual realm as a place, or even a dimension. If it exists my guess it is the "thing" that all the dimensions, energy, matter operate comfortably within.

Basically what I was trying to say was that you seemed to be answering the question of what a Prime Mover could be with a definition, and not an answer. I mean, it seems like your definition of God in this particular case can be summed up pretty entirely as "that which has no cause", but without saying why it is or what other definitions it would match (though you've later expounded on that point). So it's essentially answering the question "What was the first cause of the universe?", "That which was first caused". It's true, assuming the presmises are correct, but it doesn't mean we have an answer, just that we have an idea of what the answer would have to be like.

I think that's right. To clarify, a Prime Mover God 1) has no cause and 2) set everything else into existence. Whether it be with a distinct plan or a sneeze.

Revenant Threshold

04-20-2008, 05:33 PM

No, I don't see not capitalizing God as demeaning. That's not the what I was referring to. Then fair enough. If I end up being demeaning accidentally, please point it out. I'm generally not careful enough to avoid it or to notice not avoiding it. ;) For me the term "mechanical" implies physicality, matter. And as I've said earlier, I think that raises problems avoided by having a non-physical entity. Why, though? Which problems are avoided? The big one I can think of is the one I mentioned, that of existing in something. I think we agree here. Though I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about a spiritual realm as a place, or even a dimension. If it exists my guess it is the "thing" that all the dimensions, energy, matter operate comfortably within. This is just a general thought, and I could be way off-base, but it seems to me that your thoughts are generally along the lines of hypothetical defined concepts which you've added spiritual concepts on top off. I know you've said earlier that you don't follow any particular religion, but it seems like that could actually be taken further; you've got answers which fulfil the defined requirements, and have then named them after those things which are generally considered to fulfil them, rather than out of an actual personal belief that that is the thing which fulfils them. I mean, that you call what you consider to be a likely Prime Mover God not because you necessarily believe it to be a god, but because it's most often gods which are believed to fulfil the requirements of Prime Mover. That you call the spiritual whatever-it-may-be spiritual not because of a belief that it is necessarily spiritual precisely in nature, but because generally that which is considered outside of the physical world in that way is called spiritual. Is that at all accurate (And I apologise if it's offensive)?I think that's right. To clarify, a Prime Mover God 1) has no cause and 2) set everything else into existence. Whether it be with a distinct plan or a sneeze. Well, it need not set everything else into existence. If the existence of one Prime Mover is possible, then two is likewise a possibility, with one further altering/creating everything else whilst not itself being a creation of the prior PM. I don't want to get into the whole Occam's Razor argument that seems to be going on about the likelihood of a plurality of gods, but it's certainly a possibility, so I think really the only necessary definitionis 1).

magellan01

04-20-2008, 08:24 PM

Then fair enough. If I end up being demeaning accidentally, please point it out. I'm generally not careful enough to avoid it or to notice not avoiding it. ;)

Revenant, I don't think it's a problem. I've learned that if you wander into that territory it is usually accidental. I have no problem with you. Quite the opposite. I think you are one of the more civil debaters on these boards. Particularly when the topic may have an emotional component. And that is the real test.

Why, though? Which problems are avoided? The big one I can think of is the one I mentioned, that of existing in something.

In addition to the problem you cite, which I think is a substantial one, the way I think about it is that a physical manifestation would be preceded by a notion of that manifestation. So, any physical reality would first take the form of an idea of the manifestation in a mind of some sort. That's the way I see it any way.

This is just a general thought, and I could be way off-base, but it seems to me that your thoughts are generally along the lines of hypothetical defined concepts which you've added spiritual concepts on top off. I know you've said earlier that you don't follow any particular religion, but it seems like that could actually be taken further; you've got answers which fulfil the defined requirements, and have then named them after those things which are generally considered to fulfil them, rather than out of an actual personal belief that that is the thing which fulfils them. I mean, that you call what you consider to be a likely Prime Mover God not because you necessarily believe it to be a god, but because it's most often gods which are believed to fulfil the requirements of Prime Mover. That you call the spiritual whatever-it-may-be spiritual not because of a belief that it is necessarily spiritual precisely in nature, but because generally that which is considered outside of the physical world in that way is called spiritual. Is that at all accurate (And I apologise if it's offensive)?

It's not offensive. I think, as far as I think I understand what you've written, that that's pretty accurate. I'm not so sure about the spiritual aspect, other than this Prime Mover/God would exist in what we would consider an extra-natural realm.

Well, it need not set everything else into existence. If the existence of one Prime Mover is possible, then two is likewise a possibility, with one further altering/creating everything else whilst not itself being a creation of the prior PM. I don't want to get into the whole Occam's Razor argument that seems to be going on about the likelihood of a plurality of gods, but it's certainly a possibility, so I think really the only necessary definitionis 1).

All of what you say here is absolutely possible. I am less interested in the nature of this God than I am the existence of him. That said, a plurality, to me, implies a sense of order, meaning the relationship between the entities. This points to, in my mind anyway, the possibility of a yet higher entity that is responsible for that order. Kind of like Zeus and Olympus. But I agree that there may well be multiple gods. I do think for the purpose of the discussion that interests me—is there a Prime Mover or not—a singular Prime Mover is the simpler explanation.

MrDibble

04-21-2008, 04:52 AM

Boneheaded? Hmmm. I think the concept is interesting and that one CAN have a view, wrong as it might be. YOU think that even having a view is boneheaded—"more useless" than opining on Care Bear Land, yet you have posted many very long posts about the very subject. You may want to look up the term "boneheaded". But thanks for the chuckle.
Oh, the "WWHY don't you quit posting!" comeback? If you think I'm posting to persuade you, you're mistaken

Cite, please, for your omniscience.
Not my omniscience - just the definition of Universe
You can construct a null hypothesis to support either position.No, there is only one null in this argument.I am not arguing there is evidence for god. And you have no evidence for there not being a god.

Not evidence - you are arguing that there is a need for a God as Prime Mover. I am arguing that there is not.
Ah, cute. So the whole discussion is moot, a waste of time, because if we take away logic, we have no other tool to "prove" anything. Not helpful to the discussion, but cute.
But I'm not trying to "prove" anything outside this Universe. You are. I'm saying you can't.

Yes. Though I admit that my symbolic logic class that introduced it to me was quite a ways ago. I do get hung up on the nuances. Perhaps you'd be so good as to point to where you'd like me to focus:
I take it you didn't keep your textbooks, then? Anyway, I've already focused on where I want - deductive logic can't be called a complete system because MP is self-circular, so you can't use it to prove that MP always holds in all universes. Hell, you AGREED that MP doesn't always have to hold, but then you turn around and say DL will always hold. Great consistency there :rolleyes:
Right back at ya.
Cute, but doesn't address my complaint.
You can stop wasting them any time you'd like. Look, you're really starting to be a jerk here. So report me. I'm not the one who made with the veiled insults, remember? I'm telling you exactly where you've been wrong."Ignorant" of the term of the way you've been using it?Well, "ignorant of the very definition of the term" is probably more accurate. That's an add way to put something. First, I think you are misunderstanding my use of the terms. Second, IF I were mistaken in how you were using a term, whose fault is that? Yours, for not looking in a dictionary. Hell, the Wikipedia article on "Universe" is quite comprehensive. I'm surprised you haven't read it yet. Maybe you haven't been clear.I've been using the commonly-accepted definition of Universe as it used in science and cosmology. I don't have to be clear, you have to be obtuse to mess that up. But if you want to throw around "ignorant" as a chickenshit backhanded insult in a way that skirts being a violation, knock yourself out.It's not an insult, it's a description. If you don't know that "Universe" means (roughly)"all of accesible space-time" then you are ignorant for the purposes of this discussion. Which your "Teleporter" remarks served as ample illustration of. Here. let me help you: I'll even admit to actual ignorance. I am ignorant as to why someone who doesn''t think logic applies to a discussion extra-universally has spent so much time using logic to tell me my position isn't one worth holding onto.Because logic does work in this Universe, to settle arguments that (according to you) were strictly based on logic. I'm seeing now that actually arguing with you logically was probably a trap, as you either don't understand the proofs offered to you, or you're willfully ignoring them. That's OK, there's always the lurkers who can be persuaded. I'll also admit ignorance as to why your wife married you and why your family loves you. Or if they do.Ther's a Pit thread still open for insults about my wife, veiled as they are. Take it there. and why you wore that shirt today.I always wear my "I'm with Stupid" shirt when I'm posting on the Dope. Don't you? There: ignorant on many levels. Happy?As a pig in shit.
You're asking that I abandon the very tool we have to understand things. No thanks.No, I'm asking that you abandon the attempt to apply it where it doesn't work
But you're assuming that there is no time.No, I'm assuming we can't know Tell me, do you assume there is no length width and depth, too? Why? Why not?No, I'm assuming we can't know about those dimensions either
No. I'm saying it is useful here. and it is so useful here, so consistently, that I have no reason to accept the default proposition that it will be not be useful elsewhere. SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS NOT A LOGICAL POSITION. Because it disagrees with the FACTS™IN FACT, SHOW ME HOW THAT IS NOT THE MOST LOGICAL POSITION.Because it disagrees with the FACTS™ Please answer both independently. Note that I'm not saying it is necessarily correct, only that it is a logical position.No, it isn't - you've been shown why you can't have a reasonable expectation that causality will hold outside the Universe. To continue arguing the converse means you substantially disagree with the accepted definition of "Universe". If that is the case, I wish you'd come right out and say so, I hate arguing with someoen who's actually arguing semantics when I thought they were arghuing logically
Time "as we know it". Yes. But we cannot know the relationship between our time and whatever (if any) construct of time might exist in another universe. THAT"S MY ENTIRE POINTIt may be 1) non existent or 2) existent. And if 2, it may be nothing like our construct or it may be very similar, even identical. So you are arguing from a position of which you have no knowledge.This is not consistent with your previous point - I am saying we do not know, you agree that we do not know, how can you then claim to know?

Maybe. Probably even. But I don't see why I can't think about it. and I really don't see why you, having the position you do, really give a shit one way or another.
Because you're trying to use your "thoughts" on it to PROVE your assumptions about a Prime Mover. I'm just pointing out that you have no logical valid reasoning to back up your statements about the necessity of a PM.
I've already pointed out the problems with NUmber 4, which bleeds into 5 and 6.
And I've pointed out that your objections are bullshit. Time is what it is.
So, I may—may—be 100% correct. Good. That's comforting. I'm glad you see that.
You may be correct. But you can't say with any certainty.makes youre argument about the NECESSITY of a Prime Mover wrong, though. I'm afraid "A Prime Mover is POSSIBLE" is not the same as "A Prime Mover is NECESSARY". Your entire argument so far, all the acrimony and diversion, amounts to the first, when you really need to prove the latter. To jump from the first to the second is illogical, and just wishful thinking
I'm talking about simple, two-dimensional plane geometry, which is pure in a sense. When you introduce variables such as curvature, it's no longer as valuable a tool.The entire universe is curved, though. I'm talking about Pi. I'm talking about relationships that have been proven to hold true in a two dimensional world.This will only be significant in Flatland. I don't see the relevance to other Universes, where you can't say that spacetime even exists.
Again, that's an assumption. Not a fact. "And we will never know" wold be closer to a fact, but still an assumption as well.
No, it's a FACT™. It is built in to the defintion of our Universe
Nope. Again, you are assuming that there can be no time construct outside of our universe. Not Time as we know it, no. You are assuming that our universe, big bang included, is not an event inside a larger framework.
It doesn't matter. Once again - for us, there is no "Outside our Universe". It doesn't exist in any meaningful way - we can never interact with it, we can only speculate.

Revenant Threshold

04-21-2008, 06:35 AM

In addition to the problem you cite, which I think is a substantial one, the way I think about it is that a physical manifestation would be preceded by a notion of that manifestation. So, any physical reality would first take the form of an idea of the manifestation in a mind of some sort. That's the way I see it any way. Why, though? I mean, I can see why it would makes sense; that you need the concept of a thing before that thing can exist does sound reasonable. But I don't see why it's necessary. It's not offensive. I think, as far as I think I understand what you've written, that that's pretty accurate. I'm not so sure about the spiritual aspect, other than this Prime Mover/God would exist in what we would consider an extra-natural realm. Fair enough. This was less an argument more an attempt to understand where you're coming from on this one, so good to know I was close I guess. ;) All of what you say here is absolutely possible. I am less interested in the nature of this God than I am the existence of him. That said, a plurality, to me, implies a sense of order, meaning the relationship between the entities. This points to, in my mind anyway, the possibility of a yet higher entity that is responsible for that order. Kind of like Zeus and Olympus. But I agree that there may well be multiple gods. I do think for the purpose of the discussion that interests me—is there a Prime Mover or not—a singular Prime Mover is the simpler explanation. Sure, i'd agree with that. All I meant to point out was that it's not a necessary requirement, even if it is a more likely one. And really, when it comes to the existence of Prime Movers, we're generally ignorant enough about how that would work that i'm not really sure we can say the existence of one PM is more likely than the existence of more than one.

magellan01

04-21-2008, 09:30 AM

You may be correct. But you can't say with any certainty.makes youre argument about the NECESSITY of a Prime Mover wrong, though. I'm afraid "A Prime Mover is POSSIBLE" is not the same as "A Prime Mover is NECESSARY". Your entire argument so far, all the acrimony and diversion, amounts to the first, when you really need to prove the latter.

Let's make this short and sweet, as I don't enjoy the attitude you seem intent on bringing to this discussion. What you wrote here gets to the crux of the issue. To recap: My position is that there is a need for a PM. The reason I offer for this is the need to have a First Cause that doesn't need it's own cause. You bristle that I attribute causality, and the logic that goes with it, to anything not of our universe. I reply that the abstract tools that have served us well here—particularly in scientific discovery—would most likely be as valuable elsewhere. My reasoning for that is that they have proves so dependable here. That there is no certain instance where they have failed us. Still, I've said more than once in this very thread that I may, of course, be wrong, but that based on our history with logic, the more logical default position is that logic would be useful elsewhere. You disagree, throwing out FACTS that aren't facts at all. You even admit I may, in fact, be correct, which would show that much of your facts are not facts. You say now I need to "prove" my position. If you don't know that I can't "prove" my position anymore than you can "prove" yours, our exchange has been even a greater waste of time than I feared.

magellan01

04-21-2008, 09:45 AM

Why, though? I mean, I can see why it would makes sense; that you need the concept of a thing before that thing can exist does sound reasonable. But I don't see why it's necessary.

Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention. If we are talking about this quality as it relates to the PM, something that by definition, was not caused, then a non-physical entity seems to require one less step than a physical one. That's how I'm able to wrap my head around it, anyway.

Fair enough. This was less an argument more an attempt to understand where you're coming from on this one, so good to know I was close I guess. ;)

I think it was very helpful to the exchange. Thanks for going through the exercise.

Sure, i'd agree with that. All I meant to point out was that it's not a necessary requirement, even if it is a more likely one. And really, when it comes to the existence of Prime Movers, we're generally ignorant enough about how that would work that i'm not really sure we can say the existence of one PM is more likely than the existence of more than one.

Beyond having to choose a position if pressed and arriving at the position I did, I'd agree with that completely.

MrDibble

04-21-2008, 10:33 AM

Let's make this short and sweet, as I don't enjoy the attitude you seem intent on bringing to this discussion.Take it to the Pit. That you now choose to frame things in terms of you being attacked and me being a jerk says you're looking for a "stalemate by Mod" end to the discussion. That shouldn't fly - I've kept my claims of your ignorance strictly to your use of definitions and faulty logic. Unlike you, I've said nothing about your family or you, personally, as oblique as you may make it. So "attitude" is fairly weak sauce. What you wrote here gets to the crux of the issue. To recap: My position is that there is a need for a PM. The reason I offer for this is the need to have a First Cause that doesn't need it's own cause. You bristle that I attribute causality, and the logic that goes with it, to anything not of our universe. I reply that the abstract tools that have served us well here—particularly in scientific discovery—would most likely be as valuable elsewhere. My reasoning for that is that they have proves so dependable here. That there is no certain instance where they have failed us. Still, I've said more than once in this very thread that I may, of course, be wrong, but that based on our history with logic, the more logical default position is that logic would be useful elsewhere.With you so far... You disagree, throwing out FACTS that aren't facts at all. ...and here is where you lose me.
Is it, or is it not, a fact that this Universe, by the very definition of Universe, is a closed system of space-time? Yes or No.You even admit I may, in fact, be correct, which would show that much of your facts are not facts.That's a particularly self-serving interpretation of what I've been saying. I've been saying we can't know. NOT that we don't know, but can't know. So your correctness or not about Outside the Universe is irrelevant to what we CAN say. You say now I need to "prove" my position.No, I'm saying you CAN'T "prove" your position. It is unprovable - unfalsifiable - unscientific - illogical. If you don't know that I can't "prove" my position anymore than you can "prove" yours, our exchange has been even a greater waste of time than I feared.
I DO know that you can't prove your position. Since that's all I've set out to prove, I've done my job. or, as I said before, QED.

So far, you haven't actually addressed the fundamentally self-circular logical inconsistency inherent in your position. That, coupled with your misuse of the bounding terms of the very idea of "Universe" has given the lie to any claims of being the logical, reasonable one in this debate on your part. That you now turn to ad hominems says to me that you realise this.

MrDibble

04-21-2008, 10:44 AM

Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention.
False. Many, many highly ordered natural phenomena occur strictly as a result of physical laws. Like polygonal cracks, sorted beaches, snowflakes...
Intention is not necessary for order.
Nor, as Darwin showed, is it necessary for intelligence. Do you doubt the FACT™ of evolution too?

Revenant Threshold

04-21-2008, 10:48 AM

Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention. If we are talking about this quality as it relates to the PM, something that by definition, was not caused, then a non-physical entity seems to require one less step than a physical one. That's how I'm able to wrap my head around it, anyway. But all ordered and intelligent things are made up of less ordered, less intelligent, less complex things. We as humans are pretty complex, but a single human cell is considerably less so. A molecule of that cell, less so still. An atom of that molecule.. you get the picture.

To me, the concept of a Prime Mover that creates all of being at once seems less plausible to me than the idea of a Prime Mover that created all only indirectly. To go with your argument here (or at least what I think your argument is), the most likely Prime Mover would not be a god-analogue, directly causing everything with a metaphorical snap of the fingers - a necessarily complex being - and more like the particle-analogue, not creating all of existence at once but rather through chain reactions. Beyond having to choose a position if pressed and arriving at the position I did, I'd agree with that completely. Fair enough, it's just an abstract.

magellan01

04-21-2008, 10:58 AM

False. Many, many highly ordered natural phenomena occur strictly as a result of physical laws. Like polygonal cracks, sorted beaches, snowflakes...
Intention is not necessary for order.
Nor, as Darwin showed, is it necessary for intelligence. Do you doubt the FACT™ of evolution too?

:rolleyes: Look at the rest of that passage. I was talking about a PM, something that by definition couldn't have achieved order through improvement over time. Snowflakes and eyeballs have a history. A PM does not, except, possibly as Himself.

And you're QED is as presumptive and erroneous now as it was way back when I first commented on it. You want to know why, feel free to review the thread. And while you're at it, try to keep track of who displayed a more combative attitude and who got shitty.

That is all.

magellan01

04-21-2008, 11:06 AM

But all ordered and intelligent things are made up of less ordered, less intelligent, less complex things. We as humans are pretty complex, but a single human cell is considerably less so. A molecule of that cell, less so still. An atom of that molecule.. you get the picture.

But doesn't that support my position. That if a PM is made up of building blocks, so to speak, then by definition, wouldn't he NOT be the PM? Where did the building blocks come from? And we start anew...

To me, the concept of a Prime Mover that creates all of being at once seems less plausible to me than the idea of a Prime Mover that created all only indirectly. To go with your argument here (or at least what I think your argument is), the most likely Prime Mover would not be a god-analogue, directly causing everything with a metaphorical snap of the fingers - a necessarily complex being - and more like the particle-analogue, not creating all of existence at once but rather through chain reactions. Fair enough, it's just an abstract.

Either way. I personally hold to the particle-analog. Though if he could do that I wouldn't be surprised if he could do the other. But I think it is a billion times more difficult to explore the nature of the PM than it is the fact or non-fact of his existence.

Tell me, what is your view of all this?

MrDibble

04-21-2008, 12:17 PM

:rolleyes: Look at the rest of that passage. I was talking about a PM, something that by definition couldn't have achieved order through improvement over time.
Oh, don't try to play the definition game with me - you said exactly what I quoted, what you were talking about doesn't matter. You specifically linked "ordered" with "necessity". I merely showed this wasn't the case.
Snowflakes and eyeballs have a history. A PM does not, except, possibly as Himself.
All you're saying here is that a PM is a PM, as defined. That's OK, no problem - but where you cross the line is with the "necessarily" - this isn't something you can define away, it's something you have to prove. You can't assume an ordered PM is logically necessary when that's the thing you're actually trying to prove. That's the very model of a circular argument.
And you're QED is as presumptive and erroneous now as it was way back when I first commented on it.
Yet curiously, you have failed to attack the logic of any of my arguments. Or defended the charge of self-circularity. Posting a large wiki link and asking me to do the defending for you doesn't count.
You want to know why, feel free to review the thread.I've looked, I still can't see you defending extraUniversal causality with any vigour. All I see is "You can't say it isn't!", which is the intellectual equivalent of "no, u!". And while you're at it, try to keep track of who displayed a more combative attitude and who got shitty.
"Combative attitude" in a debate is not the same as "getting shitty". If there's no logical rigour to your argument or trace of relevant scholarship in your handling of terms, pointing it out is hardly "getting shitty" or an ad hominem. I'd save that expression for irrelevant oblique personal insults and foul language, myself.

Revenant Threshold

04-21-2008, 02:11 PM

But doesn't that support my position. That if a PM is made up of building blocks, so to speak, then by definition, wouldn't he NOT be the PM? Where did the building blocks come from? And we start anew... Not necessarily. I mean, if you think of the Prime Mover as a god, then it too has seperate building blocks. At the very least, if the Prime Mover has intentions, then we can point out two seperate parts of it; it has a personality, and it has the intentions arising from that personality. A god isn't a single, monolithic entity.

But my point was less that a PM may be made up of many blocks, but that while a complex and organised thing may imply intent to create it directly as it is, that it may be made of many constituent simple parts implies the possibility of a similarly less complex intender. The universe is a complex place. But a single particle is manifestly less so. I'm just saying that the universe as a complex thing implying the existence of intension only works if we assume it was created as it is. What if, rather, the existence of the universe was the result of something less complex - and that in turn the result of something less complex - and so on and so forth until eventually the beginning of everything was a (relatively) simple particle, which does not imply intention in the creation of it (or at least, to a lesser extent). I guess what i'm trying to say is that the complexity of a Mover as evidence for an intention-having Prime Mover very much depends on whether it is the Second Mover or not; is it a direct creation?

Put another way (because I really think i'm not explaining myself very well); a charitable organisation implies that the being that put events into motion to create it had an intention to start it. And it may be that the person at the beginning of the creation is directly there; a rich man donates money to create it. Simple. But what if, instead, we say that a thousand years ago a man had given some loose change to a beggar, inspiring an act of charity in someone else, that inspiring further charity, perhaps a movement, until eventually the idea of a charitable organisation enters our rich man's head. The guy at the beginning of the chain had no intentions other than giving away some change; that the charitable organisation's complexity implies intention certainly seems likely, but it wasn't the guy at the very beginning's intention. Either way. I personally hold to the particle-analog. Though if he could do that I wouldn't be surprised if he could do the other. But I think it is a billion times more difficult to explore the nature of the PM than it is the fact or non-fact of his existence. Ha, I would have said the opposite, to be honest. At least in some cases of the nature of the PM it is posited things that we could actually understand. The whole concept of a PM, for me anyway, is just something I don't get at all. Tell me, what is your view of all this? I have no clue. I've tried many times to understand quantum mechanics, noncausality and all that kind of thing, and i've simply failed entirely. I don't understand it. Likewise, I can't get my head around the spiritual or other-worldly explanations - to me it sounds like just saying it happens, without explaining why. So really whether the explanation given is scientific or religious or whatever you care to name, it is an area in which I really and honestly can't have or do have an opinion.

My view in general is that it only has a consequential effect on us if the Prime Mover has other things to do beyond creating us, whether it's a particle or a god. If it doesn't? Then it is an area which as much as I might like to try and know the truth, I simply aren't able to, though I don't begrudge smarter people than me trying to figure it out. I'm just happy to debate the simpler things just for the sake of trying to work with the bits I do get. Well, think I get, anyway. ;)

ouryL

04-21-2008, 03:00 PM

"I don't believe in magic/Magic doesn't exist"

means the same. :dubious:

magellan01

04-21-2008, 08:40 PM

... you said exactly what I quoted, what you were talking about doesn't matter.

Stunning. Just stunning. Both the thought. And the admission.

Note to self: Remember, context doesn't matter when debating with MrDibble.

magellan01

04-21-2008, 09:05 PM

Not necessarily. I mean, if you think of the Prime Mover as a god, then it too has seperate building blocks. At the very least, if the Prime Mover has intentions, then we can point out two seperate parts of it; it has a personality, and it has the intentions arising from that personality. A god isn't a single, monolithic entity.

I think we get into even shakier territory when we attempt to attribute human characteristics to God. And I don't see why god couldn't be a "monolithic entity".

But my point was less that a PM may be made up of many blocks, but that while a complex and organised thing may imply intent to create it directly as it is, that it may be made of many constituent simple parts implies the possibility of a similarly less complex intender. The universe is a complex place. But a single particle is manifestly less so. I'm just saying that the universe as a complex thing implying the existence of intension only works if we assume it was created as it is. What if, rather, the existence of the universe was the result of something less complex - and that in turn the result of something less complex - and so on and so forth until eventually the beginning of everything was a (relatively) simple particle, which does not imply intention in the creation of it (or at least, to a lesser extent). I guess what i'm trying to say is that the complexity of a Mover as evidence for an intention-having Prime Mover very much depends on whether it is the Second Mover or not; is it a direct creation?

I think I'm following you here, but I think you're just moving the Prime Mover further back. Ultimately, you get to the real PM. I do agree that if there are multiple stages to creation of the universe, that as you look further and further to the actual origin/PM that things will appear to get simpler, to ultimately, you get to pure intention with no physicality. I say "appear" because I don't think it makes sense to say that the closer you get to the actual PM the simpler the entity gets. That would mean that the actual PM would be the simplest entity. I think that would be true physically, but only physically.

My view in general is that it only has a consequential effect on us if the Prime Mover has other things to do beyond creating us, whether it's a particle or a god. If it doesn't? Then it is an area which as much as I might like to try and know the truth, I simply aren't able to, though I don't begrudge smarter people than me trying to figure it out. I'm just happy to debate the simpler things just for the sake of trying to work with the bits I do get. Well, think I get, anyway. ;)

Yeah, it's slippery stuff. The interest for me is that I view this as Step 1. I get quite annoyed when people conflate religion and god in discussions. They are two completely separate things. You can only get to Step 2 after you get through Step 1. And Step 2 opens the door to what is this God, what does he want/expect of us, if anything, and what we should do about it. If people want to explore that, fine. If people want to argue against a specific religion, or religion in general, fine. But they shouldn't think that if there argument in those areas are successful that it has anything to do with God.

MrDibble

04-22-2008, 12:55 AM

Stunning. Just stunning. Both the thought. And the admission. May not be the clearest of English, but the meaning is clear. I was focusing on the linked ideas, what the subject of those ideas was doesn't matter. As well to talk about the intentionality of a rock as the PM, when it's complexity/intelligence and necessity you're linking. Again - the subject doesn't matter, it's the predicate that matters.
And - that you only quoted part of my reply makes a mockery of the following:

Note to self: Remember, context doesn't matter when debating with MrDibble. since I explained myself immediately after the quote. But hey, cherry pick away, since you still haven't had the wherewithal to defend the circularity of your basic argument, or answer a simple Yes/No question, I suppose that we'll be playing semantics exclusively from now on. I can do that.

begbert2

04-22-2008, 06:13 PM

, it isn't. It may be the experientially-correct opinion, I can't fault you there. But I've been using your own system of logic to show that we can't say what holds outside the universe:
1) Deductive Logic requires Modus Ponens. (if A then B. A, therefore B)
2) Modus Ponens requires Causality as we usually know it. (hell, MP is just a statement of causality really)
3) Causality requires Time as we know it (arrow, past->future.)
4) TAWKI is an exclusive property of this Universe (From the DEFINITION of Universe)
5) So Outside the Universe there is no TAWKI (Negation of 4)
6) So Outside the universe, no causality, no MP, no deductive logic.As a person with a fair understanding of logic , I'd like to point out that point 2) is absolutely false. If A then B means only that it is not the case that A is true and B is false. No causation is expressed or implied, and reading causation into it is flatly incorrect. "If Martha Stewart is a woman, Then George Bush is a man" is a true and perfectly correct use of the logical "If/Then". And it doesn't mean that Martha made a man out of Bush either.

To concrete the point, "If A, Then B" 'means' "If Not B, then Not A". The statement can be flipped, and if one is true, then other one is too! Take that causality! :)

Attempts to prove that logic, math, etc are bound to the universe are based in a fundamental misunderstanding of what logic, math, etc, are. They are self-contained abstract systems, consisting only of arbitrary definitions and arbitrary rules. Some of them appear to model reality, but that's reality's problem - the system's truisisms with itself (including its own definition) are true regardless of reality, and regardless of anyone knowing them, and regardless of anyone creating them. (And regardless of whether God might want to alter them. Take that omnipotence!) We've noticed that logic leads us to correct conclusons, given correct information. And if that's true, it's true when talking about the world, the prime mover (which was likely a mindless 'nothingness-fart'), or God-concepts. Period.

MrDibble

04-23-2008, 02:46 AM

As a person with a fair understanding of logic , I'd like to point out that point 2) is absolutely false. If A then B means only that it is not the case that A is true and B is false.
You know, you're absolutely right. Thanks for the correction.

magellan01, I apologise for my error. It looks like I was wrong, we can positively say we can use deductive logic on extraUniverse entities.

That still leaves everything from 3 to part 1 of 6, so I'm still happy - we can't say anything about causality outside the Universe. Which still leaves a PM moot (which, on rethinking is only sensible - I was using deductive methods to say something about a PM anyway, so arguing for not using DL was paradoxical)

And begbert2, I like your phrasing of it in your last paragraph to anything else said by the rest of us up to now:
Attempts to prove that logic, math, etc are bound to the universe are based in a fundamental misunderstanding of what logic, math, etc, are. They are self-contained abstract systems, consisting only of arbitrary definitions and arbitrary rules. Some of them appear to model reality, but that's reality's problem - the system's truisisms with itself (including its own definition) are true regardless of reality, and regardless of anyone knowing them, and regardless of anyone creating them. (And regardless of whether God might want to alter them. Take that omnipotence!) We've noticed that logic leads us to correct conclusons, given correct information. And if that's true, it's true when talking about the world, the prime mover (which was likely a mindless 'nothingness-fart'), or God-concepts. Period.

Snag

04-23-2008, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Snag
As far as we know - and perhaps a likely possibility when considering Everett's Many Worlds theory for one - is that our universe may be one of many within a multiverse or omniverse or what have you. This states that all possibilities play out, if a coin is flipped and we see heads it also has to be tails somewhere else. In other words, there is some possibility of other versions, other timelines, of the universe we live in.

Then there is another notion for the existence of multiple universes, a different one. A singularity such as a black hole, it is also suggested by quantum physics, may be singularities that create new universes in time / space outside our universe. That may be how ours came to be. Other universes may not have the same physical laws as ours, thus 2+2=4 could be gibberish in some other space with different laws of physics. This raises another possibility of more than one universe may exist.

I don't disagree with any of this, I think. But I'd qualify a few things. One even if universes pop into existence, it seems to me that something caused them to "pop" at that particular point in time, and not a second sooner or later. As far as 2+2=4, of course my point is that that would hold wherever the concept of twoness, fourness, addition and equality hold.

I don't see why there needs to be something willing things to happen on a timetable. It is what it is. It happens when it happens. Does this mean you believe in determinism? If so, why? Again, that doesn't mesh with, at least, the laws of this universe where everything appears to occur randomly. At least outside of the influence of living things though our influence is limited.

Also, how is twoness represented in a singularity? I think we agree on this point but this is one example where such a thing doesn't hold and shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Originally Posted by Snag
It is just as likely that there is no prime mover, simply a multiverse that has always existed and always will even if individual universes come and go. In fact, we have more evidence for the existence of such things than we do of any gods, thus making it more likely.

I don't see what evidence there is for anything eternal or infinite. Can you point to something?
It can be argued that there is no evidence for any of this, making it all a null hypothesis and that we are arguing about nothing. Without something eternal being evident, where is your prime mover? Without it, where is energy or any mode of existence? Indeed, there is no evidence at all to contradict a stance that existence is nothing more than a random effect that comes and goes without cause. No need for a prime mover or infinite energy at all. Stuff just happens. As mind boggling as it is, even that cannot be ruled out. Some might argue that is the most likely scenario.

But we argue about these things because of our anthropomorphic desire to find some shred of causality before the bang. It may not be so but it makes more sense to believe that something may have always existed. One can point, however, to current scientific theory that points to some probability of a multiverse, or an omniverse, or what have you. There is some evidence that leads us to believe that our universe may be nestled within a multiverse or could be part of a larger whole. One that, overall, may have different laws within its nature that ours does, but providing some energy state which suggests causality. For instance the unification of the laws of gravity, which differs on the cosmological and quantum scales, mostly makes sense if it exists outside of our universe.

Originally Posted by Snag
I can't see how the idea of a possibly infinite, eternal universe is anywhere less probable than a prime mover who is supposed to have the same characteristics.

Where did matter come from? It it was birthed through energy, what provided the energy? I see a Prime Mover as a much less problematic proposition.

Where do all the particles on the quantum level that constantly pop into being and then disappear come from? At least we have evidence of those on record. I see no reason why energy in some form shouldn't always have existed; it's the most obvious solution. Not so for an intelligent prime mover. A mover suggests a lot of unnecessary complexity, not limited to the raising of awareness. Does a star need to have awareness to collapse? Does a rock need awareness to be subject to the rules of thermodynamics? Why couldn't energy have always existed? How is that different than gods who have always existed?

Originally Posted by Snag
No one has yet come up with a universal definition of god(s) much less pointed a telescope at him/them/it.

I guess. But that doesn't have anything to do with what I've been discussing. EHWn I say Prime Mover or god or God, I ascribe no qualities to Him other than He operates outside of the laws of causality. And that He made it all possible.
Why wouldn't it be possible that a multiverse has always existed? Why can't it operate on it's own terms outside of our laws of causality? I can't understand why you find this simple explanation less substantial than that of a prime mover. A prime mover would need energy + consciousness to invoke a universe. Who knows, maybe a charge account as well. Either raw energy, or a god, or something would probably need to have always existed for us to argue for extra-causality. Again, neither completely rule out that existence is somehow a random effect that comes and goes without cause.

Unless it turns out that we, and the reality we know, are nothing more than a supremely advanced piece of software that is running I don't see how the argument for a prime mover is the stronger. A pool of energy that has always existed and perhaps always will, is no less likely a cause for our being than a watchmaker. Nothing need create energy that simply always was. The watchmaker begs a more difficult causality (outside of our own) due to it's greater complexity which would require multiple levels of causation. Eternal or not. Not impossible mind you. But will requires consciousness which seems to requires evolution of some sort.

Call it Occam's razor which argues against it. Not only would some energy which has always existed be a more elegant explanation. We have theoretical evidence that, in explaining how singularities rise or how theoretical branes might come crashing together, state ways in which natural forces could create a universe. Just as we have the possibility of multiple universes as suggested by working theory.

Call your prime mover what you will, it is still a watchmaker which hasn't yet been defined. And without that definition it is not consistent enough to run a falsifiable experiment to search for him/them/it.

magellan01

04-23-2008, 08:53 PM

May not be the clearest of English, but the meaning is clear. I was focusing on the linked ideas, what the subject of those ideas was doesn't matter.

Bullshit. Sure it matters when I stipulated that it was a special case having to do with a PM, someone who by definition has nothing preceding it.

And - that you only quoted part of my reply makes a mockery of the following:
since I explained myself immediately after the quote. But hey, cherry pick away, since you still haven't had the wherewithal to defend the circularity of your basic argument, or answer a simple Yes/No question, I suppose that we'll be playing semantics exclusively from now on. I can do that.

[Laughing my head off] Oh, so context does matter after all. I'm glad I could help you learn that lesson. [Absolutely hilarious, though]

magellan01, I apologise for my error. It looks like I was wrong, we can positively say we can use deductive logic on extraUniverse entities.

Apology completely and graciously accepted. And genuinely appreciated. Some people find it impossible to do, to the detriment of themselves and these boards. Thank you.

That still leaves everything from 3 to part 1 of 6, so I'm still happy - we can't say anything about causality outside the Universe. Which still leaves a PM moot (which, on rethinking is only sensible - I was using deductive methods to say something about a PM anyway, so arguing for not using DL was paradoxical)

Glad your happy. Not any more right, but happy is good. But tell me, what is it that begbert2 wrote that you liked so much? When I have been making those exact points?

MrDibble

04-24-2008, 03:02 AM

Bullshit. Sure it matters when I stipulated that it was a special case having to do with a PM, someone who by definition has nothing preceding it. You have failed to argue AT ALL for WHY the PM is a "special case" with regard to the link between intentionality, intelligence and complexity, just stated it. What does "preceded it" have to do with anything?

And the Universe, "by definition", also has nothing preceding it. Does that make it it's own PM? If not, why not?
[Laughing my head off] Oh, so context does matter after all. I'm glad I could help you learn that lesson. [Absolutely hilarious, though]
Context matters, but in the previous example, it wasn't the PM that was the context, it was the intentionality. Like I said, you'd linked intentionality, intelligence & complexity with necessity. I say again - it doesn't matter if this refers to the PM or something else, it's that link you have to justify - which up to now, you have not.
Apology completely and graciously accepted. And genuinely appreciated. Some people find it impossible to do, to the detriment of themselves and these boards. Thank you.No problem
Glad your happy. Not any more right, but happy is good. But tell me, what is it that begbert2 wrote that you liked so much? When I have been making those exact points?You at no point I can tell argued that there was no link between modus ponens and causality (if you did, I'd like a post cite), and certainly not in the logical way bb2 did. And I'm happy because I'm still right about causality - unless you have a logical refutation for the argument from (3) onwards (which doesn't require (1) and (2) to reach conclusion (6)part 1)

And still no answer to whether you acknowledge evolution, or what definition of Universe you're using.

MrDibble

04-24-2008, 03:07 AM

ignore that apostrophe.

magellan01

04-24-2008, 09:48 AM

You have failed to argue AT ALL for WHY the PM is a "special case" with regard to the link between intentionality, intelligence and complexity, just stated it. What does "preceded it" have to do with anything?

Incorrect. I said:

Look at the rest of that passage. I was talking about a PM, something that by definition couldn't have achieved order through improvement over time.

...preceded by this:
Look at the rest of that passage. I was talking about a PM, something that by definition couldn't have achieved order through improvement over time. Snowflakes and eyeballs have a history. A PM does not, except, possibly as Himself.

and this, the original passage in which you went to great pains to ignore context:
Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention. If we are talking about this quality as it relates to the PM, something that by definition, was not caused, then a non-physical entity seems to require one less step than a physical one. That's how I'm able to wrap my head around it, anyway.

The first sentence is a general proposition (couched as such), one that if you focus on the two "mores", I don't know how you could disagree with it. Do you? Why? Then comes the point of the passage, the point you seem intent on ignoring. My point seems extremely clear there. I don't know how to make it any clearer. If you fail to digest that sentence I don't know how I can help you.

And the Universe, "by definition", also has nothing preceding it. Does that make it it's own PM? If not, why not?

Where did the matter come from? The energy. What set things in motion? And why at that particular time? Why not a year, day, minute or second earlier or later? If you have an answer for those things, I'd be happy to entertain the proposition that the universe was it's own PM.

Context matters, but in the previous example, it wasn't the PM that was the context, it was the intentionality. Like I said, you'd linked intentionality, intelligence & complexity with necessity. I say again - it doesn't matter if this refers to the PM or something else, it's that link you have to justify - which up to now, you have not.

Incorrect. See above.

You at no point I can tell argued that there was no link between modus ponens and causality (if you did, I'd like a post cite), and certainly not in the logical way bb2 did.

Sorry. I was referring to his last paragraph only, the one you pointed to and agreed with/admired.

And I'm happy because I'm still right about causality - unless you have a logical refutation for the argument from (3) onwards (which doesn't require (1) and (2) to reach conclusion (6)part 1)

What, precisely, do you think you are right about?

And still no answer to whether you acknowledge evolution, or what definition of Universe you're using.

I don't recall seeing a question about evolution. But I'm surprised you ask it, as you should have been able to glean from all that I've posted that I don't view a PM as being at all in conflict with evolution. Evolution is mum on the beginning of everything, i.e., the cause of the big bang. And the discussion about the PM I've been having only goes to THE first cause. Nothing else. I don't know how you could not understand that at this point in the discussion.

If you'd like to know my stance on evolution just for the hell of it. I think evolution is factual, as far as, adaptation and changes occurring over time. I think it might have needed some help from time to time in regards to things like eyeballs and flagellum. I base this notion on reading I've done that points to the probability of these things naturally evolving given the age of our universe. So, while evolution is a fact of nature, I don't know if it alone explains everything. I can see both sides of the debate and haven't been convinced one way or another to hold a strong opinion.

The universe is everything from the big bang on.

MrDibble

04-24-2008, 10:24 AM

Incorrect. I said:
...preceded by this:
and this, the original passage in which you went to great pains to ignore context:
Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention. If we are talking about this quality as it relates to the PM, something that by definition, was not caused, then a non-physical entity seems to require one less step than a physical one. That's how I'm able to wrap my head around it, anyway.

The first sentence is a general proposition (couched as such), one that if you focus on the two "mores", I don't know how you could disagree with it. Do you? Why?The bolded bit? The bit that I was actually addressing? Yes, I disagree with it - couching it in relative terms doesn't change the lack of correctness, either. Why? I addressed this with my remarks about evolution and snowflakes. Then comes the point of the passage, the point you seem intent on ignoring.
Since it was the first sentence I've been addressing all along, like I said, the "context" could be anything. The fact that it refers to a PM doesn't signify - the truth or not has nothing to do with precedence, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
Where did the matter come from? Nowhere The energy. Nowhere What set things in motion?Nothing And why at that particular time? This is a meaningless question as it relates to the Big Bang, as you should know.Why not a year, day, minute or second earlier or later?There were no years, days, minutes, seconds before the BB. And after, is all relative to the BB, so it's always at T=0. That's the whole point of saying the BB initiated Space/Time If you have an answer for those things, I'd be happy to entertain the proposition that the universe was it's own PM.Those are the standard answers. You're really acting as if you have no clue how the BB is explained in physics & cosmology.
Incorrect. See above.
See above.
Sorry. I was referring to his last paragraph only, the one you pointed to and agreed with/admired.
It was how he put it - I don't see where you referred to logic as an abstract system that can apply to anything and always contains it's own truth. But again, cite the post if you did. What, precisely, do you think you are right about? That causality is not required for a Universe.
I don't recall seeing a question about evolution.It was in relation to Darwin disproving that you need intentionality to have intelligence (you know, that statement I've been objecting to for ... Elder Gods, has it really been DAYS now? But I'm surprised you ask it, as you should have been able to glean from all that I've posted that I don't view a PM as being at all in conflict with evolution. Never said you did, although it turns out your starting premise (bolded above) runs counter to evolutionary thought. More intelligent doesn't mean more likely to be intentional.Evolution is mum on the beginning of everything, i.e., the cause of the big bang. And the discussion about the PM I've been having only goes to THE first cause. Nothing else. I don't know how you could not understand that at this point in the discussion.I do. It wasn't in reference to the BB (or the PM directly) that I brought it up.

If you'd like to know my stance on evolution just for the hell of it. I think evolution is factual, as far as, adaptation and changes occurring over time. I think it might have needed some help from time to time in regards to things like eyeballs and flagellum. You do realise the standard ID canards about eyeball and flagellum have been thoroughly debunked, I hope?I base this notion on reading I've done that points to the probability of these things naturally evolving given the age of our universe.The argument from probability has also been debunked. So, while evolution is a fact of nature, I don't know if it alone explains everything. Point to what it doesn't explain, maybe I or someone else can help you out. I can see both sides of the debate and haven't been convinced one way or another to hold a strong opinion. This is not true. You do hold an opinion, and it's in direct opposition to evolutionary theory. Couching it in terms of being a fence-sitter or neutral is just obfuscatory. You do NOT believe in the theory of evolution if you believe it "needs help". You believe in Intelligent Design. Calling it anything else would be disingenuous.

So you don't just believe in a PM, I take it, but also an interventionist God?The universe is everything from the big bang on.
Does that include all of Space and Time to you? Do you believe Outside the Universe is accessible in some real way?

magellan01

04-24-2008, 11:06 AM

I don't see why there needs to be something willing things to happen on a timetable. It is what it is. It happens when it happens. Does this mean you believe in determinism? If so, why? Again, that doesn't mesh with, at least, the laws of this universe where everything appears to occur randomly. At least outside of the influence of living things though our influence is limited.

I don't think one can believe both in determinism, in the strict sense, and human will. But I do adhere to determinism as far as natural processes go. We may have a difficult time understanding all the relationships between Event A and Event Z, but I believe them to be there.

Also, how is twoness represented in a singularity? I think we agree on this point but this is one example where such a thing doesn't hold and shouldn't be taken as gospel.

I don't think it is, in the singularity. But I see a singularity as being one thing for now, with the potential to be all things. I think the laws of logic will hold true. I think that if a singularity comes to express itself, and has within that expression what we know to be a circle, that Pi will be as helpful in understanding that circle then as now. Same for set theory. Same for 2 + 2 = 4.

It can be argued that there is no evidence for any of this, making it all a null hypothesis and that we are arguing about nothing. Without something eternal being evident, where is your prime mover? Without it, where is energy or any mode of existence? Indeed, there is no evidence at all to contradict a stance that existence is nothing more than a random effect that comes and goes without cause.

I disagree, in that I think logic points to a PM. But I do agree that there is no "evidence", other than the fact that we are here.

No need for a prime mover or infinite energy at all. Stuff just happens. As mind boggling as it is, even that cannot be ruled out. Some might argue that is the most likely scenario.

Of course, it is a possibility. But "most likely"? I strongly disagree. In fact, the more you use the laws of logic to evaluate degrees of likeliness, I think those same laws argue for everything having a cause. The only thing that need not have a cause (and cannot) is a God/PM.

But we argue about these things because of our anthropomorphic desire to find some shred of causality before the bang. It may not be so but it makes more sense to believe that something may have always existed.

Again, I make the same point: why is something infinite, timeless, more likely than God? You cannot point to evidence of either one. Neither appear in our universe. They are concepts not of our realm. I agree they both can be true, but I think the PM/God is easier to fathom. I mean it seems much harder to me to wrap your head around "stuff" that always existed. Even the big bang doesn't have stuff being eternal, the elements were created one by one from energy. Then I ask what created the energy? I guess it is possible that this infinite universe moves from a state of pure energy into one that is matter rich and then eventually transforms back, again and again, ad infinitum. Possible, but I see nothing in my existence that argues that that is a more likely scenario. At least with a PM we're hanging our hat in a logical concept that appears to be inviolate.

One can point, however, to current scientific theory that points to some probability of a multiverse, or an omniverse, or what have you. There is some evidence that leads us to believe that our universe may be nestled within a multiverse or could be part of a larger whole. One that, overall, may have different laws within its nature that ours does, but providing some energy state which suggests causality. For instance the unification of the laws of gravity, which differs on the cosmological and quantum scales, mostly makes sense if it exists outside of our universe.

Multiverse theory, brane theory, and others are all logical explanations. But they all need either the concept of infinity for natural things (energy/matter) or a PM. As mentioned, I think the latter is the better guess. Which in the end, is what it is.

Where do all the particles on the quantum level that constantly pop into being and then disappear come from?

We don't know. But since it is our experience that things do not pop into existence and come from "nowhere", it seems that the default assumption should be that they did indeed come from somewhere and popped in for some reason.

I see no reason why energy in some form shouldn't always have existed; it's the most obvious solution. Not so for an intelligent prime mover. A mover suggests a lot of unnecessary complexity, not limited to the raising of awareness. Does a star need to have awareness to collapse? Does a rock need awareness to be subject to the rules of thermodynamics? Why couldn't energy have always existed? How is that different than gods who have always existed?

"Awareness" is a nice concept. But I ask again where did the energy come from. And since it is 100% of our experience that energy is created by something or some process, I don not see why it is any more likely than a PM. They are both alien to our world.

Why wouldn't it be possible that a multiverse has always existed? Why can't it operate on it's own terms outside of our laws of causality? I can't understand why you find this simple explanation less substantial than that of a prime mover. A prime mover would need energy + consciousness to invoke a universe. Who knows, maybe a charge account as well. Either raw energy, or a god, or something would probably need to have always existed for us to argue for extra-causality. Again, neither completely rule out that existence is somehow a random effect that comes and goes without cause.

I like the way this is stated. The only part I'd argue with is the concept of having random events going back in perpetuity. I think you would need an intentional event. Now, this universe might not have been the intention. For all we know we are one of the shavings off a lathe on the shop floor. But if there is PM/God, he would, indeed have intention. If not he would simply be the source of energy you mention, not the PM. Maybe the best thing to say is that God is that source of energy + intention.

Unless it turns out that we, and the reality we know, are nothing more than a supremely advanced piece of software that is running I don't see how the argument for a prime mover is the stronger. A pool of energy that has always existed and perhaps always will, is no less likely a cause for our being than a watchmaker. Nothing need create energy that simply always was. The watchmaker begs a more difficult causality (outside of our own) due to it's greater complexity which would require multiple levels of causation. Eternal or not. Not impossible mind you. But will requires consciousness which seems to requires evolution of some sort.

Now this is what I don't get. When God is not in the picture, the concept of things existing for infinity—energy/matter—is embraced by you. But the minute God is postulated it's "b-b-b-but God would have to be created by something else, because you can't say his existence is infinite." Well, since we have no—zero—evidence of anything being infinite (other than concepts), it seems that infiniteness is a possibility, the most likely place you'd find it is within God.

Call your prime mover what you will, it is still a watchmaker which hasn't yet been defined. And without that definition it is not consistent enough to run a falsifiable experiment to search for him/them/it.

and I was enjoying your discussion so much up till this. Oh well...

magellan01

04-24-2008, 11:41 AM

MrDibble,

You seem to have a bug up your ass, and I've neither the time nor inclination to rehash the same ground when you simply refuse to take the words I write to mean what they say.

You took a statement I made and evaluated it out of context. I pointed this out and showed the absurdity of your little game. You ignore it. You took—and insist on taking—a statement about intelligence and the Prime Mover and want me to say that I mean it applies to instances not having to do with the PM. Sorry, can't help you there. Context matters. It's as simple as that. If you can't see that a PM would, in fact,—by definition, be a special case, I can't help you there either.

When I ask you to evaluate something I said you refuse to evaluate it taking into account the relative aspect of the statement, saying that the relative terms CONTAINED THEREIN do not change things. Another stunning statement showing great effort to not understand someone. Well done. You have a special talent for this.

I asked you what it was about begbert2's reply that you liked, when it mirrored what I have been arguing. You thought I meant the totality of his reply. Fair enough. I then pointed out that I was referring to one paragraph. Still you want to build the impression that I was referring to statements he made outside that paragraph.

You bring up something about "Elder gods" now. I don't know what you're talking about. If it was something from days ago and I missed it, my apologies for having a life outside these boards.

You asked me if I believe in evolution. I told you I do. I told you that I don't know if the current theory explains everything. I stated that it may or may not. And that it is mum on the topic of our origins—you know, THE TOPIC WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.

I told you that I have heard both sides of the debate about whether and that I do not have a strong opinion on it one way or another. You then attempt to say that I believe in Intelligent Design. Thanks for the news flash. Now if you know half of what you think you do about the subject, you would know that there is a big difference between what is known Intelligent Design and intelligent design (small i, d). If you do not know this I advise you to look it up for future discussions with others.

I wish you luck in finding those others who enjoy holding beliefs that you ascribe to them.

But we are done. Others have been able to engage in this debate and disagree with me and have it be a pleasant experience. I'm accustomed to getting paid to do things I don't enjoy, so unless you want to talk about my fee structure, I wish you luck.

May God be with you.

MrDibble

04-24-2008, 01:39 PM

MrDibble,
You seem to have a bug up your ass, and I've neither the time nor inclination to rehash the same ground when you simply refuse to take the words I write to mean what they say.I quoted your words, I even bolded the bits I was talking about. No bugs.
You took a statement I made and evaluated it out of context. I pointed this out and showed the absurdity of your little game. You ignore it. You took—and insist on taking—a statement about intelligence and the Prime Mover and want me to say that I mean it applies to instances not having to do with the PM. Sorry, can't help you there. Context matters. It's as simple as that. If you can't see that a PM would, in fact,—by definition, be a special case, I can't help you there either.
Again with the PM. I'm asking you to defend one statement. You have, again, failed to even try and explain how the PM being a special case (nice fallacy of special pleading there) makes a difference. Explain it to me.
When I ask you to evaluate something I said you refuse to evaluate it taking into account the relative aspect of the statement, saying that the relative terms CONTAINED THEREIN do not change things. Another stunning statement showing great effort to not understand someone. Well done. You have a special talent for this.Please do explain how the "mores" make the link, between intentionality and intelligence/complexity being necessary, any more true. I have not seen such an explanation, just more "you're just not getting it" statements.
I asked you what it was about begbert2's reply that you liked, when it mirrored what I have been arguing. You thought I meant the totality of his reply. Fair enough. I then pointed out that I was referring to one paragraph. Still you want to build the impression that I was referring to statements he made outside that paragraph.
No, I get what you said the second time - so, still no post cite for you saying the same thing as him? Why should I believe you without a CITE?
You bring up something about "Elder gods" now. I don't know what you're talking about. If it was something from days ago and I missed it, my apologies for having a life outside these boards.
HA, the "you have no life" accusation, suitably veiled.*tick*

Anyway, the "Elder Gods" was just an expression of frustration, like someone else might "Jesus Christ" or "For the Love of Krishna". The actual answer was the bit about Darwin that you seem to have skipped over.
You asked me if I believe in evolution. I told you I do. I told you that I don't know if the current theory explains everything. I stated that it may or may not. And that it is mum on the topic of our origins—you know, THE TOPIC WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING. Evolution of intelligence is a counter to you stance on intentionality. It's perfectly relevant.
I told you that I have heard both sides of the debate about whether and that I do not have a strong opinion on it one way or another. You then attempt to say that I believe in Intelligent Design. Thanks for the news flash. Now if you know half of what you think you do about the subject, you would know that there is a big difference between what is known Intelligent Design and intelligent design (small i, d). If you do not know this I advise you to look it up for future discussions with others.There is no difference between those terms. Perhaps you could enlighten me? Certainly Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) doesn't seem to draw a distinction.
But either way, you do NOT believe in the theory of evolution if you think there are design interventions.
I wish you luck in finding those others who enjoy holding beliefs that you ascribe to them.The "you're strawmanning me" defence? *tick*
You realise everyone else can read what you wrote, right?
Straw poll: Is there anyone who doesn't get ID out of the stance on evolution magellan01 took?

But we are done. Others have been able to engage in this debate and disagree with me and have it be a pleasant experience.Call me when they change it to "Pleasant Debates". The only reason it has been an unpleasant experience for you is because your tactics of ad hominems and special pleadings haven't actually worked, and you haven't been able to rustle up the actual deductive logic you claim to proize so highly, to counterargue. Hell, someone else had to do the heavy lifting for you for even a sideline argument. Losing a debate is never pleasant, I'm sure.
I'm accustomed to getting paid to do things I don't enjoy, so unless you want to talk about my fee structure, I wish you luck.That has to be the suckiest walk-off-in-a-huff excuse yet. Man up and just say you can't actually counter the arguments. Don't pull some "I'm too important to debate" bullshit, when you've been managing with the unpleasantness just fine for days now.
May God be with you.And may Dread Cthulhu eat you first.

begbert2

04-24-2008, 07:06 PM

Straw poll: Is there anyone who doesn't get ID out of the stance on evolution magellan01 took? So far as I know the ID position does not require you to believe that every instance of evolution was designed, so yes, I read his post as being pro-intelligent design.

Also, I find it amazing that a person can believe that man evolved from single celled organisms and also assert "Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention." - the two positions are diametrically opposed. Humans clearly are extremely ordered and intelligent, and evolution claims that they emerged through purely natural methods, with no creator or designer or intention whatsoever. If you think things as complex as them have to have been designed, then you cannot believe they evolved; ID or explicit creation are your only remaining options.

Of course, evolution merely disproves the premise that intelligence is required for design. While that's extremely damaging to the watchmaker argument, the real killer is that, if something as complex as the universe or humans or whatever requires a more complex designer, then that designer also requires a designer, ad infinitum, to impossibility and ridiculosity. But if God doesn't require a designer, then the universe or humans or whatever don't either. Special pleading is a fallacious attempt to ignore this fundamental problem with the argument - and is convincing only to those willing to be convinced by fallacies. (Especially once the fallacy has been clearly pointed out.)

Measure for Measure

04-24-2008, 11:48 PM

For an example of a highly complex process arising from a very simple algorithm, one can consider the Mandelbrot Set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set). Magnify it 60 billion times and the complexity remains. Yet it can be created with just a few lines of code (though plotting it is another matter).

Then again, perhaps the Great Initiator did not consider Himself greater than His creation. Heck, the Great Initiator could be an aspect of His work for all I know.

Measure for Measure

04-26-2008, 10:40 PM

I've come across a 2nd puzzle. Apparently most (not all) mathematicians believe that math is not created by humanity, but rather exists independently of it. Fractals, in particular the the Mandelbrot set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set), are a good example of this. Somebody certainly discovered it (though apparently is wasn't Mandelbrot). But its intricacy is basically without bound: sure, some individual worked out the formula, but the actual image of it (or rather the conceptual graph) follows from the math.

But if math is discovered, and math is not made of matter, what the heck is it? Basically, I would require a taxonomy of what we mean by "Existence". What sorts of nonmaterial things exist, and how do we assess their evidence? Via Slashdot, I see that Science News has a relevant article: Still debating with Plato (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/31392/title/Still_debating_with_Plato): If the mathematical ideas are out there, waiting to be found, then somehow a purely abstract notion has to have existence even when no human being has ever conceived of it. Because of this, Mazur describes the Platonic view as “a full-fledged theistic position.” It doesn’t require a God in any traditional sense, but it does require “structures of pure idea and pure being,” he says. Defending such a position requires “abandoning the arsenal of rationality and relying on the resources of the prophets.”

Indeed, Brian Davies, a mathematician at King's College London, writes that Platonism “has more in common with mystical religions than with modern science.” And modern science, he believes, provides evidence to show that the Platonic view is just plain wrong. He titled his article “Let Platonism Die.” But if we take the anti-Platonic position, then how are we to think of the Mandelbrot set? For that matter, if math is invented, why can't 2+2=5?

magellan01

04-27-2008, 03:47 AM

I've been pretty busy, but I thought I'd try to address some final points before signing off this thread for good. Especially since neither side can prove their position. So...

I quoted your words, I even bolded the bits I was talking about. No bugs.Again with the PM. I'm asking you to defend one statement.

To recap, you also said:

The bolded bit? The bit that I was actually addressing? Yes, I disagree with it - couching it in relative terms doesn't change the lack of correctness, either.

And here is the passage in question, with the sentence you insist on taking out of context bolded:

Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention. If we are talking about this quality as it relates to the PM, something that by definition, was not caused, then a non-physical entity seems to require one less step than a physical one. That's how I'm able to wrap my head around it, anyway.

Now, you said you disagree with that statement, even though it has the qualifier "more" in their twice. So you evidently think that given two objects, A and B, that if A displays greater order/intelligence than B, that it does NOT more strongly suggest that Object A was the intentional product of a sentient being? In other words, I believe that if I walk through a forest on a planet in a neighboring galaxy and come upon two things, a rifle and a rock that kind of round on one side, that the rifle suggests that it was the result of a direct intention moreso then the rock. You evidently disagree with that. Please explain.

While you're at it, could you please explain why you insist on taking that sentence out of context? The context "could be anything", you say. Sure, if it was devoid of context, but it wasn't. Look at the subject of the thread. Look at the subject of the post. Look at the subject of the paragraph, which is clear from the adjacent sentence.

You have, again, failed to even try and explain how the PM being a special case (nice fallacy of special pleading there) makes a difference. Explain it to me.

I've explained this more than once already. The PM is that which preceded everything. Therefore, nothing could have preceded him, even a less perfect him. So, unlike an eyeball and flagellum, which could very well be the result of gradual processes over time, that would not work for THE Prime Mover. It indeed IS a special case.

Please do explain how the "mores" make the link, between intentionality and intelligence/complexity being necessary, any more true.

See above.

No, I get what you said the second time - so, still no post cite for you saying the same thing as him? Why should I believe you without a CITE?

Because you can read the thread? I agree with you that he put things well in that last paragraph you cited. I agree with the paragraph. Much of what I was saying about mathematical concepts and plane geometry and relationships of circles was saying the same things, albeit not as clearly I guess.

But either way, you do NOT believe in the theory of evolution if you think there are design interventions.

This thread is NOT about evolution, as much as you want it to be. The theory of evolution is absolutely silent on what we've been discussing for pages now, i.e,. what might have caused the universe? What might have caused the Big Bang? Do you not know that evolution occurs after the BB and what I'm talking about would, by definition, precede it?

But just to put that part of the discussion to bed, I do not doubt the process of evolution, particularly as it relates to generational changes. This process may account for everything, nice and neat. On the other hand, the theory as currently stated might not account for everything. Some large leaps may have been necessary, whether through large aberrant mutations or intervention of some kind. I DO NOT KNOW. If my making allowance for the latter disqualifies me from your clubhouse where everyone KNOWS the theory to be true and complete as is, so be it. If that means you would like to think of me as someone who does not believe in evolution, (even though I do), boo hoo for me.

Call me when they change it to "Pleasant Debates".

Yet, so many others are able to be pleasant while disagreeing without the sign on the door. Funny that.

magellan01

04-27-2008, 04:11 AM

Also, I find it amazing that a person can believe that man evolved from single celled organisms and also assert "Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention." - the two positions are diametrically opposed. Humans clearly are extremely ordered and intelligent, and evolution claims that they emerged through purely natural methods, with no creator or designer or intention whatsoever. If you think things as complex as them have to have been designed, then you cannot believe they evolved; ID or explicit creation are your only remaining options.

I do not find the two notions in conflict.:

1) Yes, man is a highly complex creation, one that could very well have been the result of pure evolution, from one cell to man.

2) That the more ordered/complex an object it, the more it argues for an intelligent designer. I've explained this in detail in my previous post.

Please explain why they are in conflict. Please explain why you think both are not true.

Of course, evolution merely disproves the premise that intelligence is required for design. While that's extremely damaging to the watchmaker argument, the real killer is that, if something as complex as the universe or humans or whatever requires a more complex designer, then that designer also requires a designer, ad infinitum, to impossibility and ridiculosity. But if God doesn't require a designer, then the universe or humans or whatever don't either.

How does evolution disprove an intelligent designer? Also, why is that last statement true? It would only necessarily be true if you equate God with the universe and humans. That seems to be a leap you make. No?

Special pleading is a fallacious attempt to ignore this fundamental problem with the argument - and is convincing only to those willing to be convinced by fallacies. (Especially once the fallacy has been clearly pointed out.)

How is that relevant here? IF there is a God/Prime Mover, he would have qualities not possessed by man or the universe. The proof of that would be that he existed without a cause, while the others did. So it is therefore incorrect to call the argument fallacious on those grounds. We look at it as a special case because it truly is. I think you make the error by assuming God and man to have similar qualities, particularly in their need for a cause and/or the degree to which they are each imbued with the quality of infinite being. Again, if that is not right,why?

Kalhoun

04-27-2008, 07:42 AM

My own position is: "I don't see any reason whatsoever to believe in a God."

I'm not the kind of person who can just believe something based on wishful thinking, not that I'd "wish" to believe in a God anyway. So believing in something for which there's a total lack of evidence would require a "leap of faith" that would fly in the face of everything I do believe.
Same here.

Monkeys might fly outta my butt, too...but I have no reason to believe they will.

Rest assured, if this ever happens, I'll take pictures.

MrDibble

04-27-2008, 12:39 PM

I've been pretty busy, but I thought I'd try to address some final points before signing off this thread for good. But...I'm still not paying you for this, remember?
Especially since neither side can prove their position. I have already proven my position, using deductive logic. You have failed to use same to disprove it.
So you evidently think that given two objects, A and B, that if A displays greater order/intelligence than B, that it does NOT more strongly suggest that Object A was the intentional product of a sentient being? In other words, I believe that if I walk through a forest on a planet in a neighboring galaxy and come upon two things, a rifle and a rock that kind of round on one side, that the rifle suggests that it was the result of a direct intention moreso then the rock. You evidently disagree with that. Please explain.What warped definition of intelligence and order are you going for here? A gun is no more intelligent than a rock. Depending on the rock, it can be much more ordered than the rifle. A nice sorted conglomerate, for instance, would be orders of magnitude more ordered than a rifle. It's also cherry-picking of examples. Suppose I walked along and found this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/NautilusCutawayLogarithmicSpiral.jpg/793px-NautilusCutawayLogarithmicSpiral.jpg) and this (http://www.boneclones.com/images/ms-001_web-lg.jpg)? Which is more ordered? More the result of focused intention vs blind instinct? The watchmaker argument is sophomoric.

Anyway, I believe the word you're adroitly dancing around mentioning there is "complexity", not "order", and even that would be inappropriate. This is one of many ways the classic watchmaker argument, which you've just attempted to restate, falls down - there is no easy measure of order or complexity I know of that distinguishes the natural from the designed. We can tell the rifle/watch is categorically different from the rock because of experience, nothing more. If your alien rifle was like the fishbone gun in eXiSteNz, how would you distinguish intention then? We have a wealth of experience of the materials we expect to find in nature versus manmade things, the kind of shapes we expect natural things to have, etc. But we don't have a measure of order, IMO, as a distinguishing filter.

So much for order. I've already dealt with the ridiculousness of using intelligence as any guide to intentionality. So now, what need for a Prime Mover?

While you're at it, could you please explain why you insist on taking that sentence out of context? The context "could be anything", you say. Sure, if it was devoid of context, but it wasn't.I've repeatedly explained why I think context doesn't matter here. The sentence I quoted either stands or it doesn't. In what way is its logic dependent on the sentence that follows? And the "mores" do not affect the logic of the link you attempt to show. An attempt which I've shown fails.
I've explained this more than once already. The PM is that which preceded everything. Therefore, nothing could have preceded him, even a less perfect him. So, unlike an eyeball and flagellum, which could very well be the result of gradual processes over time, that would not work for THE Prime Mover. It indeed IS a special case.Yes, it's a "special case" of special pleading.
And I notice how the eyeball and flagellum are not such good examples anymore? You do realise Behe hasn't updated his playbook in a while, right? You're going to struggle to come up with fresh ones.
Because you can read the thread?Don't be pedantic. I have read the thread, and I'm asserting you didn't say anything resembling what he said, so if you assert that you did, cite where you said it, and we can discuss that specific instance. Otherwise stop trying to ride his coattails. I agree with you that he put things well in that last paragraph you cited. I agree with the paragraph.Including the "nothingness-fart" observation? (great term, BTW, bb2)? Much of what I was saying about mathematical concepts and plane geometry and relationships of circles was saying the same things, albeit not as clearly I guess.No need to guess. No, not saying it anywhere nearly as clearly.
This thread is NOT about evolution, as much as you want it to be. No, I used the fact of evolution of intelligence as a counter to one of your assertions. That doesn't make the thread about it in any way, but does mean that your acceptance or not of the theory is significant, as to whether we're on the same page with regard to background. That you tried to obfuscate your beliefs didn't help.The theory of evolution is absolutely silent on what we've been discussing for pages now, i.e,. what might have caused the universe?It has some small evidence to offer on whether you need intentionality to develop ordered and intelligent things. So no, not absolutely silent on what we've discussed, no. What might have caused the Big Bang?Yes, but that's not why I brought it up. Strawman. Do you not know that evolution occurs after the BB and what I'm talking about would, by definition, precede it?Why are you attacking an argument I never made? Is it because you can't defend your own logic? Why not attack the actual, point-by-point deductive logic argument I made, starting with point 3)? But just to put that part of the discussion to bed, I do not doubt the process of evolution, particularly as it relates to generational changes. Good grief, do you realise how your language gives you away here? You can't sneak in under the radar masquerading as a true-blue evolutionist if you use the creationist & ID shibboleths. And you were doing so well - avoiding the words "irreducible" and "complexity" so neatly."Generational changes!" - You'll be mentioning "microevolution" next... :smack: This process may account for everything, nice and neat. It does.No need for the "may".On the other hand, the theory as currently stated might not account for everything.Name ONE. Please. Name JUST ONE thing it doesn't account for. Some large leaps may have been necessary, whether through large aberrant mutations or intervention of some kind.No case where "large leaps" are needed has ever stood up to scrutiny. Look, it's the Intelligent Designer of the Gaps! I DO NOT KNOW. This does not make you some sort of neutral party. It makes you wrong. "I DON"T KNOW" is a valid stance on what's outside the Universe. It is not a valid one on the Theory of Evolution, which is cold, hard scientific fact.If my making allowance for the latter disqualifies me from your clubhouse where everyone KNOWS the theory to be true and complete as is, so be it. The club of people in the right? OK. You've shown no sign of wanting to come in, anyway.If that means you would like to think of me as someone who does not believe in evolution, (even though I do), boo hoo for me.You can't be an IDer and claim to believe in evolution. Pick a side. Anything else is disingenuous.
Yet, so many others are able to be pleasant while disagreeing without the sign on the door. Funny that.
Let's see - one of us has been making adversarial remarks about the strength of the other's position and use of logic as evidenced in this thread. The other has been using ad hominems, made numerous accusations of hostility and also made veiled personal (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9710906&postcount=102) attacks .
Which one of those would you classify as the unpleasant one to debate? Yet here I am, still debating you, with no intention of tucking tail or throwing a hissy fit. Maybe it's because I don't have a life :rolleyes:.

Or maybe, I'm right, and you know it, and are going for a stalemate because it's the best you can hope for because I don't intend to let you dodge out of things. If you're going to leave in a huff, for Hastur's sake just stop talking about it and do so, but don't pretend it's because I was a little tough in debating you. It'll be because you lost the debate, couldn't counter the logic, didn't answer direct questions until hounded, wouldn't offer cites, and didn't succeed in browbeating me out with ad hominems.

If I was really as unpleasant as you're claiming, instead of merely adversarial, I'm pretty sure a Mod would have stepped in by now. But I haven't been - you're just looking for an easy out that doesn't involve actual logic. Feel free to quit anytime, I'd hate to run up too big a tab :rolleyes: .

MrDibble

04-27-2008, 12:46 PM

How is that relevant here? IF there is a God/Prime Mover, he would have qualities not possessed by man or the universe. The proof of that would be that he existed without a cause, while the others did. So it is therefore incorrect to call the argument fallacious on those grounds. We look at it as a special case because it truly is. I think you make the error by assuming God and man to have similar qualities, particularly in their need for a cause and/or the degree to which they are each imbued with the quality of infinite being. Again, if that is not right,why?

We're not at home to Mr. Logic today, are we? You do realise that you're using a hugely circular argument here :
"The PM exists without a cause, therefore he has properties that caused things don't have....like (tada!) not having a cause!"

"Assuming the antecedent" writ large.

magellan01

04-27-2008, 02:22 PM

But...I'm still not paying you for this, remember?I have already proven my position, using deductive logic.

You have PROVEN nothing.

You have failed to use same to disprove it.

Because you have proven nothing.

What warped definition of intelligence and order are you going for here? A gun is no more intelligent than a rock. Depending on the rock, it can be much more ordered than the rifle. A nice sorted conglomerate, for instance, would be orders of magnitude more ordered than a rifle. It's also cherry-picking of examples. Suppose I walked along and found this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/NautilusCutawayLogarithmicSpiral.jpg/793px-NautilusCutawayLogarithmicSpiral.jpg) and this (http://www.boneclones.com/images/ms-001_web-lg.jpg)? Which is more ordered? More the result of focused intention vs blind instinct? The watchmaker argument is sophomoric.

I never said order or complexity PROVED intent or intelligence, just that the MORE ordered an object was the MORE it would suggest intentional intelligence. That suggestion is not proof, it is merely that, a suggestion. You crafted an example to prove a position wrong that I do not hold.

Anyway, I believe the word you're adroitly dancing around mentioning there is "complexity", not "order", and even that would be inappropriate. This is one of many ways the classic watchmaker argument, which you've just attempted to restate, falls down - there is no easy measure of order or complexity I know of that distinguishes the natural from the designed.

...But we don't have a measure of order, IMO, as a distinguishing filter.

Well, let's try this example. We have two wooden objects, so as far as their internal complexity, they would be equal, right? Now we further describe those two objects: one is just a hunk of amorphously shaped wood. The other is a wagon wheel. There you go, the wheel would be the object that would MORE strongly suggest intent. Correct? If not, why not?

I've repeatedly explained why I think context doesn't matter here. The sentence I quoted either stands or it doesn't.

It was never intended to stand on it's own. If it were, I wouldn't have other sentences around it. The first sentence was laying down a proposition for the next. It was a preamble of sorts. I've pointed this out numerous times, yet you still insist I intended it to stand alone. Tell me what do I want for dinner?

And the "mores" do not affect the logic of the link you attempt to show. An attempt which I've shown fails.

No you haven't. You wish the sentence to mean the same thing with the qualifying "mores" in it as it would if they weren't there. That is simply absurd. Words matter, especially when they are there specifically to be qualifiers.

Don't be pedantic.

THAT is rich! :rolleyes:

I have read the thread, and I'm asserting you didn't say anything resembling what he said, so if you assert that you did, cite where you said it, and we can discuss that specific instance. Otherwise stop trying to ride his coattails.

:rolleyes: I acknowledged your complimenting him. I asked you why what he said in that paragraph resonanted so comfortable with you when some of the same points made by me didn't. Here is what I was referring to, the fact that logic and relationships based purely on logic will hold up here and elsewhere. For example:

Well, that makes any discussion moot then, doesn't it. If the logic that guides our very thought processes and discussion can change to one of a trillion unknown logic models, there's not much point in discussing anything. But do you really think that in some other universe 2+2 will not equal 4? That x can be equal to x+1? That this will not hold true:

All humans are mortal
Dibble is human
Therefore, Dibble is Mortal

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But while we may move the line as to what we would consider fallacies, the logic that is derived from mathematical principles, set theory, etc. I think will hold up.

There's no reason to think that equations adequate to deal with a two dimensional world will work in a three dimensional world. That does not, though, invalidate, the dependability of those equations for two dimensions. Similarly, just because a series of equations and relationships might not work in an extra-three dimensional world does not invalidate those equations either. We need additional equations that embrace the relationships as they might exist when this other dimension(s) is taken into account. In other words, if you went to another world with additional dimensions, the Pathagorean Theorem would still hold true when trying to understand the two-dimensional aspect of your new world.

The Pathagorean theory will be just as valuable understanding two dimensions whether your world has three or thirteen. No? Why not?

It's a commentary on the relationships of the items only. Not the factual reality of them. It's validity would hold up every bit as well, while it's truthiness be just as suspect.

As far as 2+2=4, of course my point is that that would hold wherever the concept of twoness, fourness, addition and equality hold.

Including the "nothingness-fart" observation?

If by that he meant that we—our universe—to be the result from a fart of a PM, then yes, I agree that that is a possibility. I have stated in this thread that that although I hold that PM created us, I do not ascribe any necessary specialness to that creation. As I think I put it, we may simply be some detritus on his shop room's floor.

No, I used the fact of evolution of intelligence as a counter to one of your assertions.

You do realize that evolution is a theory, right? That some aspects of it have been proven, but others haven't. You do realize that, don't you. So, while you may use some proven aspect of evolution to disprove something, you cannot use an unproven aspect of it to disprove something. Counter it, yes. But elsewhere you seem to think that unproven aspects of evolutionary theory can disprove things when they cannot. They also cannot be used to counter a point that evolutionary theory is silent on, i.e., what caused the BB.

That doesn't make the thread about it in any way, but does mean that your acceptance or not of the theory is significant, as to whether we're on the same page with regard to background. That you tried to obfuscate your beliefs didn't help.It has some small evidence to offer on whether you need intentionality to develop ordered and intelligent things. So no, not absolutely silent on what we've discussed, no.

Evolutionary Theory says NOTHING about the origin of the univers. NOTHING as to what caused the Big Bang. If you think differently, I'll ask you for a cite.

Why not attack the actual, point-by-point deductive logic argument I made, starting with point 3)?

Okay. Here is your supposed airtight logic:

1) Deductive Logic requires Modus Ponens. (if A then B. A, therefore B)
2) Modus Ponens requires Causality as we usually know it. (hell, MP is just a statement of causality really)
3) Causality requires Time as we know it (arrow, past->future.)
4) TAWKI is an exclusive property of this Universe (From the DEFINITION of Universe)
5) So Outside the Universe there is no TAWKI (Negation of 4)
6) So Outside the universe, no causality, no MP, no deductive logic.

#2 has already been dispensed with by begbert2, so as you requested, we will move on to #3. I think we agree. I don't know why you felt the need to add "as we know it", but fine, we agree on 3. But maybe you qualified Time in #3 to make #4 appear more self-evident. But it is not. You are assuming that Time is absent from a realm that you have no way of knowing it is absent from. That makes #5 just an assumption you're making, as well. and that shoots to hell your #6.

In fact, I'd say begbert2's paragraph that you liked so much, and agreed with, conflicts with #6, as well. So do you agree with his paragraph that you lauded or do you hold to this "proof" you have offered?

Good grief, do you realise how your language gives you away here? You can't sneak in under the radar masquerading as a true-blue evolutionist if you use the creationist & ID shibboleths.

I think I see the problem here. You feel the need to put people into camps that make you feel comfortable. So, you want to force me into one. As much as you insist otherwise, I do believe in the theory of evolution. I also accept that some of it is still a theory. I also understand that it is silent on most of what we have been discussing in this thread.

Name ONE. Please. Name JUST ONE thing it doesn't account for.

The beginniing of life. If you think it does, please provide a cite.

"I DON"T KNOW" is a valid stance on what's outside the Universe. It is not a valid one on the Theory of Evolution, which is cold, hard scientific fact.

As I said, some aspects of the TOE are facts. Others are not. For instance, the allowance for the eye being the result of evolution and only evolution is a theory. Why do you insist on conflating the two?

The club of people in the right? OK. You've shown no sign of wanting to come in, anyway.You can't be an IDer and claim to believe in evolution. Pick a side.

There you go, "you're either with us or agin' us." No thanks.

Or maybe, I'm right, and you know it, and are going for a stalemate because it's the best you can hope for because I don't intend to let you dodge out of things.

Nope. I just admit that neither of us can PROVE we are correct and the other is wrong. It's quite amazing you don't realize that. Do you really think this is the first time this discussion has been had?

magellan01

04-27-2008, 02:28 PM

We're not at home to Mr. Logic today, are we? You do realise that you're using a hugely circular argument here :
"The PM exists without a cause, therefore he has properties that caused things don't have....like (tada!) not having a cause!"

Huh?

Assuming there is a PM, if he is the PM he did not have a cause (or he wouldn't be the PM). And if he is the PM, and therefore did not have a cause, yes, he would have the property of not having been caused.

The PM, by definition will not—cannot—have a cause. If he did, he would NOT be the PM. What is so difficult about that?

tomndebb

04-27-2008, 04:25 PM

Let's see - one of us has been making adversarial remarks about the strength of the other's position and use of logic as evidenced in this thread. The other has been using ad hominems, made numerous accusations of hostility and also made veiled personal (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9710906&postcount=102) attacks .
Which one of those would you classify as the unpleasant one to debate? Yet here I am, still debating you, with no intention of tucking tail or throwing a hissy fit. Actually, to different degrees and on differernt points (with which neither of you will agree), I would say that you have both engaged in some of the behaviors described in this paragraph.

Stick to fighting over the terms, facts, and logic and leave observations about the other poster(s) out of this thread.

[ /Modding ]]

Measure for Measure

04-27-2008, 05:29 PM

I'd like to make a stylistic remark to Mr Dibble and magellan01. When you quote your adversary more than 3 times in a post, and respond with a couple of sentences, third parties such as myself lose interest.

Substantively, the classic response to the Prime Mover argument is that it doesn't explain anything. If all things have causes, then saying that God created the universe only shifts the problem back one level. The question arises: what caused God?

The typical answer given is, "Well, God is great and is beyond cause". Oookay, but then you've just contradicted yourself: apparently not everything has a cause, right? (Oh, and what begbert2 said.)

I gather this is what you've been discussing on this page, but much of the underlying argument has been lost. [1]

Again though, I'm an agnostic. I can imagine a self-contained universe, a universe initiated by an external force (sentient or otherwise) or a Great Consciousness that arises after the Big Bang. Or several for that matter. Absent evidence and a decent conceptual framework, I suspend judgment.

-------
[1] Or rather, the argument seems to have shifted to whether the initial cause must necessarily be conscious and complex. While I find that scenario plausible, the Mandelbrot example shows that great complexity can arise from a simple initiator.

MrDibble

04-27-2008, 05:58 PM

Stick to fighting over the terms, facts, and logic and leave observations about the other poster(s) out of this thread.
OK. Whatever you'd like.

You have PROVEN nothing.
Yes, I have. Merely stating I haven't, without offering counterargument, is not very convincing.
I never said order or complexity PROVED intent or intelligence, just that the MORE ordered an object was the MORE it would suggest intentional intelligence. That suggestion is not proof, it is merely that, a suggestion. You crafted an example to prove a position wrong that I do not hold.

I didn't say you said it proved anything, I said there was not a link between the two. Which is what your statement says, "mores" notwithstanding.

Well, let's try this example. We have two wooden objects, so as far as their internal complexity, they would be equal, right? Now we further describe those two objects: one is just a hunk of amorphously shaped wood. The other is a wagon wheel. There you go, the wheel would be the object that would MORE strongly suggest intent. Correct? If not, why not?

Offering another cherrypicked example doesn't counter my general point. I note you did not address the two examples I linked to at all, or my point about the relative order of a gun and a conglomerate. Yes, the wheel suggests intent - because we know what wheels are. There's nothing inherently more ordered about a wheel versus, say, a pinecone.

It was never intended to stand on it's own. If it were, I wouldn't have other sentences around it. The first sentence was laying down a proposition for the next.
So what does it say about the second statement, if the first is so easily disproven (and yes, by providing numerous counterexamples of greater natural vs manmade order, I've disproved your statement that more order implies more intentionality)

No you haven't. You wish the sentence to mean the same thing with the qualifying "mores" in it as it would if they weren't there. That is simply absurd. No, I don't want it to mean the same, I want it to be backed up. You have failed to back up the link whereby more ordered suggests more intentionality. Words matter, especially when they are there specifically to be qualifiers.
When the thesis is "more order implies more intentionality", you can strike off the "mores" and the logic stays the same - "order implies intentionality". How else could the qualifies version make any sense? By attacking the second, I also attack the first. I contend I've done so, by providing examples of where the more ordered of a pair is clearly the natural object. You have not directly addressed any of my examples. Until you do so, I don't think you've addressed my disproof at all.

I acknowledged your complimenting him. I asked you why what he said in that paragraph resonanted so comfortable with you when some of the same points made by me didn't.

He put it simply, and didn't drag Pythagoras or Cartesian 2-D sidelines into it. What he said was basically "logic is true because it says it is, within itself". This is not what you said.

If by that he meant that we—our universe—to be the result from a fart of a PM, then yes, I agree that that is a possibility.
No, he meant our Universe arises out of a blip in nothing. At least, that's how I read it. bb2 can correct me if I'm wrong.

You do realize that evolution is a theory, right? That some aspects of it have been proven, but others haven't.
Name one.
You do realize that, don't you.
No, I am under the impression that the central theory of evolution has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, and is accepted scientific fact. That's what I realise.

So, while you may use some proven aspect of evolution to disprove something, you cannot use an unproven aspect of it to disprove something. Point out the unproven aspect I used, please?

They also cannot be used to counter a point that evolutionary theory is silent on, i.e., what caused the BB.

No, but the theory can be used to counter specific proofs put forward as support for particular theses on what caused the BB, like your PM thesis. You cited a intelligence and intentionality link, which evolutionary theory disproves. The only way to counter that is to say that human (or any) intelligence didn't evolve. Again, special pleading.

Evolutionary Theory says NOTHING about the origin of the univers. NOTHING as to what caused the Big Bang. If you think differently, I'll ask you for a cite.
I've already shown how it does, by attacking the underpinnings of the PM.

#2 has already been dispensed with by begbert2, so as you requested, we will move on to #3. I think we agree. I don't know why you felt the need to add "as we know it", but fine, we agree on 3.
Fine
But maybe you qualified Time in #3 to make #4 appear more self-evident. But it is not. You are assuming that Time is absent from a realm that you have no way of knowing it is absent from.
No, I'm assuming nothing. Time begins with the BB, and is entirely contained in the Universe. That's elementary cosmology and physics. It's the very definition of Universe.

That makes #5 just an assumption you're making, as well. and that shoots to hell your #6.Like I said, not my assumption. A fact.

In fact, I'd say begbert2's paragraph that you liked so much, and agreed with, conflicts with #6, as well.
It in no way conflicts with part 1 of #6. Show how it does.

So do you agree with his paragraph that you lauded or do you hold to this "proof" you have offered?
Both. If bb2 thinks his observation on MP disproves the first part of #6, he's, of course, free to say so, but he's not commented so far, and I have already addressed this.

As much as you insist otherwise, I do believe in the theory of evolution. I also accept that some of it is still a theory.In what sense do you mean "still a theory"? I take it not in the same way gravity is "still a theory", do you? If that phrase means what I think it means (i.e. you're using the non-scientific sense of theory as "not proved" in the second sentence), then your two sentences are contradictory. You can't believe in the truth of evolutionary theory and still think parts of it are still to be proven.

I also understand that it is silent on most of what we have been discussing in this thread.

I have already shown how it's pertinent, I shan't repeat myself.

The beginniing of life. If you think it does, please provide a cite.

Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to address the beginning of life. It also doesn't address gravity, the photoelectric effect or the origin af planets. So a complete non sequitur, especially as we were specifically addressing gaps in what evolutionary theory explains as relating to "large leaps" within the span of evolution. You're shifting the topic of the discussion unilaterally here.

As I said, some aspects of the TOE are facts. Others are not. For instance, the allowance for the eye being the result of evolution and only evolution is a theory. Why do you insist on conflating the two?
The evolution of the eye has been adequately explained, with many concrete examples. There is nothing about it that needs a non-evolutionary explanation. It's an ID canard that's been thoroughly debunked. Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable does a very good job, as does the talkorigins site.

Nope. I just admit that neither of us can PROVE we are correct and the other is wrong.I've already proved the bits I want to prove. It's quite amazing you don't realize that. Do you really think this is the first time this discussion has been had?Not between us, it hasn't.

Assuming there is a PM, if he is the PM he did not have a cause (or he wouldn't be the PM). And if he is the PM, and therefore did not have a cause, yes, he would have the property of not having been caused.
So you're not arguing that it's circular? Since the "uncaused" bit is, you know, the thing you're trying to prove?

The PM, by definition will not—cannot—have a cause. If he did, he would NOT be the PM. What is so difficult about that?
That you can't just define your way out of a logical argument. That is what we mean by special pleading.

And no, before you suggest it, using the definition of Universe the way I do in my arguments is not the same thing. The Universe as encapsulated space-time isn't just a philosophical definition like yours of the PM. It's based on physics - actual measurements, and scientific theories that yielded predictive results. Science, in other words. The PM is not science, in my opinion, and cannot be defended on scientific grounds. My debating with you started with your statement that cause and effect were a "physical law". I've already shown you were wrong about that. Then I've argued that modern physics describes a Universe that can be entirely uncaused. I think I've defended that too.

Revenant Threshold

04-27-2008, 06:13 PM

I think we get into even shakier territory when we attempt to attribute human characteristics to God. And I don't see why god couldn't be a "monolithic entity". I don't consider intentions to be a human characteristic, but a characteristic of a thinking being. That seems to be what you're defining God as in this case. I would say that a god as defined as a prime mover couldn't be a single thing mainly because at the very least we can say it has both existence and intent; and intent implies reasoning. A god that was just a being of singular, pure intent with the power to back that up would be essentially a simple mechanical process, not a god. I think I'm following you here, but I think you're just moving the Prime Mover further back. Ultimately, you get to the real PM. I do agree that if there are multiple stages to creation of the universe, that as you look further and further to the actual origin/PM that things will appear to get simpler, to ultimately, you get to pure intention with no physicality. I say "appear" because I don't think it makes sense to say that the closer you get to the actual PM the simpler the entity gets. That would mean that the actual PM would be the simplest entity. I think that would be true physically, but only physically. I am moving the PM back, and that's the point; the idea that complex things imply complex intenders makes sense, but that doesn't mean that complex intender is the PM. Thus looking at a watch and deeming it complex enough to imply intention does not mean that the human watchmaker is the PM, and likewise looking at the universe and deeming it complex enough does not imply that the immediate causer of it was the PM either. I'm not saying this rules out PMs, just the complexity argument.

Why is that nonsensical? I'm not suggesting the PM has to be the simplest entity, only that a PM could be a remarkably simple thing. And I don't see why it must only be simple physically; you've suggested the existence of a spiritual PM creating existence, but what rules out a physical PM creating spiritualness? The creation of spiritualness (i'm really not sure what the best word would be) outside of physicality as I think your ideas run sounds odd, but it's pretty comparable to the creation of spiritualness inside a void. Yeah, it's slippery stuff. The interest for me is that I view this as Step 1. I get quite annoyed when people conflate religion and god in discussions. They are two completely separate things. You can only get to Step 2 after you get through Step 1. And Step 2 opens the door to what is this God, what does he want/expect of us, if anything, and what we should do about it. If people want to explore that, fine. If people want to argue against a specific religion, or religion in general, fine. But they shouldn't think that if there argument in those areas are successful that it has anything to do with God. Eh, the problem with that is that it's not a simple 1 to 2 process. You require 1 for 2, but 2 in turn affects 1. People may believe in a god, then afterwards learn the characteristics of that god, and i'm sure they do. But for most people I would wager being able to "prove" their religion wrong would also take away their god, because they define their god as fitting their religion. A Christian may consider God a paragon of goodness. Were it possible to find a fantastical argument that disproves the notion of a good god, that doesn't just prove the religion incorrect, but also the abstract notion of a good god. The religion is the god, and vice versa.

A true argument against a religion says nothing about most concepts of god. But I would say it can certainly also mean a good argument against gods that fulfil that religion's ideals, too. Assuming we know what they are correctly, anyway. ;)

magellan01

04-27-2008, 07:39 PM

Substantively, the classic response to the Prime Mover argument is that it doesn't explain anything. If all things have causes, then saying that God created the universe only shifts the problem back one level. The question arises: what caused God?

The typical answer given is, "Well, God is great and is beyond cause". Oookay, but then you've just contradicted yourself: apparently not everything has a cause, right? (Oh, and what begbert2 said.)

Nothing caused God. My contention is that all things tangible and measurable, all matter and energy, have a cause. Our universe is comprised of matter and energy, therefore, it must have had a cause. That cause cannot be matter and/or energy, because IT too would then have to have a cause. So, ultimately, the thing that caused our universe was something other than matter or energy: The Prime Mover/God.

So the general proposition that all things must have a cause holds. Maybe we need to qualify it, even though I think it is understood, that by "all things" I mean all things in and of our universe.

Again though, I'm an agnostic. I can imagine a self-contained universe, a universe initiated by an external force (sentient or otherwise) or a Great Consciousness that arises after the Big Bang. Or several for that matter. Absent evidence and a decent conceptual framework, I suspend judgment.

Quite understandable. I think I am just more moved by the logic of there having been a first cause.

-------
[1] Or rather, the argument seems to have shifted to whether the initial cause must necessarily be conscious and complex. While I find that scenario plausible, the Mandelbrot example shows that great complexity can arise from a simple initiator.

I don't pretend to understand Mandelbrot sets, even after reading on it. I would ask you, though, what sets the "initiator" in motion? What nudges it from stasis? Sorry, if that question isn't helpful , but you evidently feel these sats prove or indicate something and I didn't want to just ignore it.

magellan01

04-27-2008, 09:07 PM

Offering another cherrypicked example doesn't counter my general point. I note you did not address the two examples I linked to at all, or my point about the relative order of a gun and a conglomerate. Yes, the wheel suggests intent - because we know what wheels are. There's nothing inherently more ordered about a wheel versus, say, a pinecone.

Fine. So the pine cone and the wheel would equally suggest intent. I could see your point there. But I contend that either of them suggests intent more than a pebble. I chose the examples I did to create the cleanest comparison between the two items. I mean, theoretically you could start to evaluate items on a cellular level, so I was removing that confusion. I chose two items that share identical cell structure. The only difference is therefore shape. And when you evaluate a wagon wheel and a chunk of wood, the wagon wheel more strongly suggests that it was intentionally created. Would you agree with that? If not why?

So what does it say about the second statement, if the first is so easily disproven (and yes, by providing numerous counterexamples of greater natural vs manmade order, I've disproved your statement that more order implies more intentionality)

I don't think you have. You disproved that order necessarily indicates intentionality. But that was not my statement. Please respond directly to my paragraph that immediately precedes this one.

As far as the examples you used, what do you think that shows. It shows that order does not EQUAL intent.

No, I don't want it to mean the same, I want it to be backed up.

But if you remove the qualifiers from a sentence in means something else. You insist that it mean exactly the same as if the qualifiers were not there. That makes no sense. If I said that Sally is more tall than Billy, that means one thing. And that one thing is not the same if I remove the qualifier to read: Sally is tall. She may not be. She may be a three foot tall kid. You can't just ignore qualifiers.

No, I am under the impression that the central theory of evolution has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, and is accepted scientific fact. That's what I realise.

Point out the unproven aspect I used, please?

Ah, so there is doubt. So they are not FACTS. But even leaving that aside, here is one place where the discussion has become problematic. Here you are talking about the CENTRAL theory of evolution. In that regard, I think we are probably in agreement. But the theory of evolution has, and is, constantly evolving itself, to take into account new info and to address new problems.

When I said that some aspects have yet to be proven, I meant things like the idea that the eyeball could have evolved with no intervention. That is an unproved theory. The theory allows that it could have happened that way, not that it did. And if you are aware of any PROOF that states that the eyeball or flagellum definitively did simply baby-step their way into existence, I'd like to see it. What the theory does do, in regards to our discussion, is to supposedly show that outside intervention is not necesary in the creation of those two items. That is not the same as saying that outside intervention definitively played no role. See the difference?

Maybe I've misunderstood you, but on more than one occasion you seem to want the larger, expanded theory to "prove" your point, but not acknowledge that you were pointing to parts of the expanded theory of evolution that have NOT been proven to be the case and expected me to accept those as "proof".

No, but the theory can be used to counter specific proofs put forward as support for particular theses on what caused the BB, like your PM thesis. You cited a intelligence and intentionality link, which evolutionary theory disproves.

No. If you accept the theory it only goes to "disproving" the necessity of intervention and, indirectly, a PM. and most of the time the only thing a theory can do to a conflicting theory is cast doubt upon it.

No, I'm assuming nothing. Time begins with the BB, and is entirely contained in the Universe. That's elementary cosmology and physics. It's the very definition of Universe.

This amazes me. You state on the one hand that we can say nothing about anything outside our universe. Yet you INSIST that it is a FACT that there can be no time there. Tell me what else do you KNOW to be FACTUAL about the realm that you insist we can not say anything about? How about length and width and depth, do you KNOW that those dimensions do NOT exist there? If you KNOW this about the fourth dimension, what do you know about the other three?

It in no way conflicts with part 1 of #6. Show how it does.

Okay. Your #6 states that we would not be able to rely on deductive logic outside our universe: "6) So Outside the universe, no causality, no MP, no deductive logic."

And the paragraph in question states:

Attempts to prove that logic, math, etc are bound to the universe are based in a fundamental misunderstanding of what logic, math, etc, are. They are self-contained abstract systems, consisting only of arbitrary definitions and arbitrary rules. Some of them appear to model reality, but that's reality's problem - the system's truisisms with itself (including its own definition) are true regardless of reality, and regardless of anyone knowing them, and regardless of anyone creating them. (And regardless of whether God might want to alter them. Take that omnipotence!) We've noticed that logic leads us to correct conclusons, given correct information. And if that's true, it's true when talking about the world, the prime mover (which was likely a mindless 'nothingness-fart'), or God-concepts. Period.

It seems perfectly clear to me. The entire paragraph argues that logic works regardless of where one might be. That so dependable and immutable is it, that not even God could have it be otherwise. Do you really think that is NOT what the paragraph states? If so, please offer your view. How does this paragraph not directly conflict with your #6?

And begbert2, if I'm misunderstanding this, please let me know.

theory doesn't claim to address the beginning of life. It also doesn't address gravity, the photoelectric effect or the origin af planets. So a complete non sequitur, especially as we were specifically addressing gaps in what evolutionary theory explains as relating to "large leaps" within the span of evolution. You're shifting the topic of the discussion unilaterally here.

My point had to do with you earlier implications that the parts of the theory that have to do with the eyeball and flagellum do not PROVE that a PM could not have been responsible. Even if you embrace them 100%, they just say that a PM was not necessary.

I've already proved the bits I want to prove.

Sigh.

debating with you started with your statement that cause and effect were a "physical law". I've already shown you were wrong about that.

Wow, Now you're just being petty. You raised that very early in this discussion on page 1. I said that I misspoke and use the "law" where I should have used "tenet". You seemed fine with that explanation. But you bring it up now just to say "nahnah-nahnah-nah-nah, you were wrong before. So there!"

Uh...okay.

Measure for Measure, you offer good stylistic advice. I actually tried to shorten the number of individual replies, but given the captious nature of the debate, I erred on the side of being more specific with the responses. Still, I was able to reduce them by almost two-thirds. I will continue down that road, as I think it helpful for all participants.

Measure for Measure

04-28-2008, 01:39 AM

Stylistically, I was speaking in general terms of course... Nothing caused God. My contention is that all things tangible and measurable, all matter and energy, have a cause. Our universe is comprised of matter and energy, therefore, it must have had a cause. That cause cannot be matter and/or energy, because IT too would then have to have a cause. So, ultimately, the thing that caused our universe was something other than matter or energy: The Prime Mover/God.

So the general proposition that all things must have a cause holds. Maybe we need to qualify it, even though I think it is understood, that by "all things" I mean all things in and of our universe. My understanding of your argument (correct me if I'm lost) :
1. All things (definition: entities of matter/energy) have causes.
2. God is not an entity of matter/energy.
3. So God doesn't need to have a cause, because of point 2.

A little more than a nitpick: ideas don't have energy or matter, but they are an aspect of our universe. I'm not trying to be annoying and frankly this point confuses me as well. But as my earlier link noted, pondering the nature of ideas themselves seems to awkwardly lead one into theology.

Now, I don't necessarily buy the "All things except God have causes" argument. For one thing, it's odd to have an entity that has effects but not causes. For another, this whole question of causality is a sticky one, as I noted earlier and Frylock discusses here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=464962). (magellan noted earlier that this wasn't an especially devastating critique. I sort of agree, but I wanted to point out that a lot sharp analytic minds have covered this material before. Admittedly, we all knew that.) I don't pretend to understand Mandelbrot sets, even after reading on it. I would ask you, though, what sets the "initiator" in motion? What nudges it from stasis? Sorry, if that question isn't helpful , but you evidently feel these sats prove or indicate something and I didn't want to just ignore it. It's an algorithm: nothing sets it in motion. It's not matter or energy. (Yeah, I'm puzzled too: philosophers like to ask whether a question is meaningful before they evaluate validity or empirical accuracy.)

Hm. If math is invented then a human sets the mandelbrot set in motion. But we know that nobody invented the Mandelbrot set, because it's too big and complicated for any single person to understand. So (leap to conclusion!) it must have been discovered. And if it was discovered, there's not necessarily any initiator. ...Hm again: do humans initiate math, rather than invent it? Is that even sensical? :confused:

It is odd that the Mandelbrot set argues against both First Cause and strong atheism, though I'm not claiming that it disproves either. When I said that some aspects have yet to be proven, I meant things like the idea that the eyeball could have evolved with no intervention. That is an unproved theory. The theory allows that it could have happened that way, not that it did. And if you are aware of any PROOF that states that the eyeball or flagellum definitively did simply baby-step their way into existence, I'd like to see it. For better or worse, this part bothers me more. When we discuss pre-Big Bang events, we're outside of science. But here things are a lot less sticky. We can have evolution guided by God's hand, or evolution without Him. But when we don't need a Supreme Being to explain a given phenomenon, I think it best to set Him aside, following Occam's Razor. This seems to me to be good epistemology: stay focussed on the matter at hand. (Ok, the point is of course topical in this thread. But it seems to me that a lot of hard-won scientific methodology was shunted aside in that quote, which deserved comment.)

MrDibble

04-28-2008, 04:12 AM

Fine. So the pine cone and the wheel would equally suggest intent. I could see your point there. But I contend that either of them suggests intent more than a pebble.
Pebbles can be quite ordered (http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/McGrawHill/Encyclopedia/images/CE403150FG0010.gif) . I chose the examples I did to create the cleanest comparison between the two items.You're just saying "cherrypicked" in less compromising words here. I mean, theoretically you could start to evaluate items on a cellular level, so I was removing that confusion. I chose two items that share identical cell structure. The only difference is therefore shape. And when you evaluate a wagon wheel and a chunk of wood, the wagon wheel more strongly suggests that it was intentionally created. Would you agree with that?

Yes, the wheel suggests intention. But not by any abstract measure of order. And they're still cherry-picked examples.e.g. What has more order, a pinecone or an axe-handle? A log or a toothpick? Crazy paving or a sorted conglomerate? If not why?One displays intentionality, but not for the reason you think - you yourself pointed out the reason - the shape itself. But this difference in shape isn't inherent to the intentionally fashioned object, as my examples show.

I don't think you have. You disproved that order necessarily indicates intentionality. But that was not my statement.
my emphasis:
Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention
If the link is not a necessary one, how can it then make the PM necessary? All it does is make him probable. But even that falls down - yes, the statement as made does not indicate a necessary relationship between order and intentionality, but I haven't just disproved that the link is necessary. I've disproved that it's even likely, or significantly probable. I've shown that for EVERY cherry-picked example you give, I can give two or more counter-examples. Your thesis is disproved.
Please respond directly to my paragraph that immediately precedes this one.
Done.
As far as the examples you used, what do you think that shows. It shows that order does not EQUAL intent.
No, it shows there's NO predictable link. Non-intentional, natural physical processes can, and do, lead to high magnitudes of order just as easily and frequently as intentional ones. If the link isn't persistent, or even predictable, you can't use it at all to indicate intentionality.
But if you remove the qualifiers from a sentence in means something else. You insist that it mean exactly the same as if the qualifiers were not there.No, I don't. I'm saying it's just as false, and the reason it's false stays the same.That makes no sense. If I said that Sally is more tall than Billy, that means one thing. And that one thing is not the same if I remove the qualifier to read: Sally is tall.That's not analagous to what I did - I retained the predicate "intentionality", you dropped it (Billy) off. Statements are always about relationships, and you changed the predicate in the second one. I did not. She may not be. She may be a three foot tall kid. You can't just ignore qualifiers.I didn't ignore it, and now you're playing semantics. But OK, here we go - the statement WITH THE "MORES" is wrong. I have shown how.
Ah, so there is doubt. So they are not FACTS.No, evolution is a scientific fact. "Reasonable" doubt. This means any doubt left is "un-reasonable". If you would have us consider evry un-reasonable explanation for things, we could be here all year. Are you sure you want to go down the road that characterises the Prime Mover as an UN-reasonable explanation for the Universe? But even leaving that aside, here is one place where the discussion has become problematic. Here you are talking about the CENTRAL theory of evolution. That's all we need.In that regard, I think we are probably in agreement. The central theory of evolution needs no Intelligent Interferer. We do not agree.But the theory of evolution has, and is, constantly evolving itself, to take into account new info and to address new problems.The theory of evolution hasn't changed at all since Darwin first formulated it. It's just that good.

When I said that some aspects have yet to be proven, I meant things like the idea that the eyeball could have evolved with no intervention. That is an unproved theory.The fossils say it's been proved. The biochemistry says the same. The theory allows that it could have happened that way, not that it did.No, it says it DID. We have all the possible intermediate stages. Eyeball evolution is no mystery. And if you are aware of any PROOF that states that the eyeball or flagellum definitively did simply baby-step their way into existence, I'd like to see it.You have no idea how scientific proof works, if you think that "could have", coupled with hard evidence, isn't sufficient proof What the theory does do, in regards to our discussion, is to supposedly show that outside intervention is not necesary in the creation of those two items.It shows no point at which outside intervention is needed, or can be said to have occurred. But it does have all the steps, so there;s nothing that the evolutionary explanation doesn't explain. That's as solid a scientific proof as you can have. That is not the same as saying that outside intervention definitively played no role. See the difference?No, I don't. All the theory has to show is all the steps, as well as no gaps that need explaining. If you think there's any place in the evolution of the eye where an explanation is needed, please point it out to me. Just saying "there are gaps" doesn't refute anything.
Maybe I've misunderstood you, but on more than one occasion you seem to want the larger, expanded theory to "prove" your point, but not acknowledge that you were pointing to parts of the expanded theory of evolution that have NOT been proven to be the case and expected me to accept those as "proof".
OK, let's be more clear -what, exactly, did I say, that was not an adequate explanation for a point you made. Specific post cites would be most helpful. General objections are kind of imprecise to refute, you know.No. If you accept the theory it only goes to "disproving" the necessity of intervention and, indirectly, a PM. and most of the time the only thing a theory can do to a conflicting theory is cast doubt upon it.That's all it needs to do, since the Prime Mover is an entity that is only brought into the debate because of it's supposed necessity. If it's not needed, we don't bring it in, since there's nothing it needs to explain. Lex parsimoniae.

This amazes me. You state on the one hand that we can say nothing about anything outside our universe. Yet you INSIST that it is a FACT that there can be no time there. Tell me what else do you KNOW to be FACTUAL about the realm that you insist we can not say anything about? How about length and width and depth, do you KNOW that those dimensions do NOT exist there? If you KNOW this about the fourth dimension, what do you know about the other three?
Not our dimensions, no. That's kind of the point of Space being confined to the Universe along with Time

Okay. Your #6 states that we would not be able to rely on deductive logic outside our universe: "6) So Outside the universe, no causality, no MP, no deductive logic."
NO, I quite specifically said PART 1 of #6. I already acknowledged that the bits about the MP and deductive logic fell aside. But the bit about causality is not related to the other two, it stands or falls on its own. I already stated this, so you're attacking a strawman here.

It seems perfectly clear to me. The entire paragraph argues that logic works regardless of where one might be. That so dependable and immutable is it, that not even God could have it be otherwise. Do you really think that is NOT what the paragraph states? If so, please offer your view. How does this paragraph not directly conflict with your #6?
I've addressed this hijack already.
.
My point had to do with you earlier implications that the parts of the theory that have to do with the eyeball and flagellum do not PROVE that a PM could not have been responsible. Even if you embrace them 100%, they just say that a PM was not necessary.
Hey, if you're willing to concede that a Prime Mover is not necessary, I'd say you're right and this debate is over. That's all I need to prove.
Wow, Now you're just being petty. You raised that very early in this discussion on page 1. I said that I misspoke and use the "law" where I should have used "tenet". You seemed fine with that explanation. Yes - but it speaks to your facility with the language of science, and that's pertinent to this part of the debate too. Since you seem unable to distinguish between commonplace and scientific use of the word "theory", I thought it bore repeating.
But you bring it up now just to say "nahnah-nahnah-nah-nah, you were wrong before. So there!"
No, I brought it up to address the issue of whether you are using the language of science correctly. Liker I said, you misused it then, and I think you're doing the same now with your use of the word "theory" and your mishandling of the concept of SpaceTime.

Measure for Measure, you offer good stylistic advice. I actually tried to shorten the number of individual replies, but given the captious nature of the debate, I erred on the side of being more specific with the responses. Still, I was able to reduce them by almost two-thirds. I will continue down that road, as I think it helpful for all participants.
I don't agree. If MforM finds this mode of debate taxing, he's welcome to skip reading, but I like the point-for-point form of discussion. It makes it easier to address specific points.

magellan01

04-28-2008, 09:47 AM

MrDibble

04-28-2008, 11:21 AM

Was there supposed to be a link in there? Was it to this page? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

MrDibble

04-28-2008, 11:39 AM

Accepted theory is still a theory, NOT a fact. I think you confuse the two.
I don't confuse them - a scientific theory is NOT a fact. A scientific theory is a bunch of facts and a consistent explanation for those facts, that's been upheld against challenge over time.
But there is definitely no such thing as "just a theory" in science. The word for that is "hypothesis". And it hasn't been the "hypothesis of evolution" since modern genetics provided the final missing "how" for Darwin's mechanism of Natural Selection.

MrDibble

04-28-2008, 11:44 AM

one more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact) link for you, magellan01.

Voyager

04-28-2008, 12:00 PM

Revenant Threshold, Measure for Measure, MrDibble, I'll get to your responses as soon as I can.

In the meantime, MrDibble, I think you might want to review this page which explains the difference between "fact" and "theory", so we're on the same page. Accepted theory is still a theory, NOT a fact. I think you confuse the two.

Have a good day, all.
You remind me of a cereal ad. If you have a complete and balanced breakfast, if you add cereal you still have a complete breakfast. Adding a PM to a complete theory of origins still provides a complete theory of origins, with some empty intellectual calories. And the PM isn't even tasty.

magellan01

04-28-2008, 12:28 PM

one more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact) link for you, magellan01.

Oops, my apologies for omitting the link. It was supposed to be to the Wiki page you have here. But finally you have proved you ;) rself to be of some use.

More later.

magellan01

04-28-2008, 12:32 PM

You remind me of a cereal ad. If you have a complete and balanced breakfast, if you add cereal you still have a complete breakfast. Adding a PM to a complete theory of origins still provides a complete theory of origins, with some empty intellectual calories. And the PM isn't even tasty.

I think I need a translation here. But if I do get your intent, I'd just offer that the theory of evolution is completely silent on what might have preceded the big bang (which is the topic that I've been discussing). Do you agree or disagree?

Until later.

MrDibble

04-28-2008, 12:40 PM

Just a favourite sample of the Wiki article, with emphasis added:
The factual nature of evolution arises over and over again in the biological literature in different guises. Carl Sagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Evolution_as_theory_and_fact_in_the_literature) wrote "Evolution is a fact, not a theory". American zoologist and paleontologist George Simpson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson), stated that "Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact." R. C. Lewontin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._C._Lewontin) wrote, "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory." Douglas Futuyama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Futuyama) writes in his book, "the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun." H. J. Muller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._J._Muller) states, "If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words." Kenneth R. Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller) writes, "evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science."

Voyager

04-28-2008, 02:41 PM

I think I need a translation here. But if I do get your intent, I'd just offer that the theory of evolution is completely silent on what might have preceded the big bang (which is the topic that I've been discussing). Do you agree or disagree?

Until later.
I wasn't talking about evolution, though the same principle applies there also. I was talking about your misunderstanding of theory and what it implies. MrDibble correctly notes that if you have a theory that explains things fairly well, with no holes, it is not necessary to posit any extra factors, despite the fact that the theory by its nature can't be "proven." If you want to say that you believe in a PM because it makes you feel good, fine, but there is no need for one. You talk about the lack of necessity for a PM as if that wasn't enough. Maybe you should just be happy that no one can prove you wrong.

Der Trihs

04-28-2008, 04:00 PM

I think I need a translation here. But if I do get your intent, I'd just offer that the theory of evolution is completely silent on what might have preceded the big bang (which is the topic that I've been discussing). Do you agree or disagree?Nope; there have been attempts to apply evolutionary theory to explain the nature of the universe being what it is. Basically, a version of the inflationary model that postulates universes spawning from each other, with physical laws serving in a position analogous to genes in this scenario. And universes that reproduce more being those that have various characteristics, which converge on a universe like ours.

While there's no way at this point to say if it's true or not, it does show that evolutionary theory isn't "completely silent" on what came before the Big Bang. Evolution is a concept with applications that just get broader the more people look at it.

And at any rate, it doesn't matter; since whether or not evolution applies to the formation of universes that says nothing on the need for some Prime Mover ( which is one of the more seriously desperate attempts to defend God, I might add ). Quantum mechanics can explain where the first uncaused cause came from easily enough - in fact, it pretty much eliminates the whole idea that effects need causes, now or at the Big Bang, at the quantum scale.

magellan01

04-28-2008, 09:49 PM

I don't consider intentions to be a human characteristic, but a characteristic of a thinking being. That seems to be what you're defining God as in this case. I would say that a god as defined as a prime mover couldn't be a single thing mainly because at the very least we can say it has both existence and intent; and intent implies reasoning. A god that was just a being of singular, pure intent with the power to back that up would be essentially a simple mechanical process, not a god. I am moving the PM back, and that's the point; the idea that complex things imply complex intenders makes sense, but that doesn't mean that complex intender is the PM. Thus looking at a watch and deeming it complex enough to imply intention does not mean that the human watchmaker is the PM, and likewise looking at the universe and deeming it complex enough does not imply that the immediate causer of it was the PM either. I'm not saying this rules out PMs, just the complexity argument.

I think I follow you. I also think I agree with a lot of it. If one of the things you're saying toward the end is that the entity that caused our universe might not have been the PM, I would agree. My only point has been our universe must have been caused. Whether THAT PM is THE PM is another discussion. We get into the nature of God/Gods/God World. But I do agree with the the point. As far as existence, I agree, too, that he would have both existence and intent. But that existence need not be physical. Unless I misunderstood you.

Why is that nonsensical? I'm not suggesting the PM has to be the simplest entity, only that a PM could be a remarkably simple thing. And I don't see why it must only be simple physically; you've suggested the existence of a spiritual PM creating existence, but what rules out a physical PM creating spiritualness?

Nothing. My point was only that I think a non-physical God makes more sense, from an Occam's Razor standpoint. But he could very well have physicality.

The creation of spiritualness (i'm really not sure what the best word would be) outside of physicality as I think your ideas run sounds odd, but it's pretty comparable to the creation of spiritualness inside a void.

I see your point, but I don't equate the lack od physicality as being a void. It could be full of energy. Much like the universe right after the big bang.

Eh, the problem with that is that it's not a simple 1 to 2 process. You require 1 for 2, but 2 in turn affects 1. People may believe in a god, then afterwards learn the characteristics of that god, and i'm sure they do. But for most people I would wager being able to "prove" their religion wrong would also take away their god, because they define their god as fitting their religion. A Christian may consider God a paragon of goodness. Were it possible to find a fantastical argument that disproves the notion of a good god, that doesn't just prove the religion incorrect, but also the abstract notion of a good god. The religion is the god, and vice versa.

A true argument against a religion says nothing about most concepts of god. But I would say it can certainly also mean a good argument against gods that fulfil that religion's ideals, too. Assuming we know what they are correctly, anyway. ;)

I don't think I agree. But we are close. I maintain that a logical argument against a religion—or even any religion, or all religions—says squat about the truth of God. People may be invested in it, they may equate their God with the true God, but that is simply the risk they run. There is a truth about God, whatever it is. There are many many religions that think they know the truth. By definition, at least "all of them minus one" have to be wrong. My guess is that it's a greater number than that, especially when they pile centuries of man-made stuff on top of centuries of man-made stuff and forget that men did it. In fact the more they strip away the trappings of what makes much of their religion distinguishable from another, the better they'd probably do in knowing the True God, whoever, whatever, he is.

magellan01

04-28-2008, 10:19 PM

My understanding of your argument (correct me if I'm lost) :
1. All things (definition: entities of matter/energy) have causes.
2. God is not an entity of matter/energy.
3. So God doesn't need to have a cause, because of point 2.

A little more than a nitpick: ideas don't have energy or matter, but they are an aspect of our universe. I'm not trying to be annoying and frankly this point confuses me as well. But as my earlier link noted, pondering the nature of ideas themselves seems to awkwardly lead one into theology.

Ideas have no physical manifestation, but at the very least, whatever they are, they appear to be the product of energy. I'd go as far as to say that for an idea to exist as an idea it takes energy. If I am thinking of a beach in Hawaii, it takes energy for my brain to paint a picture of that beach for me to enjoy. I think, anyway. You're absolutely correct in that this is brain bending stuff.

Now, I don't necessarily buy the "All things except God have causes" argument. For one thing, it's odd to have an entity that has effects but not causes.

Oh, I agree. And I'd say that based on our experience here, a God is certainly an odd thing. I just personally consider it less odd than any alternative I've heard.

Hm. If math is invented then a human sets the mandelbrot set in motion. But we know that nobody invented the Mandelbrot set, because it's too big and complicated for any single person to understand. So (leap to conclusion!) it must have been discovered. And if it was discovered, there's not necessarily any initiator. ...Hm again: do humans initiate math, rather than invent it? Is that even sensical? :confused:

This sits much more comfortably in my mind. Math, at it's simplest form at least, is just set theory and relationships—the stuff of logic. I agree that we don't invent it, but rather discover it. The brainer among us embrace it and are then able to unfurl it further. But we did not invent math in any way. In my mind, anyway.

It is odd that the Mandelbrot set argues against both First Cause and strong atheism, though I'm not claiming that it disproves either. For better or worse, this part bothers me more. When we discuss pre-Big Bang events, we're outside of science.

Yes. But I just want to clarify this point—and I think begbert2 has voiced this, as well—but we are not outside of logic. All the relationships that make sense here will make sense there.

But here things are a lot less sticky. We can have evolution guided by God's hand, or evolution without Him. But when we don't need a Supreme Being to explain a given phenomenon, I think it best to set Him aside, following Occam's Razor.

Agreed.

This seems to me to be good epistemology: stay focussed on the matter at hand. (Ok, the point is of course topical in this thread. But it seems to me that a lot of hard-won scientific methodology was shunted aside in that quote, which deserved comment.)

I'm confused by this. I think that if someone looks into the subject—a big-brained math guy—and determines that we have enough time for the eyeball to become an eyeball solely through the processes of evolution, than that should be the default. I think we agree on that. But there is a big assumption made. That we can accurately understand the intricacies of eyeballs and flagella and seek to apply the right math. Now let's assume we strive greatly to do just that and we feel that the numbers easily allow for this to happen, that doesn't mean that's what DID happen. It merely means that (using Occam) we shold probably assume that pure evolution was all that was necessary.

The problem I have personally is that I'm not comfortable with the math myself, so I depend on MIT/PhD types to do it for me. I see that both sides claim that the math is in their favor. I also know that they both are trying to prove that their side is right. So, it may be true, it may not. So I reserve judgement. Given the numbers on each side, I lean toward those who say the eyeball did not need intervention. But, I do not take that as fact. I think some do. I think MrDibble, for instance does. But I'm sure he'll let me know if I'm wrong about that.

But the discussion we're having is not about eyeballs, which might very well be possible without "help". It is about what might have preceded the BB. Some want to just throw up their hands and say "You can't say ANYTHING about before the BB, because there was no before the BB." I understand that point, but I do not see why it is not possible—and I'd say, probable—that our universe, BB and all exists in a larger framework. And in that framework, something caused the BB.

MrDibble

04-29-2008, 01:50 AM

I see your point, but I don't equate the lack od physicality as being a void. It could be full of energy. Much like the universe right after the big bang.

Energy IS physical. You can't equate energy and non-physicality.

Mijin

04-29-2008, 07:47 AM

<responding to the OP>

The difference between the two statements is that the first asserts nothing about the external world while the second does.

While it's true that the first statement could be considered "weak", it's also true that the second statement is vulnerable to the charge that since it is a belief in something that cannot be proven, it is "just like" belief in God.

The thing is, it's no more possible to declare one statement that sums up atheists' views any more than you can sum up all Christians' views (without giving a very vague summary).

Consider my own view:
I don't claim to know whether there is a God. I see no reason to suspect that there is a God.
But if we're talking specifically about the omniscient, yet personal Gods of the world's major religions, then I do think there are reasons for supposing that they do not exist (the many philosophical paradoxes, for a start).

But I prefer not to even call myself "agnostic" or "atheist", because when I do I'm inevitably tagged with views that I don't hold.

MrDibble

04-29-2008, 01:53 PM

So, any chance we're going to get to hear how the Wikipedia article helps your case, magellan01? And do please also read the talkorigins one, it's quite good.

Revenant Threshold

04-30-2008, 05:07 PM

I think I follow you. I also think I agree with a lot of it. If one of the things you're saying toward the end is that the entity that caused our universe might not have been the PM, I would agree. My only point has been our universe must have been caused. Whether THAT PM is THE PM is another discussion. We get into the nature of God/Gods/God World. But I do agree with the the point. As far as existence, I agree, too, that he would have both existence and intent. But that existence need not be physical. Unless I misunderstood you. Nope, I think we're on the same page. The other thing i'd like to say is that it's tempting to ascribe universal power to a being that created a universe, just as we ascribe mechanical power to a being that creates a watch. But the watchmaker (in these days, anyway) doesn't himself fashion some or maybe even all of the pieces himself; he doesn't go out, dig up some ore, smelt it, process it, cut it etc. until he has exactly the piece he needs. He works with what other people have provided. Likewise I don't think it would be fair to say that a being that created the universe - PM or not - must have nigh-omnipotent powers. We don't know what he/she/it had to start off with. A watchmaker does need skill themselves, but for me at least I can't look at the universe and see design and intent in the same way that I would do a watch. It might have needed it, or it might not. Nothing. My point was only that I think a non-physical God makes more sense, from an Occam's Razor standpoint. But he could very well have physicality. Ah, ok, I misunderstood. I would argue that a non-physical God makes less sense, in that we're multiplying planes of existence needlessly. But I really don't like Occam's Razor as an argument in pretty much any debate. I see your point, but I don't equate the lack od physicality as being a void. It could be full of energy. Much like the universe right after the big bang. I would say energy is physical, in that it is, as far as we can tell, situated in and interacts with the physical universe. Having no matter to interact with doesn't make it not part of the physical universe in my book, because if there was matter then they'd interact. Unless you're talking spiritual energy, in which case that's certainly possible. I don't think I agree. But we are close. I maintain that a logical argument against a religion—or even any religion, or all religions—says squat about the truth of God. People may be invested in it, they may equate their God with the true God, but that is simply the risk they run. There is a truth about God, whatever it is. There are many many religions that think they know the truth. By definition, at least "all of them minus one" have to be wrong. My guess is that it's a greater number than that, especially when they pile centuries of man-made stuff on top of centuries of man-made stuff and forget that men did it. In fact the more they strip away the trappings of what makes much of their religion distinguishable from another, the better they'd probably do in knowing the True God, whoever, whatever, he is. I would say there are two kinds of logical arguments that we need to differentiate between. The type against the religion, and the type against the truth of the religion. Obviously if someone came up with a working logical argument saying that in general religion was better or worse for mankind, then that would have no effect on the truth of that religion's god. But if it was a logical argument against that religion's beliefs - all of which stem from, and rely on, a god (or gods, or no gods) - then again there are two options. Either that god is constrained by logic, in which case certainly a correct logical argument would help prove or disprove it. Or that god is outside or above logic, in which case we may nothing about it at all, and it could be both PM and not, both omnipotent and not, both good and evil.

As for religious trappings - it depends whether or not they're right. ;) Seriously, stripping trappings to get to the truth depends on those trappings truly being man-made. It could be that the One True Faith is Catholicism, for example, and that which is declared by the Papal body as of this moment is entirely correct. Stripping ritual and the like would mean they were further from God, not closer. So really it depends on whether or not a god if it exists truly wants those trappings or not, and while i'd say that there are arguments against them in specific, I don't really see why we can say a religion with many trappings is less likely to be true than one with few.

magellan01

04-30-2008, 10:35 PM

Pebbles can be quite ordered (http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/McGrawHill/Encyclopedia/images/CE403150FG0010.gif) . You're just saying "cherrypicked" in less compromising words here.

Yes, they can. But you repeatedly miss the point. I do not claim that order is proof of intention. Only that more order more strongly suggest intention. You can offer many examples where that is not the case, but that does not undermine my point. And you use "cherrypicked" as if I should choose examples that do not illustrate my point. Again, you demonstrate that you think I am saying that order = intention. I am not. Please try to digest that one fact.

Yes, the wheel suggests intention. But not by any abstract measure of order. And they're still cherry-picked examples.e.g. What has more order, a pinecone or an axe-handle? A log or a toothpick? Crazy paving or a sorted conglomerate?One displays intentionality, but not for the reason you think - you yourself pointed out the reason - the shape itself. But this difference in shape isn't inherent to the intentionally fashioned object, as my examples show.

Would you please read this over. You say it's not for the reason I think, then point out that I pointed out the actual reason, which is different from the one you impute to me earlier in the sentence. Can you at least TRY to understand what I'm saying BEFORE you start typing in a huff?

If the link is not a necessary one, how can it then make the PM necessary? All it does is make him probable.

Fine. And I'm willing to entertain other explanations. I just ask that they comport to logic. Have any?

- yes, the statement as made does not indicate a necessary relationship between order and intentionality,

Good. Thank you.

...but I haven't just disproved that the link is necessary. I've disproved that it's even likely, or significantly probable.

I don't see where you've done that. Please point it out. and which is it: disproved its necessity or shown it to be less likely?

I've shown that for EVERY cherry-picked example you give, I can give two or more counter-examples. Your thesis is disproved.

NO. NO. NO. And we were doing so well. You can craft all the counter-examples you want, it doesn't matter. When you look at the cleanest example—two pieces of wood, one an ordinary weathered stick and the other a wagon wheel—the wagon wheel more strongly suggests intention. That doesn't prove it is the product of intention any more than what appears to be a stick, but if I offered you $100 to pick the object that was intentionally designed, which would you pick? How can you deny the general proposition that the more ordered, or complex something is, the more strongly it suggests intention? Anyone? Please, if I'm missing something in that I'd really love to understand it!

No, it shows there's NO predictable link. Non-intentional, natural physical processes can, and do, lead to high magnitudes of order just as easily and frequently as intentional ones. If the link isn't persistent, or even predictable, you can't use it at all to indicate intentionality.

No. It shows there's no absolute link, that one does not guarantee the other. But there is a correlation: the MORE ordered a thing is, the MORE strongly it suggest intention. If that is not true, you're saying that a greater degree of order does NOT more strongly suggest intent; that order plays no—zero—in deciphering likelihood of intent. That means a dried up leaf is as likely to be the product of intent as a calculator or baseball or a skyscraper. I'd love to walk around with you for a day and we each offer the other $100 bills for every object we can correctly point to that is the product of intent. I'll choose things like wagon wheels and calculators an locomotives and you can choose things like random sticks and pebbles and whatnot. Just bring a lot of money.

But OK, here we go - the statement WITH THE "MORES" is wrong. I have shown how.

Nope.

No, evolution is a scientific fact.....The central theory of evolution needs no Intelligent Interferer.

We agree on the first part, as it is defined in the second part. We agree on the second part, as well.

The theory of evolution hasn't changed at all since Darwin first formulated it. It's just that good.

Not true:
At the end of 1859 Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species explained natural selection in detail and presented evidence leading to increasingly wide acceptance of the occurrence of evolution.

Gregor Mendel, who laid the foundation for genetics.
Debate about the mechanisms of evolution continued, and Darwin could not explain the source of the heritable variations which would be acted on by natural selection. Like Lamarck, he thought that parents passed on adaptations acquired during their lifetimes,[175] a theory which was subsequently dubbed Lamarckism.[176] In the 1880s August Weismann's experiments indicated that changes from use and disuse were not heritable, and Lamarckism gradually fell from favour.[177][178] More significantly, Darwin could not account for how traits were passed down from generation to generation. In 1865 Gregor Mendel found that traits were inherited in a predictable manner.[179] When Mendel's work was rediscovered in 1900, disagreements over the rate of evolution predicted by early geneticists and biometricians led to a rift between the Mendelian and Darwinian models of evolution.
This contradiction was reconciled in the 1930s by biologists such as Ronald Fisher. The end result was a combination of evolution by natural selection and Mendelian inheritance, the modern evolutionary synthesis.[180] In the 1940s, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues and the subsequent publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, demonstrated the physical basis for inheritance. Since then, genetics and molecular biology have become core parts of evolutionary biology and have revolutionized the field of phylogenetics.[12]

At the very least, it has expanded. It continually expands. As it does, more of it cannot be accepted as fact. But that doesn't mean that all of it is equally unassailable. How can you not possibly grant that? Just look at what I posted from the Wiki article. knowledge increases and more holes are filled in. Do you not think that scientists are searching for more information still? Do you think the "perfect" theory Darwin put forth has not only NOT been improved on, but that it CAN'T be improved on? The newer parts to the theory are, almost by definition, more assailable than those that have already been put to the test. Also, some of it has been verified through direct observation. Surely you would hold that empirical test data holds some weight? That there is a greater level of confidence if test data is supportive certain aspects of a theory? If not, then why the hell bother with testing and scientific research? If you accept all this, then it follows that the theory, as it accounts for the eyeball and the flagella, is MORE suspect than things that have already been tested and observed. Sure, it may make sense according to the larger theory, but do you think that all theories are always 100% correct? That sometimes as time goes on theories have to be abandoned, or rejiggered? Come on, man, this is not only common sense but common science sense.

The fossils say it's been proved. The biochemistry says the same.

It depends what specifically you are referring to. I've said that parts of it are beyond reproach. Please show where anything I've said indicates I do not agree with these two statements.

And since you brought it up, it might be helpful for you to define what you mean by evolution. Just a bulleted list will do.

No, it says it DID. We have all the possible intermediate stages. Eyeball evolution is no mystery.You have no idea how scientific proof works, if you think that "could have", coupled with hard evidence, isn't sufficient proofIt shows no point at which outside intervention is needed, or can be said to have occurred. But it does have all the steps, so there;s nothing that the evolutionary explanation doesn't explain. That's as solid a scientific proof as you can have.

No, science is much better then that. They have simply said that it COULD have happened that way, which would make any intervention unnecessary. Those who definitively say "this is what happened" go an extra step. That the beak of a bird can change shape over generations due to environment is a fact. That the eyeball came into being that way evolutions claim is not. Do you not see the difference?

No, I don't. All the theory has to show is all the steps, as well as no gaps that need explaining. If you think there's any place in the evolution of the eye where an explanation is needed, please point it out to me.

You miss the point. Read what I just wrote.

OK, let's be more clear -what, exactly, did I say, that was not an adequate explanation for a point you made. Specific post cites would be most helpful. General objections are kind of imprecise to refute, you know.

You seem to think you've "proved" that there is no PM. Honestly, I'm confused to many of the things you think you proved and called facts. And I just can't muster the energy to go hunting through your hundred of individual posts.

That's all it needs to do, since the Prime Mover is an entity that is only brought into the debate because of it's supposed necessity. If it's not needed, we don't bring it in, since there's nothing it needs to explain.

I think you are correct, as far as how evolution applies to man. But you want it to apply to the BB, as well. I keep pointing out that evolution is SILENT on what might have caused the BB, or if anything caused it. It offers no opinion. You attempt to equating a conventional god of the gaps argument as it applies to evolution and apply it to the cause of the universe. You're conflating two different things. As far as man the theory of evolution is relevant. As far as the origins of the universe, it is not.

So, you want me to abandon my position as far as the universe being caused. Okay, then TELL me what caused the big bang. Or PROVE to me that there was no cause. And tell me why in a way that comports with logic. Then PROVE to me that the our universe could not exist within a larger framework. And PROVE to me that time could not have been part of the framework. Until you can do ALL those things, I have no reason to abandon my position. NONE.

My position is based on logic. Show me where it is wrong. Here it is.

In our experience, all things have a cause.
(In fact, that very premise is what allows science to be done.)
The universe is a thing, therefore it, too, has a cause.

So, show me some things that we KNOW do not have a cause. Or show me how the universe is not a thing. The one qualifier in there "in our experience" leaves room for another explanation. But I maintain that the universe having a cause is the more logical position and should be the default. Show me I'm wrong.

Not our dimensions, no. That's kind of the point of Space being confined to the Universe along with Time

Quit with the cute semantic games. Leave "our" out of it. How do you KNOW that outside our universe there is no concept of time, or of length width or depth while we're at it?

NO, I quite specifically said PART 1 of #6. I already acknowledged that the bits about the MP and deductive logic fell aside. But the bit about causality is not related to the other two, it stands or falls on its own. I already stated this, so you're attacking a strawman here.

Bullshit. I responded to this:

Why not attack the actual, point-by-point deductive logic argument I made, starting with point 3)?

You then brought Point 1 up, for some reason. Why—I have NO idea, because I never said I had a problem with it by itself. So, why do you bring it up now? Logic is helpful. ONly when you attempted to apply it did you run into trouble. So, I take it that your satisfied with my "point-by-point" refutation of #3 thru #6, as you requested? Since, you didn't comment on it. Is that right?

Hey, if you're willing to concede that a Prime Mover is not necessary, I'd say you're right and this debate is over. That's all I need to prove.

There simply aren't enough :rolleyes: s. My position states that a PM is necessary. THAT is the position. Since the my very first post in this thread I've allowed that I, like anyone else, could very well be wrong about things as theoretical as this. If you think you've PROVED anything, you are very sadly mistaken. But if you do, why don't you share exactly what you think you've proven/ I'd LOVE to see both what you think you've proven and how you've proven it. But if you'd rather simply declare VICTORY!!! and prance off, pleeeaaase, by all means. Don't let me stand in your way.

magellan01

04-30-2008, 10:44 PM

Evolution is a concept with applications that just get broader the more people look at it.

Nonsense. You're just attempting to equate the word "evolution" with what we understand it to mean as the title of its namesake theory. Semantic gamesmanship.

And at any rate, it doesn't matter; since whether or not evolution applies to the formation of universes that says nothing on the need for some Prime Mover

Excellent. You agree. (Wait, now I'm concerned.)

( which is one of the more seriously desperate attempts to defend God, I might add )

Whether it is or is not is not germaine to the discussion. But you knew that.

Quantum mechanics can explain where the first uncaused cause came from easily enough - in fact, it pretty much eliminates the whole idea that effects need causes, now or at the Big Bang, at the quantum scale.

Oh, really? Well, I'll have to ask you to share that explanation with us. I'll wait. And don't just provide a link for us to wade through. Explain it to us.

MrDibble

05-01-2008, 02:10 AM

About to go off for my May Day weekend, Commie that I am, so I'll be very brief:

Yes, they can. But you repeatedly miss the point. I do not claim that order is proof of intention. Only that more order more strongly suggest intention. You can offer many examples where that is not the case, but that does not undermine my point.YES, it does. That you don't get this is just incomprehensible to me. If the correlation is so thoroughly undermined, how can you continue to use it?
Fine. And I'm willing to entertain other explanations. I just ask that they comport to logic. Have any?
I've used nothing but logic up to now.
I don't see where you've done that. Please point it out. and which is it: disproved its necessity or shown it to be less likely?
"Shown it to be less likely" does the job of proving no necessity. Do you know what "logically necessary" means? It allows for no doubt at all.

NO. NO. NO. And we were doing so well. You can craft all the counter-examples you want, it doesn't matter.YES, it does. When you look at the cleanest example—two pieces of wood, one an ordinary weathered stick and the other a wagon wheel—the wagon wheel more strongly suggests intention. Cherry Picking. A wagon wheel is not one piece of wood, and I deny it's the cleanest example.
How can you deny the general proposition that the more ordered, or complex something is, the more strongly it suggests intention?Because I know, as a scientist, that natural processes give rise to very high degrees of order without any sign of intention, and even in those that are the product of intention, higher order doesn't correlate with higher intention.
Get back to me when directed human intention can produce ONE thing as ordered and complex as a snowflake (http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/media/highlights2002/snowflake0572.jpg), a quartz crystal (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~adg/images/minerals/q/quartz_red2.jpg) or a radiolarian (http://www.morphographic.com/Gallery/Images/Image_Radiolarian.jpg) skeleton. Just ONE thing. Then we'll talk. Wagon wheels aren't in it as far as order. Nature puts us to shame without even trying.

you're saying that a greater degree of order does NOT more strongly suggest intent; that order plays no—zero—in deciphering likelihood of intent. The first thing is not the same as the second. Observation of order plays some role in deciphering intent, yes, but more ordered does not mean more likely to be intentional, no. We just recognise (through experience - you have so far failed to provide any useful MEASURE of order) certain types of ordered arrangement as man-made. That is all, and is not the same as what you're postulating.
At the very least, it has expanded. True. I did revise this later, you'll note, when I mentioned the new synthesis with genetics. But what I meant by the statement is that natural selection has not been overturned in favour of any other mechanism, that's all.
And since you brought it up, it might be helpful for you to define what you mean by evolution. Just a bulleted list will do.
Evolution is change in allele frequency over time. The Theory of Evolution at its simplest says this happens by the mechanism of Natural Selection. The rest is commentary.
That the beak of a bird can change shape over generations due to environment is a fact. That the eyeball came into being that way evolutions claim is not. Do you not see the difference?
There is no difference, unless the beaks were observed 24/7. A designer COULD have slipped in there just as easily as with the eyeball, no? If not, why allow for the one and not the other being a fact? Are you saying observation of fossils is not as scientific or factual as live/dead animals? Because that's absurd.
You seem to think you've "proved" that there is no PM.No, I've only proved one is not necessary. That's enough.
As far as man the theory of evolution is relevant. As far as the origins of the universe, it is not.It became relevant as soon as you used definable characteristics like intentionality to delineate the necessity of the Mover. Those are things that evolution can shed light on - that you don't need intentionality to develop intelligence.

So, you want me to abandon my position as far as the universe being caused. Okay, then TELL me what caused the big bang. Nothing caused it. I've said this already.Or PROVE to me that there was no cause. I can't educate you in elementary Quantum Mechanics. Go to a university. Be prepared to spend a few years at it. Attending a cosmology lecture or two isn't going to cut it.Then PROVE to me that the our universe could not exist within a larger framework.It very well could - that's one current theory. And PROVE to me that time could not have been part of the framework.It isn't, by the definition of Universe. QED.
My position is based on logic. Show me where it is wrong. Here it is.

In our experience, all things have a cause.
In YOUR experience, not in mine. Particles pop out of the nothing all the time. That's what the science says. e.g. Virtual particles produce some observable effects (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea&topicID=13), and hopefully soon GLAST will add Hawking radiation to that list.(In fact, that very premise is what allows science to be done.)Science is done even if some (definable) things have no cause. Some things not having a cause is not the same as causality not existing.
The universe is a thing, therefore it, too, has a cause.
Since the first premise is false, this argument is not true.
So, show me some things that we KNOW do not have a cause. Done.Or show me how the universe is not a thing. The one qualifier in there "in our experience" leaves room for another explanation. But I maintain that the universe having a cause is the more logical position and should be the default. Show me I'm wrong.
Done.
Leave "our" out of it. How do you KNOW that outside our universe there is no concept of time, or of length width or depth while we're at it?
I will NOT leave "our" out of it, until you can show me another conception of these dimensions besides the ones that we know, definitionally, are bound in our Universe.
You then brought Point 1 up, for some reason.No, part 1 of point 6So, I take it that your satisfied with my "point-by-point" refutation of #3 thru #6, as you requested?Nope Since, you didn't comment on it. Is that right?Have you read all my posts? I very much did comment on it.
There simply aren't enough :rolleyes: s. My position states that a PM is necessary. THAT is the position.Well, you have made some statements since you started, like , "If you accept the theory [of evolution of intelligence] it only goes to "disproving" the necessity of intervention and, indirectly, a PM. " You also stated that you have no problem with the central theory of evolution. Those two read together...If you think you've PROVED anything, you are very sadly mistaken. But if you do, why don't you share exactly what you think you've proven/ I'd LOVE to see both what you think you've proven and how you've proven it. I've proved that a PM is not a necessary entity, both by showing that some entities are uncaused, and by showing that any link between intentionality and order is illusionary. That you disagree is your prerogative, but my logic holds and I have the science and facts on my side. I notice you've not cited anything to back up any of your claims, only ones about defining the theory of evolution, which isn't even the central part of my counterargument. Nothing to refute uncaused particles, nothing to counter the order evident in Nature... But if you'd rather simply declare VICTORY!!! and prance off, pleeeaaase, by all means. Don't let me stand in your way.
I'm willing to keep debating as long as you want. I'll never run out of counterexamples for every example of Watchmakerism you propose (Nature is literally full of them), and physics & logical rebuttals to all the special pleading you can muster.

I note you haven't advanced any comment on the articles on the factual nature of the Theory of Evolution you (Well, me, actually) & I posted, nor have you defended your erroneous statement about Energy being nonphysical.

Der Trihs

05-01-2008, 03:47 AM

Nonsense. You're just attempting to equate the word "evolution" with what we understand it to mean as the title of its namesake theory. Semantic gamesmanship.No, I'm simply pointing out what you apparently don't know, that the concept and application of evolution has spread well beyond it's original application as a theory about the development of earth life.

Whether it is or is not is not germaine to the discussion. But you knew that.It's germaine in the sense that you are trying so hard, and against all available evidence for it, and for so little gain. A prime mover "God" is a minor and meaningless god indeed. I find it odd that you seem to care so much about it.

Oh, really? Well, I'll have to ask you to share that explanation with us. I'll wait. And don't just provide a link for us to wade through. Explain it to us.MrDibble already did so. On the quantum level, virtual particles appear and disappear all the time. In fact, when you get to a small enough scale, randomness, quantum uncertainty is everywhere. On that level, things "just happen" randomly all the time, no cause needed. And the effects of those random, uncaused events eventually work themselves up to the macro level. So, not only is a cause unnecessary for an effect; but going by numbers, most effects don't have causes.

MrDibble

05-03-2008, 08:51 AM

Measure for Measure

05-04-2008, 10:59 PM

Quantum mechanics can explain where the first uncaused cause came from easily enough - in fact, it pretty much eliminates the whole idea that effects need causes, now or at the Big Bang, at the quantum scale.Cite?

You may very well be correct. But I have not studied Quantum Mechanics so others could probably google this topic better than I. Following Mr Dibble's latest post, this seems central to the PM argument.

I'm aware that the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics involves irreducible uncertainty. But that turns on an Occam's razor-type argument: don't speculate on matters on which we cannot know. That is sound science -- if we can't know the speed and direction of a particle simultaneously, it is convenient to label the randomness as intrinsic to the problem-- but I can't see anything there that says that an underlying deterministic structure is even unlikely, never mind unintuitive. But my knowledge of this subject is pretty flimsy.

magellan: 1) If you believe that math is discovered and not invented (and not a blend of the two - no, I don't know whether a blend is nonsensical), then it exists in some sense outside of the human brain. And in that is case, there's no energy (or matter) involved with ideas. At the very least, ideas have a definitive nonmaterial aspect. Some want to just throw up their hands and say "You can't say ANYTHING about before the BB, because there was no before the BB." I understand that point, but I do not see why it is not possible—and I'd say, probable—that our universe, BB and all exists in a larger framework. I'm just saying that discussion of this larger framework is probably unhelpful if one is actually studying astronomy on a professional or serious level. (Though that of course is not the topic in this thread.) I believe evolutionary theory is a complete and sufficient explanation for intelligence.... Narrowly speaking: no. We don't have a model or decent intellectual framework for consciousness [1], never mind intelligence. So we can't have a complete explanation for it.

Less central, but...Because I know, as a scientist, that natural processes give rise to very high degrees of order without any sign of intention, and even in those that are the product of intention, higher order doesn't correlate with higher intention.
Get back to me when directed human intention can produce ONE thing as ordered and complex as a snowflake, a quartz crystal or a radiolarian skeleton. Just ONE thing. Then we'll talk. Wagon wheels aren't in it as far as order. Nature puts us to shame without even trying.That was a pretty neat comment. But wouldn't automobles, PCs or cell phones qualify as objects that are made with intention and are more ordered than snowflakes, et al?

And what does "Greater intention" mean? I understand "Greater effort", but intention seems to me to possess an either/or quality.

[1] ... though Searle has at least proposed a definition of consciousness (http://human-brain.org/searle.html). Yay!

Der Trihs

05-05-2008, 12:11 AM

Cite?

You may very well be correct. But I have not studied Quantum Mechanics so others could probably google this topic better than I. Following Mr Dibble's latest post, this seems central to the PM argument.

I'm aware that the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics involves irreducible uncertainty. But that turns on an Occam's razor-type argument: don't speculate on matters on which we cannot know. That is sound science -- if we can't know the speed and direction of a particle simultaneously, it is convenient to label the randomness as intrinsic to the problem-- but I can't see anything there that says that an underlying deterministic structure is even unlikely, never mind unintuitive. As I understand it, Bell's Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem) appears to rule that out. You are postulating the hidden variables view, which says that the position and velocity are determined but unknown; theory and data seem to rule that out.

In other words, the randomness appears to be real, which in turn does mean that there are uncaused effects all the time, due to fundamental randomness at the quantum level.

Voyager

05-05-2008, 12:12 AM

Cite?

You may very well be correct. But I have not studied Quantum Mechanics so others could probably google this topic better than I. Following Mr Dibble's latest post, this seems central to the PM argument.

I'm aware that the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics involves irreducible uncertainty. But that turns on an Occam's razor-type argument: don't speculate on matters on which we cannot know. That is sound science -- if we can't know the speed and direction of a particle simultaneously, it is convenient to label the randomness as intrinsic to the problem-- but I can't see anything there that says that an underlying deterministic structure is even unlikely, never mind unintuitive. But my knowledge of this subject is pretty flimsy.

Ockham's Razor is a heuristic. The Uncertainty Principle is far more fundamental to nature than that. The reason that electron clouds, for example, are probabilistic is not convenience - they are fundamentally not in one place. I don't know the math, but I have read extensively in this, and everything I've ever read says that there is no underlying determinism. There is no solar system model of the atom. And you can just forget about intuition. It won't help you here.

Why is this important? Because if the universe has no net energy, which is seeming more likely, then there is no law broken by it just appearing.

magellan01

05-05-2008, 12:40 AM

I'm back. Just to summarise my position about a Prime Mover argument for God, in case anyone feels it gets lost in the point-by-point...
I do not believe a Prime Mover is a necessary entity, since modern physics shows us that, counterintuitively, events do not need causes. This is already a proven fact, unless one believes one is up to the task of disproving all of Quantum Mechanics and still explaining the several scientific observations that show that particles can arise from nothing.
I also do not believe in the necessity of an Intelligent Designer. I believe evolutionary theory is a complete and sufficient explanation for intelligence, and I believe that the Watchmaker argument lacks any scientific rigour or logical validity.

I believe magellan01 has failed to back up his arguments with any facts, such as provide any empirical measure of "order" that serves to distinguish the natural from the manmade, or any counterargument for the lack of need for a First Cause, as shown by QM.

This is a good way to conclude this for me. And I have to this time because I am slammed with work and have only a few days to do it before I go out of town.

So, I maintain that there is a PM. My reasoning is due to logic. Given all we KNOW about the world, everything has a cause. Period. Some throw out QM as proof of an exception that would erode that logic, but this seems to be either a somewhat hubristic stance to take or one that is incredibly naive. Heck, maybe both. The argument basically comes down to that on a very, very small scale there is stuff happening that we don't understand. Hmmm, the thought of a "plum pudding model" comes to mind. Just because we can't see what's happening yet doesn't mean that we won't be able to see what's causing these particles to pop in and out 10, 20, 50 years from now. The irony is that in this instance I'm taking the position of a scientist, meaning that based on every thing we thought we didn't know about the world at one point, we have an incredibly high success rate of eventually figuring it out. And even if we haven't and won't, that doesn't mean that it isn't understandable, just that it might not be understandable by us—for now any way. Conversely, those who claim to be more scientifically minded take the position that the ignorance we have now regarding certain aspects of QM will reign for eternity. Either that, or that we will be able to prove randomness. And THAT seems very, very unlikely. I can't imagine how that could ever be proven. Anyway, I find it a little funny that the positions we have on the PM almost get flipped when we look into QM.

Not that it has anything to do with the discussion, but my view on evolution is that it may very well be able to account for all progress for the earliest cell to us. But just because the theory makes that a possibility, thereby undoing the necessity of an interventionist being, that doesn't mean it actually happened that way. So, you can call me guilty of allowing for the possibility of "help" along the way.

But just to be clear, that has nothing to do with my position of there needing to be a PM—of the non-interventionist variety.

So, given that, I apologize to those, like RT, that I have not been able to get back to with direct answers to their questions. I thank you all for your time. And perhaps before we meet again, God will have intervened on your behalf and enable you to see the greater wisdom of holding the more logical position regarding his role as the PM. ;)

MrDibble

05-05-2008, 02:51 AM

Narrowly speaking: no. We don't have a model or decent intellectual framework for consciousness [1], never mind intelligence. So we can't have a complete explanation for it. "We" may not, but I am perfectly happy with Dennett's model for consciousness as outlined in Consciousness Explained, and based around the Multiple Drafts Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Drafts_Model).

But wouldn't automobles, PCs or cell phones qualify as objects that are made with intention and are more ordered than snowflakes, et al? By what measure of order? Symmetry? Nope, snowflakes are much more symmetrical. Number of parts? Sure, but that's not a measure of "order".

Once again, I think the word that's being used wrongly here is "order", and I think the word that's being meant is "complexity" - and yes, I'd agree a PC is more complex than a snowflake. But : A snowflake is one H2O crystal, you can't realistically compare it to an assemblage like a PC. What's more complex, then? A PC or a snow blizzard? What distinguishes a kid's poorly-made snowman from a snowdrift?

I'm not arguing that we can't usually distinguish natural from man-made objects, Dead Gods forbid! We can, we do it all the time. But I am arguing that there is no scientific measure by which we do it - it's an intuitive process built on our instinctual facilities for pattern recognition and memory, with a large amount of learned responses added. Both order and complexity are factored in, yes, as well as more specific considerations like "type of material" and "type of geometric shape" and "markings like writing". But there's no real empirical method being employed, as far as I can see. Certainly, none has been pointed out yet.

And what does "Greater intention" mean? I understand "Greater effort", but intention seems to me to possess an either/or quality.
It was magellan01 that brought in the "more intentionality", but on this I actually could go either way, I'd say there was more intention to a human chipping a flint handaxe than a Nautilus building its beautifully geometric shell, but that the Nautilus displayed more intention than a stream piling pebbles that would later form a sorted conglomerate. But I could also go with a binary mode, in which case, I'd say the Nautilus had no more intention than the stream. I'm easy, I just went with the continuum model to debate magellan01 on his own terms.

Given all we KNOW about the world, everything has a cause. Period. This is factually incorrect.Some throw out QM as proof of an exception that would erode that logic, but this seems to be either a somewhat hubristic stance to take or one that is incredibly naive. Heck, maybe both. The argument basically comes down to that on a very, very small scale there is stuff happening that we don't understand.
This amounts to the logical fallacy of an argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity) from (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/There_must_have_been_a_first_cause) incredulity (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity) . This is also factually incorrect. You seem to be under the misapprehension that QM says we don't know where virtual particles come from. This is just not the case. QM says virtual particles come from nothing, and has the physics and maths to back it up. This is not the same as saying we don't know where they come from. And QM has all the hard scientific evidence on its side. If you want to argue with it, then you have to prove QM wrong. It's as simple as that. Good luck with that.

And may Nyarlathotep, the Crawler in Chaos, bring you to a greater understanding of non-Euclidean angles, and Azathoth, that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity, help you understand the lack of a need for First Causes. All in the hope that Dread Cthulhu eats you first, of course.