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

Great Debates
141

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
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!”
[/QUOTE]

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?

142

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
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 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.
[/QUOTE]
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 ]]

143

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.

144

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Stick to fighting over the terms, facts, and logic and leave observations about the other poster(s) out of this thread.
[/QUOTE]

OK. Whatever you’d like.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
You have PROVEN nothing.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I have. Merely stating I haven’t, without offering counterargument, is not very convincing.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

Name one.

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?

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.

I’ve already shown how it does, by attacking the underpinnings of the PM.

Fine

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.

Like I said, not my assumption. A fact.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Not between us, it hasn’t.

So you’re not arguing that it’s circular? Since the “uncaused” bit is, you know, the thing you’re trying to prove?

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.

145

[QUOTE=magellan01]
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”.
[/quote]
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.

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.

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. :wink:

146

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
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.)
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
[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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

147

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
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)
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, I don’t want it to mean the same, I want it to be backed up.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
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?
[/QUOTE]

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”.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
It in no way conflicts with part 1 of #6. Show how it does.
[/QUOTE]

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:

[QUOTE=begbert2]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I’ve already proved the bits I want to prove.
[/QUOTE]

Sigh.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
debating with you started with your statement that cause and effect were a “physical law”. I’ve already shown you were wrong about that.
[/QUOTE]

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.

148

Stylistically, I was speaking in general terms of course…

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. (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.)

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.

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.)

149

[QUOTE=magellan01]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Pebbles can be quite ordered .
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I chose the examples I did to create the cleanest comparison between the two items.
[/QUOTE]
You’re just saying “cherrypicked” in less compromising words here.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
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?
[/QUOTE]

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?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
If not why?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

I don’t think you have. You disproved that order *necessarily *indicates intentionality. But that was not my statement.
[/QUOTE]

my emphasis:

[QUOTE=magellan01]
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
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Please respond directly to my paragraph that immediately precedes this one.

[/QUOTE]
Done.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

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

[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

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.
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t. I’m saying it’s just as false, and the reason it’s false stays the same.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
She may not be. She may be a three foot tall kid. You can’t just ignore qualifiers.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Ah, so there is doubt. So they are not FACTS.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
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.
[/QUOTE]
That’s all we need.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
In that regard, I think we are probably in agreement.
[/QUOTE]
The central theory of evolution needs no Intelligent Interferer. We do not agree.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
But the theory of evolution has, and is, constantly evolving itself, to take into account new info and to address new problems.
[/QUOTE]
The theory of evolution hasn’t changed at all since Darwin first formulated it. It’s just that good.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

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.
[/QUOTE]
The fossils say it’s been proved. The biochemistry says the same.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
The theory allows that it *could *have happened that way, not that it did.
[/QUOTE]
No, it says it DID. We have all the possible intermediate stages. Eyeball evolution is no mystery.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You have no idea how scientific proof works, if you think that “could have”, coupled with hard evidence, isn’t sufficient proof
[QUOTE=magellan01]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
That is not the same as saying that outside intervention definitively played no role. See the difference?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

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”.

[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

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?

[/QUOTE]
Not our dimensions, no. That’s kind of the point of Space being confined to the Universe along with Time
[QUOTE=magellan01]

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.”

[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

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?

[/QUOTE]
I’ve addressed this hijack already.
.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

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.

[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

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.
[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
But you bring it up now just to say “nahnah-nahnah-nah-nah, you were wrong before. So there!”

[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

150

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.

151

Was there supposed to be a link in there? Was it to this page?

152

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Accepted theory is still a theory, NOT a fact. I think you confuse the two.
[/QUOTE]

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.

153

one more link for you, magellan01.

154

[QUOTE=magellan01]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

155

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
one more link for you, magellan01.
[/QUOTE]

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 :wink: rself to be of some use.

More later.

156

[QUOTE=Voyager]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

157

Just a favourite sample of the Wiki article, with emphasis added:

[QUOTE=wikipedia]
The factual nature of evolution arises over and over again in the biological literature in different guises. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan]Carl Sagan wrote “Evolution is a fact, not a theory”. American zoologist and paleontologist George Simpson, stated that “Darwin…finally and definitely established evolution as a fact.” 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 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 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 writes, “evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science.”
[/QUOTE]

158

[QUOTE=magellan01]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

159

[QUOTE=magellan01]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.

160

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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?
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

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.