I just found out I've been presupposing naturalism my whole life. Is this a fallacy?

[colonial]

Hey Dibble, did you see this?:

@colonial

um, cite?

@MrDibble

Firstly, I could give a toss for Cecil Adams as an authority on anything.

Cecil Adams is one of the greatest sources of popularly available objective
and scrupulously researched information in the world today, and has been
for close to 40 years. You couldn’t tie his shoelaces.

@MrDibble

Secondly, that column is 30 years old.

This observation of yours, standing alone as it does, is valueless.

Ordinarily I do not do other people’s work for them. In this case, however,
I have become interested enough in the subject to do some googling, and
I do not mind relating what I have learned, what you should have learned
for yourself and posted here.

30 years ago expert consensus accepted OT chronology and political history
as correct at least in outline.

Since then the experts have fragmented into a continuum ranging from extreme
“Maximalists” who accept the OT as without serious historical error, to extreme
“Minimalists” who consider the OT to be of no value as history, even going so far
as to deny the reality of David and the later kingdom of Judah.

Following are essays by prominent members of the two sides, who, sadly,
despise each other and do not mind saying so in the most rancorous terms.
Not surprisingly each side describes the other as now dominating the literature,
and suppressing dissent.

On the Exodus issue neither discusses Moses, but Maximalist Rendsberg affirms
the existence of the even earlier Joseph, so it is reasonable to assume he would
do the same for Moses. On the other hand Minimalist Davies says that the first
six books of the Bible are” substantially devoid of reliable history”, and that would
include all reference to Moses.

Maximalist: Gary A. Rendsberg

Minimalist: Philip Davies
(Although Davies does not like the term “Minimalist”, I think he is being too thin-skinned)

And here is a link to an interview of the man who is apparently the foremost presently
active Israeli archeologist of the OT era:

Israel Finkelstein re the Ancient history of the Jews

Finkelstein says this about Exodus:

(from link, emphasis added):

There is no evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt, not the slightest, not the least bit of evidence. There are no clues, either archaeological or historical, to prove that the Israelites built monuments in Egypt, even though the biblical description of the famine in the Land of Israel may be accurate. We know from archaeology that there was a migration of Canaanites to Egypt in the first half of the second millennium BCE, that these migrants built communities in the area of the Nile Delta, and that the Egyptians afterward expelled them from there.

I find this passage frankly baffling because rather than ruling out a Jewish presence
in Egypt followed by eviction, the emphasized section seems to leave the door wide
open for them. And please do not object to my identifying “Canaanites” with “Jews”
before reading the entire link.

Perhaps much more reading would give me a better feel for who has the best of this
argument. I cannot tell based on what little I have added over the past few days to
what little I already knew.

@MrDibble

According to “The Master” and that stela, the Israelites were all wiped out. So there’s that.

No, sorry, archaeological evidence cited by both Finkelstein and Rendsberg proves
the existence of an Israelite kingdom ~1000BC&ff:

Finkelstein: “There is an inscription from Tel Dan from the ninth century BCE that mentions the southern kingdom by the name of `the house of David.’ "

Rendsberg: “in 1993… an Aramaic inscription dated to the 9th century B.C.E. was found at Tel Dan in the far north of the country, mentioning both מלך ישראל “king of Israel” and ביתדוד “house of David.” The Aramean king who had erected this stela to commemorate his victory over the northern part of Israel."

And Finkelstein adds that the later King Ahab is mentioned in Assyrian sources,
so whatever happened to the Israelites ~1200BC, they were not “all wiped out”
since ~200&ff years later they were still noteworthy enough to draw the attention
of foreign powers.

@MrDibble

If your intent and purpose is to show a historical basis for Jesus, and you point to Moses, all you’re saying is Jesus is as mythical.

You have lost the thread of our conversation. We began with the issue of
Moses’ existence, and I offered the Iliad, Exodus and the Gospels as a
three-way analogy. (Curiously it is the Iliad for which physical evidence
corroborates the possibility of historical basis: one of the several layers
of Schliemann’s “Troy” was destroyed by fire ~1250BC)

@MrDibble

No tension. I said “as fictionalized an account”, meaning there is no connection between history and the account, so it is impossible to infer anything about him from those accounts.

The tension remains as long as “his life” is itself not dismissed as fiction.
I see you do just that below, so no need to dwell on it here.

@MrDibble

Again, I could give a toss what Cecil Adams has to say on the matter 26 years ago.

Addressed.

@MrDibble

Fact of the matter is, I choose not to believe in a historical Jesus (as depicted in the Gospels, I don’t care about some hypothetical handyman named JoshuaBenJoseph) because there’s no direct evidence for his existence. Plain as that. Just like I choose not to believe in a historical Buddha for the same reason. Or a historical Orpheus.

This specious approach inverses the error committed by scriptural fundamentalists:
rather than believing on faith everything in the Bible even if uncorroborated,
you believe nothing based on faith.

I see no reason to alter my original comment, namely that despite lack of
corroboration the early Jews probably had a leader named Moses. Not that
it would make any difference to me if Egyptian census records were discovered
for the entire 2000 years ~2500 to 500BC, and that the records contained not
one Jewish name, since my view of the subject is not ideologically motivated.

[colonial]

@Meatros

I’m not sure it does - to be frank, I think the encyclopedia is trying to have it’s cake and eat it too. It seems the pantheistic version is more coherent with regard to God sustaining the universe and miracles.

All this link tries to explain is God’s importance to the universe, it doesn’t address why we should be sure that a particular event is the result of a miracle or God’s order (ie, the laws of nature).

Your original question to me concerns only existence of “uniformity of nature”,
which I take to mean consistent scientific law. The link seems to me to affirm
the existence of such law, subordinate though it may be to God:

However wonderful we may consider the universe to be, we recognize that neither in its substance nor in the laws by which its order is maintained, in so far as unaided reason can come to know them, does it exhaust God’s infinite power or perfectly reveal His nature.

@colonial

We are permitted to make such inference as justified by observation of Nature,
and God is permitted to alter Nature.

@Meatros

So how can we tell the difference between them?

A defining attribute of miracles is that they obviously violate scientific law and
inference. For example, when a jug of water is transformed into a jug of wine
we must be dealing with spontaneous transmutation of elements. Or if you prefer
an example making use of gravity, suppose the stars were to realign themselves
in the form of a cross…

[NotreDame05]

@Voyager

Again, you are confusing our knowledge of whether something is possible with whether it actually is possible. If our physics is even remotely accurate, we know nothing exceeded c in 1650 or even 1650,000 BCE. (If we are wrong about this, then it could happen.) But if the true laws of physics make exceeding c impossible, it matters little what we think about it.

Because the laws of physics are invariant over time, which we can demonstrate by observing stars and galaxies the light from which left long before 1650.
I’m not saying that we can be absolutely 100% certain that the laws of physics are true. We can’t be 100% certain that there was a world in 1650. But that is a different matter from actual laws.

Your example referencing the speed of light is not a good one. Why? Because I have yet to encounter any physicists or scientists who can say with 100% certainty nothing exceeded the speed of light in 1650. Rather, they say they are 99.9% sure nothing exceeded the speed light in 1650. When it comes to any scientific fact, I am not aware of anyone in the scientific community professing 100% certainty in the fact itself. The lack of 100% certainty is what scientists and the scientific community profess as a fundamentally important quality of scientific inquiry, the scientific method, indeed scientific pursuit of what is true about nature and the universe. But I digress, so let me address your other point, of “actually” possible as opposed to not actually possible.

I find the dialogue of whether something is “actually” possible a futile exercise, pure intellectual masturbation. We can rarely if ever know whether something is “actually” possible, much less “actual.” I find this dialogue parallel to an “actual innocence” claim in criminal law. Just as we can never know, in many if not all circumstances, whether someone is “actually” innocent, we can never know, in many if not all circumstances, whether something is “actually” possible.

Our lack of complete knowledge, and inability to exclude alternatives with 100% certainty, renders those alternatives possible. We have to say, “The alternatives are possible,” because of both considerations, a lack of complete knowledge and inability to exclude alternatives with 100% certainty. The comment of “actually” possible does nothing more than illuminate a notion I have already made, which is we can never be 100% sure whether something is “actual” at all.

Can you, with 100% certainty, discern what is “actually” possible as opposed to what is not actually possible? None of us can with many, many, many things, if not all things, and because of this fact, it doesn’t make any sense to venture into the realm of “actually” possible.

So let’s use an example. Let’ use a criminal trial as an example.

The prosecution alleges on a rainy night person X had a conversation with his girlfriend on his cellular phone at 9:30. Shortly after the conversation person X then drove to his girlfriend’s home Person X had with him a 9mm handgun, which he has a license to carry and he has the weapon with him at all times. Person X, having a key to the residence, unlocked the front door. Person X entered the home. Person X found his girlfriend with another man having sex. The man is killed and the girlfriend is wounded. As a result of his injuries she is in a coma.

We have at least two explanations. The prosecution alleges person X murdered the man and attempted to murder his girlfriend. Person X claims it was self-defense of his girlfriend and himself, as he was responding to a distress call his girlfriend made.

Now, according to your logic, one explanation is actually possible but how do we know, with 100% certainty, which one? We can’t say with 100% certainty which account of events is actually possible. At best, all we can say is one is possible, and with the right set of facts, one is more possible than the other, but the other is possible. Whether it is “actually” possible is a pointless discussion, since we can never know anyway. These considerations force us to say something is possible.

[KellyCriterion]

@Meatros

I am saying that what we have observed within the universe supports things popping into existence uncaused.

This is, quite simply, wrong.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If we see something appearing and don’t know what caused it, the best we can say, which is why I say it, is that we do not know what caused said thing to appear.

“Woooaaah! Magic!!” I guess could be another explanation, and it’s one that you seem to give credence to, but I choose to dismiss it outright.

If you’re going to keep insisting that quantum particles exhibit uncaused behaviour, and this has been somehow demonstrated, then can you please link me to something digestible; an article, a lecture, something that actually backs this claim of yours.

Please.. educate me. Remove me from my rigid cause-and-effect mindset.

[Czarcasm]

@KellyCriterion

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is also not evidence of irrational nonsense.

[Meatros]

@colonial

Your original question to me concerns only existence of “uniformity of nature”,
which I take to mean consistent scientific law. The link seems to me to affirm
the existence of such law, subordinate though it may be to God:

However wonderful we may consider the universe to be, we recognize that neither in its substance nor in the laws by which its order is maintained, in so far as unaided reason can come to know them, does it exhaust God’s infinite power or perfectly reveal His nature.

Yes, the link tries to explain it - I find the pantheist version more coherent. When you try to incorporate miracles into it, it becomes less so.

@colonial

A defining attribute of miracles is that they obviously violate scientific law and
inference. For example, when a jug of water is transformed into a jug of wine
we must be dealing with spontaneous transmutation of elements. Or if you prefer
an example making use of gravity, suppose the stars were to realign themselves
in the form of a cross…

But if everything is a process of Gods, then there really is no scientific law - what we observe as uniformities are just how God is structuring the universe at present. What assurance do we have that such a thing is not simply temporary?

[Meatros]

@KellyCriterion

@KellyCriterion

This is, quite simply, wrong.

You base this on…?

@KellyCriterion

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If we see something appearing and don’t know what caused it, the best we can say, which is why I say it, is that we do not know what caused said thing to appear.

You realize that it was only through extensive empirical evidence that the randomness of quantum physics was revealed, right?

Further, what type of evidence are you looking for? Since you don’t seem to feel this is the case, then please explain what it would take for you to accept it as the case? I think you are attempting to make your position non falsifiable.

In any event, quantum physics doesn’t rely on what we don’t know - it relies on what we do know, through probabilities, so I’m not entirely sure what you are talking about, with reference to the above.

@KellyCriterion

“Woooaaah! Magic!!” I guess could be another explanation, and it’s one that you seem to give credence to, but I choose to dismiss it outright.

This is a strawman. I’ve repeatedly stated my position, you’ve ignored it. This is a fault on your understanding, not my explanation.

@KellyCriterion

If you’re going to keep insisting that quantum particles exhibit uncaused behaviour, and this has been somehow demonstrated, then can you please link me to something digestible; an article, a lecture, something that actually backs this claim of yours.

No, I’ve given you enough stuff for you to chew on - you’ve simply ignored it and misconstrued my position repeatedly. It’s time for you to do your own homework. When you’ve demonstrated that you know what my position is without putting forth a strawman, then I’ll get you more information if you’d like. Until then, I have to doubt your motives because of how badly you’ve misconstrued my position. Right now it just seems as though you are attempting to lead me on a wild goose chase.

Here’s a hint towards my position, your strawman presupposes that I accept the a theory of time.

[KellyCriterion]

@Czarcasm

Absence of evidence is also not evidence of irrational nonsense.

:dubious:

Having a bad day are you, Czarcasm?

I said.. “If we see something appearing and don’t know what caused it, the best we can say, which is why I say it, is that we do not know what caused said thing to appear.”

That’s “irrational nonsense”, is it?

[Czarcasm]

@KellyCriterion

:dubious:

Having a bad day are you, Czarcasm?

I said.. “If we see something appearing and don’t know what caused it, the best we can say, which is why I say it, is that we do not know what caused said thing to appear.”

That’s “irrational nonsense”, is it?

Would that include the universe?

[Meatros]

@KellyCriterion

:dubious:

Having a bad day are you, Czarcasm?

I said.. “If we see something appearing and don’t know what caused it, the best we can say, which is why I say it, is that we do not know what caused said thing to appear.”

That’s “irrational nonsense”, is it?

No one has put that forwards though - what you are putting forward under the guise of popularly held belief is incredibly uncharitable to the point of total misrepresentation.

For example, your statement does not reflect quantum tunneling, m-theory, or Gott’s cosmology - yet, presumably, that is your intention.

[CurtC]

@KellyCriterion

If you’re going to keep insisting that quantum particles exhibit uncaused behaviour, and this has been somehow demonstrated, then can you please link me to something digestible; an article, a lecture, something that actually backs this claim of yours.

Please.. educate me. Remove me from my rigid cause-and-effect mindset.

The lack of cause follows from the Uncertainty Principle. Further, experiments demonstrating Bell’s Inequality have shown that there is not some underlying cause that’s just beyond our ability to detect. Quantum events, including the creation of virtual particles, are fundamentally uncaused and random. You’ve already been given links explaining this.

[colonial]

@Meatros

Yes, the link tries to explain it - I find the pantheist version more coherent. When you try to incorporate miracles into it, it becomes less so.

Neither version convinces me of a need to pledge allegiance.

@Meatros

But if everything is a process of Gods, then there really is no scientific law - what we observe as uniformities are just how God is structuring the universe at present.

I do not have any problem equating scientific law with Godly structuring,
and I do not think they raise any philosphical problems with each other.

@Meatros

What assurance do we have that such a thing is not simply temporary?

Obviously none. So what?

I do not think there is any tension between science and God, as long as
the scriptures are not taken literally, except possibly from the perspective
of Occam’s Law of Parsimony.

If there is an uncaused originating force for the Universe it would be simplest
if that force were the Universe itself, rather than an additional actor, separate
from the rest of reality, which we name “God”. The reason I wonder about this
as a possbile avenue of attack is that it must by now have been thoroughly evaluated
by skeptics of preeminent scientific as well as philosphical stature, and if there
was consensus among them that the argument was decisive we would all have
heard of it by now.

[Meatros]

@colonial

Neither version convinces me of a need to pledge allegiance.

Fair enough.

@colonial

I do not have any problem equating scientific law with Godly structuring,
and I do not think they raise any philosphical problems with each other.

Fair enough - however I do find it problematic - but this all depends on what God is supposed to do. I suppose that my relegating coherency to pantheism is not altogether correct - deism could be a fit as well. I suppose other forms of monotheism could too - but I have my doubts as the amount of interference would lead to more and more distrust on natures regularity.

@colonial

Obviously none. So what?

I do not think there is any tension between science and God, as long as
the scriptures are not taken literally, except possibly from the perspective
of Occam’s Law of Parsimony.

I think this is where we are diverging. I’m looking at theism one way and you another. When I think of miracles and God, I think of people who can pray in such a way as to interfere with nature. I am seeing that this is not a fair appraisal of your view, so it doesn’t appear to apply.

@colonial

If there is an uncaused originating force for the Universe it would be simplest
if that force were the Universe itself, rather than an additional actor, separate
from the rest of reality, which we name “God”. The reason I wonder about this
as a possbile avenue of attack is that it must by now have been thoroughly evaluated by skeptics of preeminent scientific as well as philosphical stature, and if there was consensus among them that the argument was decisive we would all have heard of it by now.

Yes, that is an interesting point - although if I’m being straight forward, I’m not entirely convinced that we can know of the origin of the universe. It could just be beyond us to be able to know whether or not a God was somehow responsible. Right now I do not thing that ‘God’ is a very coherent explanation. I think it’s fraught with problems - one of which seems to be the presupposition of an absolute frame of time.

[canterburyales]

@KellyCriterion

This is, quite simply, wrong.

If you’re going to keep insisting that quantum particles exhibit uncaused behaviour, and this has been somehow demonstrated, then can you please link me to something digestible; an article, a lecture, something that actually backs this claim of yours.

Please.. educate me. Remove me from my rigid cause-and-effect mindset.

I hope you don’t mind if I cut in. I am not a physicist but I have an interest and have read quite a bit about quantum phenomenon.

It is not an easy path to remove yourself from a ‘rigid cause-and-effect mindset.’ To really grasp the subtleties you do need mathematics but I think a very convincing case can be made without it. I would suggest watching this series of videos:

The Vega Science Trust - Richard Feynman - Science Videos

the videos clock in at over four hours total but if you really do want to understand it will take time, more than four hours even.

I don’t think that there is talk of particles coming into existence from nothing but it does show that the direction of time and therefore causality is not as simple as we may first assume. It also shows that the world seems to be inherently probabilistic.

If you are serious about being educated, I would suggest that this is a good place to start. I think you will find that when physics claims that a particle comes from nothing there is a long line of reasoning that lead to that statement. It is not simply an attempt to explain an unknown. To really understand, you need to follow that line of reasoning and understand concepts such as the uncertainty principle.

I hope you enjoy the ride.

[Voyager]

@NotreDame05

Your example referencing the speed of light is not a good one. Why? Because I have yet to encounter any physicists or scientists who can say with 100% certainty nothing exceeded the speed of light in 1650. Rather, they say they are 99.9% sure nothing exceeded the speed light in 1650. When it comes to any scientific fact, I am not aware of anyone in the scientific community professing 100% certainty in the fact itself. The lack of 100% certainty is what scientists and the scientific community profess as a fundamentally important quality of scientific inquiry, the scientific method, indeed scientific pursuit of what is true about nature and the universe. But I digress, so let me address your other point, of “actually” possible as opposed to not actually possible.

Basically, you are missing the point. You might have missed me saying that we are not 100% certain that the world even existed in 1650. I suffered through a Theory of Knowledge class that had a bunch of extreme skeptics shouting “you can’t be certain” at every turn, so I know this. I’ve also read Lord Keynes first book which is exactly on this subject.
But the point you are missing is that we must distinguish our knowledge of the physical world from the actual structure of the physical world. We don’t “know” that nothing is exceeding the speed of light right now, never mind 1650.
I can ask you if I have a picture of Santa Claus and a picture of Alice in Wonderland in my office. You’d have to say that both are possible. In fact, I don’t have Santa but I do have Alice. This fact is totally separate from your answer and from any estimation of the probability I have them that you might have made.

The reason for saying that nothing exceeded the speed of light in 1650 is that relativity makes numerous predictions all of which have been verified. I’d say that the average physicist would put the probability of c being the speed limit as considerably higher than 99.5%, but you can’t really compute a probability for such a thing. But no matter - our lack of knowledge does not mean that exceeding c is actually possible.

[NotreDame05]

@Voyager

Basically, you are missing the point. You might have missed me saying that we are not 100% certain that the world even existed in 1650. I suffered through a Theory of Knowledge class that had a bunch of extreme skeptics shouting “you can’t be certain” at every turn, so I know this. I’ve also read Lord Keynes first book which is exactly on this subject.
But the point you are missing is that we must distinguish our knowledge of the physical world from the actual structure of the physical world. We don’t “know” that nothing is exceeding the speed of light right now, never mind 1650.
I can ask you if I have a picture of Santa Claus and a picture of Alice in Wonderland in my office. You’d have to say that both are possible. In fact, I don’t have Santa but I do have Alice. This fact is totally separate from your answer and from any estimation of the probability I have them that you might have made.

The reason for saying that nothing exceeded the speed of light in 1650 is that relativity makes numerous predictions all of which have been verified. I’d say that the average physicist would put the probability of c being the speed limit as considerably higher than 99.5%, but you can’t really compute a probability for such a thing. But no matter - our lack of knowledge does not mean that exceeding c is actually possible.

No, I understand your point. I just think it is a useless exercise.

Like I said, we can venture opinions, guesses, and speculation all day long as to whether something is “actual” or “actually possible” but such an exercise is pointless. We generally do not think of whether something is “actually” possible because in many instances, if not all of them, such a question is a waste of time, since it is incapable of being known.

Furthermore, as it relates to the opening post, the notion of “actually possible” does not assist us at all, but due to the reasons I mentioned, necessitate those alternatives be construed as possible. Whether they are actually possible is an exercise which is a waste of time and, ironically enough, would render unnecessary the original poster’s dilemma. If the original poster knew what was “actual” and “actually possible” then presupposing an explanation, to the excluision of others, is no longer a dilemma.

[Voyager]

@NotreDame05

No, I understand your point. I just think it is a useless exercise.

Like I said, we can venture opinions, guesses, and speculation all day long as to whether something is “actual” or “actually possible” but such an exercise is pointless. We generally do not think of whether something is “actually” possible because in many instances, if not all of them, such a question is a waste of time, since it is incapable of being known.

Furthermore, as it relates to the opening post, the notion of “actually possible” does not assist us at all, but due to the reasons I mentioned, necessitate those alternatives be construed as possible. Whether they are actually possible is an exercise which is a waste of time and, ironically enough, would render unnecessary the original poster’s dilemma. If the original poster knew what was “actual” and “actually possible” then presupposing an explanation, to the excluision of others, is no longer a dilemma.

All of science is predicated on there being true statements you can say about the universe, and reducing the gap between our model of the universe and its nature. Every experimental result comes with the probability that the results are due to chance, and we try to reduce that p value as much as possible. A large p value means that you cannot reject the null hypothesis, but it is not the same as falsifying the hypothesis.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@colonial

I do not understand.

“Chariots of iron” is a reference to one of the odder passages of the old testament:

Judges 1:19 - And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

It’s easy to see how chariots of iron (and advanced military hardware generally) could stop Judah’s army, but there’s no explanation of why God would be stymied by them.

[Voyager]

@Bryan_Ekers

“Chariots of iron” is a reference to one of the odder passages of the old testament:

Judges 1:19 - And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

It’s easy to see how chariots of iron (and advanced military hardware generally) could stop Judah’s army, but there’s no explanation of why God would be stymied by them.

Thanks - I’ve been busy and forgot to respond. This is yet another example of why reading the entire Bible, and not the Sunday School edited version, is so interesting. There are many passages like this one which make you go huh.

I can just see the editorial meeting now.

Chief Editor Priest: Look, this is a mess. You got contradictory creation stories, you
have Cain setting up a city when there is no one else around, you’ve got God losing to chariots of iron.
Jeremiah (likely one of the people who pulled it together): Don’t worry! No one will notice!

“Ed Wood” reference for those confused.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@KellyCriterion

If you’re talking about the uncaused first cause, that would be uncaused.

Why can God be uncaused but not the universe?