A quick recap:
Truth is absolute.
Reason is our best avenue to truth.
The universe is not eternal.
Because time is within the universe, the cause of the universe cannot exist in time and is, by definition, eternal.
Mathematically, the formation of matter was an unlikely event.
I would like to take this week to depart some from the mathematics- and physics-intensive arguments.
There are two “Oh yeah, well…” questions that usually accompany the assertion that there exists a God. I wanted to take this week to give myself a respite from probability (I hated Quantum Mechanics, by the way) and address a these before we bring God into the discussion. These are not moral objections to God as many atheistic arguments are; rather, these are queries that tend to stump a great many people because there is fault in the questions themselves that is not readily seen.
The hope here is that you will not come into a God discussion with the assumption that the very idea of God is a logical fallacy.
Oh yeah, well…
1. Who caused God?
If there exists a God and God brought the universe into being, God must exist outside of time (Week 4). If something exists outside of time, cause and effect have no meaning. So, the question “who caused God” also has no meaning.
2. If God is omnipotent, can he make a stone so big that he cannot pick it up?
The question opens itself for only wrong answers. An answer of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ here does not preclude God’s omnipotence; instead, it is a logically unanswerable question expecting a logical answer… the question is the paradox, not God.
Asking absurd questions does not make God go away; else, you will all be in trouble when I ask you what color the number three is. Be wary of trip-up arguments.
MOVING AHEAD
When it comes to discussing these things in the Comments section, you all have me at a disadvantage: You know exactly where my discussions are headed. I ask, though, that your arguments against a particular post not include beliefs you assume me to have. For instance, my arguments have not yet mentioned Jesus. So, it would be best that we visit Jesus at a later date.
Another short one, but we’re headed into some deeper waters, so I hope that youll look upon this as a break as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
54 comments:
“Who caused God?”
You state:
-Time is within the universe.
-The cause of the universe cannot exist in time.
-God brought the universe into being. (God caused the universe.)
-God must exist outside of time.
-Cause has no meaning outside of time.
Therefore, God caused the universe/time outside of the universe/time where cause has no meaning. I do not see how you can use the word cause where you plainly state it has no meaning. If you are going to say that God caused the universe/time where cause has no meaning, then why should you have a problem with people saying “Oh yeah, well…” what caused God where cause has no meaning?
1. The cause of the universe cannot exist in time.
2. Cause has no meaning outside of time.
This reminds me of:
1. The sentence below is true.
2. The sentence above is false.
“If God is omnipotent, can he make a stone so big that he cannot pick it up?”
This is less of an unanswerable question or a trip-up argument and more of a demonstration of how the idea of omnipotent is illogical. Is it not the case that the question follows logically from the premise of omnipotent?
There is nothing about numbers that indicate they have a property of color, but creating and picking up are clearly within the scope omnipotence.
I agree with your point on question 2. It is a logical loop, just like the sentence "This statement is false." It's fun to turn around in your mind, but it points out the limits in linear logical thinking.
Sequential Time
As to question 1, I also agree, but I think this logic can apply to the beginning of the universe as well. Stating that the beginning of the universe required a cause, but that causes are required by the universe is also a loop. I know you speculate that the requirement of causality and the universe itself could happen spontaneously at the same time, but I'm still not convinced that works too well in a sequential view of time. Surely the beginning of time requiring a cause implies that there are pre-existent conditions that must be satisfied. But maybe not? Either way, it's up in the air completely in my book.
Non-Sequential Time
If we are in a fixed system where all time is equal, meaning that all time is truly simultaneous - that the beginning is happening now, just like this moment is, it's like saying the universe is a DVD. Sure the beginning is subject to the same rules as any other part, because you can fast forward, rewind, etc. but the rules are inside the movie. The “rules” which drove the movie coming into existence would be outside out realm of knowledge.
Two questions:
1. If we can pinpoint the beginning of time in our universe, but we cannot pinpoint the end, then is our universe still not eternal? If the universe’s destiny is to “end” in a Big Freeze, does time still continue even though nothing can move at that point? If some sort of existence still progresses forward infinitely, then even though we can point out a beginning, there is no end. Sagan writes that there are 3 scenarios:
a. The universe had a beginning but has no end
b. The universe had no beginning but it has an end.
(this is from a lecture before the Big Crunch/Freeze problem had been “solved”)
c. The universe had a beginning and an end.
If "a" is true, then what does that say about eternity?
2. I think your view has a lot in common with physicists who are also studying causes for the universe from "outside". Theirs is the inflationary scenario, where our universe is one pocket universe which blew up out of a sort of primordial universe. Do you see your “outside the universe” idea as similar to theirs?
Skyhook,
I agree with your post. Good stuff. You are more acute in your analysis of ideas than I am. I have to ramble a lot more to "get it". and then I forget it, and then I gradually get it again.
I will say, however, that I kind of agree with Randy on the omnipotent argument. Your view is true, however, that omnipotence is impossible from our point of view. However if there is omnipotence, then our point of view would probably not be able to understand it.
It's kind of like saying:
1. It is impossible for something to be that lies outside of what the mind of man deems logical.
2. What is "impossible" is labeled so because of empirical data processed by the mind of man.
It's another loop. Yet it is not evidence for omnipotence. I'm just putting forth the idea, that there are many, many things which may exist outside of our scope of perception. Bugs probably don't know that we exist. The problem with this "religious" or "mystic" idea is when people try to apply it firmly to the realm of "logic" which we rely on for our interactions with others.
I view "omnipotence" from a more symbolic, mystical point of view. It's like a Zen koan for me. And it falls firmly inside the realm of faith.
Steven,
I agree that there are many things which may exist outside of our perception. There is good evidence that our perceptual traits were preserved on a “need to know” type basis rather than some type of perception of “Ultimate Reality” criteria. However, the value of taking a reasonable, logical, scientific approach (as Randy has set out to do) is that it requires more than possibility to accept as reasonable to believe. After all, anything is possible.
Try going through your last post and replacing “omnipotence” with “square circles”. The post does not change meaning. Square circles are impossible from our point of view and if they did exist, we would probably not understand them.
I have no problem with omnipotence as a Zen koan (or square circles for that matter). Statements do not have to be true or logical for insight to be gained.
Skyhook,
I agree. From a logical perspective, omnipotence is not really worth discussing.
Intuition and insight are very personal, powerful and problematic ways to attempt to gain knowledge. They are 1st person. Everything we discuss here is 3rd person. But an occasional reminder of the limits of our perception is good for maintaining humility, a lack of dogma and a feeling of possibility and awe about the universe.
Press on!
Skyhook-
1. The cause of the universe cannot exist in time.
2. Cause has no meaning outside of time.
You are missing one thing here. Cause has no meaning outside of time, but it surely had meaning the exact moment time began. The cause (whatever that was) and effect (time, matter, space, and energy) were simultaneous.
Omnipotence-
You all may have worked through this enough already. I will say that I completely agree that it’s not really a worthwhile discussion if we can’t agree on what omnipotence means exactly. The Christian view is that God is able to do anything that he wills to do, anything that is possible to do, anything that does not go against his very nature, which is rational and moral. Therefore there are in fact “conceivable things” that he cannot do: he cannot lie, create a square circle, etc. Just because we can conceive of something, does not mean it is possible.
As for the stone paradox, I’ll quote Norman Geisler:
“It is actually impossible to make a stone so heavy it cannot be moved. What an omnipotent Being can make, he can move. A finite creature cannot be more powerful in its resistance than the infinite Creator is in his power not to be resisted. If God brought it into existence, he can take it out of existence. Then he could recreate it somewhere else. Therefore, there is no contradiction in believing that God is omnipotent and that he can do anything that is possible to do. The critic has set up a straw-man argument and has not shown any incoherence in God’s attribute of omnipotence.”
Steven-
Something that has a beginning cannot be eternal. Eternal means no beginning and no end.
Kristin,
How might one discern the difference between cause and effect occurring simultaneously and effect occurring without cause? Or effect occurring by a cause unknown?
The picture I am getting from this strange superimposition of cause and effect is as follows; let me know if I do not understand you correctly.
The starting point of this argument is when playing the “reel of time” backwards, we get to a point where the laws of the universe break down.
At this point, the universe/time as we defined does not exist. There is no meaning to cause.
Then, uncaused (since cause has no meaning yet), cause becomes meaningful, because cause and effect occur simultaneously.
In summary:
A cause was needed for time to begin.
Time is necessary for cause to mean anything.
To solve this problem, you propose they just occurred simultaneously, uncaused.
I do not at all intend to misrepresent your position, so let me know if I have it correct.
Skyhook-
You are making a semantical argument based on the “meaning” of cause. Cause is an a postiori label. Whatever the eternal cause was, it couldn’t have been a cause until it caused something. However, that is not to say that it couldn’t exist before it caused something.
Here is my attempt at an analogy:
Just as cause is needed for time to exist, a mother is needed for a child to exist.
Just as time is necessary in order of cause to have meaning, a child is necessary for the the label of mother to mean anything.
I am a mother. I suppose you could say I officially became a mother at the moment my son was born. So at the moment my son was born, he became a son and I became a mother. That’s not to say that a mother and a son both just magically appeared without a cause. It’s just that we assumed those labels at that time.
So at the “moment” that this eternal thing (whatever it is) brought our universe into being, it became worthy of the label “cause” and the universe became worthy of the the label “effect.”
Where the absurdity exists in the omnipotence question is the fact that it basically says, ”something can’t be omnipotent because it can’t make itself impotent.” Why would we presume such a statement to have legitimate meaning?
“You aren’t all-powerful! You aren’t even all-powerful enough to make yourself not… all… powerful!”
“Nor are you omnipresent! You can’t exist in nothingness, because if you existed there it wouldn’t be nothingness!”
“And forget about making a geometrical figure whose points must be equidistant from a central point into a geometric figure whose points cannot be equidistant from a central point and calling it both things at once!”
Are we saying that our ability to create illogical scenarios renders God impotent?
It's a good point, Randy. It's like saying that God isn't all-powerful because he can't make himself less powerful. But wait.....what if he can?
For a Christian, God came to earth in the form of Jesus - God became much less powerful. And there is nothing too logical about this - believing that God was completely God and completely man all at once. It's a mystery to mankind.
If there is a God, his power would surely include abilities that go beyond what we perceive as logical. I think that's part of the Christian faith.
"O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!"
I think you're arguing more about what God WILL do, instead of what he CAN do. I'm sure he COULD act against his nature, but we trust that he won't.
As to the issue of cause, regardless of what universal theory you believe in, cause exists; therefore the universe must be eternal or there must have been a first cause. So, if you buy the Big Bang, you can't help but accept that there was a first cause.
Kristin,
I really liked the mother analogy.
Funny... I thought the Comments section might be a bit bare this week.
"Everything requires a cause." Why? Because causality is a law of the universe. But at the beginning of the universe, there were no laws. The universe starting spontaneously of its own accord definitely violates our human sensibilities. But surely that is because we are a product of the universe itself. Whether you describe it as creatio ex nihilo by God or a quantum fluctuation, it is still fundamentally bizarre from our perspective, and completely different than anything we have ever seen or contemplated.
"The laws of the universe require a cause because causality is a law of the universe". This logical loop still seems to best describe your position, Kristen and Randy. Let me know if this is incorrect.
“For a Christian, God came to earth in the form of Jesus - God became much less powerful. And there is nothing too logical about this - believing that God was completely God and completely man all at once. It's a mystery to mankind.”
More on Jesus later…
“"The laws of the universe require a cause because causality is a law of the universe". This logical loop still seems to best describe your position, Kristen and Randy. Let me know if this is incorrect.”
Yes I think this is incorrect. My position is this:
• Every single observable thing in this universe that has come to exist has had a cause. Therefore, it is most likely that the universe itself had a cause.
• Not one observable thing in this universe has ever come from nothing. Therefore, it is most likely that the universe itself did not come from nothing.
• Cause exists. Therefore, there must have been a first cause. It seems that this first cause could have been the universe IF the universe were eternal. But now we know that it’s not.
The evidence that we have (everything that begins has a cause, life has never come from non life, etc.) leads us to believe there was some kind of eternal catalyst. Of course there are other theories. But the evidence we have to go on detracts from those theories. I simply prefer to rely on the evidence and science that we know rather than come up with metaphysical theories which have no evidence in their favor.
"metaphysical theories which have no evidence in their favor."
=
God (by his very nature, right? He is supernatural)
What you wrote in your description sounds exactly like what I wrote in my so-called "logical loop". It's just a more detailed description, but the essence is the same.
wow, that was short. good for me! (and better for you all....) ;)
Hmmmm... I would definitely not say that something supernatural is unable to have evidence in its favor. If that were the case, this discussion would be truly pointless! And still not seeing any sort of loop in saying something is more likely because of what we know. So, still not on the same page, but that's fine, it's only week 6!
I tend to be less theoretical in my absence of knowledge of what lies beyond the big bang. I am however endlessly entertained by all involved in this discussion.
Kristen
When you say:
"I would definitely not say that something supernatural is unable to have evidence in its favor."
I can't help but think of a Tim Minchin poem...
And try as hard as I like,
A small crack appears
In my diplomacy-dike.
“By definition”, I begin
“Alternative Medicine”, I continue
“Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call “alternative medicine”
That’s been proved to work?
Medicine.”
"evidence of supernatural" is impossible. Evidence can only reduce supernatural to natural via a natural explanation. What you're describing is faith. You freely interchange faith and evidence, which may very well mean the same thing to you, but this is more a personal misconception than a reality.
"Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." (minchin)
Jamin,
I'm sorry, but what you're saying here is simply not true:
"'evidence of supernatural' is impossible. Evidence can only reduce supernatural to natural via a natural explanation. What you're describing is faith. You freely interchange faith and evidence, which may very well mean the same thing to you, but this is more a personal misconception than a reality."
Your definition precludes the existence of God. If we find evidence of God, that evidence does not then reduce God to "natural"; therefore, only two possible truths remain:
1. God cannot be.
2. There can be evidence of the supernatural.
I'm spending the next 45 weeks in an effort to provide evidence for God, so I would obviously disagree with the first possible truth. We have spent a good deal of time already discussing the definition of faith (Comments section, Week 5), so I won't beat that dead horse, but I believe we all came to the conclusion that "reasonable faith" (as I have defined it) should be built upon evidence. Since one is contigent upon the other, they cannot be interchanged. You may have faith that God exists, that there are many gods, or that there is no God; still all of us exercise faith in that regard becuase we were not around to witness any historical events that would prove or disprove these assertions.
I began this blog because I believe that the evidence for God is overwhelming. As such, I would disagree wholeheartedly that you cannot have evidence for the supernatural. Evidence for God is, by definition, evidence for the supernatural. If you make a practice of dismissing evidence of the supernatural in order to hold onto a naturalist ideal, you are not practicing good science.
Your "alternative medicine" analogy was well-presented and I understand what you're saying, but if we define God to be supernatural, you're basically arguing "I won't believe the evidence for God becuase there can be no evidence for God" (see Week 1 for my thoughts on that).
Randy,
I am still interested in more on probability.
If any naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe is improbable, how does putting a God, with no explanation at all for his existence, at the beginning of things more probable?
Regarding omnipotence, it is an extraordinary claim and I look forward to the presentation of extraordinary evidence (could there be anything more extraordinary than this claim?). The inability to form a testable hypothesis that may act to falsify omnipotence is what renders the idea of omnipotence impotent.
Regarding cause/effect. The caused event of birth has the effects of changing the labels of pregnant/delivering woman to mother and fetus to child. Birth is an effect of fertilization, normal development, etc. and it is the cause of the label change. It is simultaneously a cause and effect, but its effects are not identical to its cause. And the cause is not dependent on its effects.
To say that a cause can be dependent on its effect is a mangling of the meaning of cause and effect. Semantic gymnastics worthy of a gold medal, but not reasonable.
A cause was needed for time to begin and time is necessary for cause to mean anything. As part of how we have defined universe, the presence of time is a determining factor. Therefore in order to accept the big bang and hence that the universe had a beginning, one has to let go of the notion of cause. Because as we play the reel backwards, we find the beginning of the universe where we cease to find time.
One cannot use the very laws that define the boundaries of the universe to talk about beyond the boundaries. Kind of like saying that since the ocean is wet at every measure, it is likely that the land is wet too.
Whatever the case, if we cannot even discern the difference between cause and effect occurring simultaneously and effect occurring without cause, or effect occurring by a cause unknown (or some other process that is reasonably not understood), then we are not able to reasonably say that any one of these are true.
Randy,
I certainly saw faith touched on in section 5, but to assert that "we all agreed" should really be "Kristen and I agree..."
I question the subjective breakdown of reasonable/unreasonable faith and hope you can devote a week to this most fundamental difference between your worldview and mine. In this case, you're using "reasonable" to redefine faith, not clarify faith. Who's reason? Wouldn't we be better off saying "deductive reasoning" in place of "reasonable faith" and "hope" in place of "unreasonable faith"
"Christian Faith" (virgin birth, talking snakes, young earth, walking on water, demons, angels, noah's ark, resurrection) To a Christian, it's reasonable, to the other 67% of earth's population it might not be.
Is there anything supernatural other than god, or are god and supernatural one in the same? Can something be supernatural and not be god?
In the interest of brevity, lets say there was a cause, and we choose to call this cause god instead of cause. Will you be able to make the jump of gap worship to a personal god who 4000 years ago wiped out all life on this planet save 1 pair of every species with a great flood and tested Abraham with human sacrifice, then 2000 years later came down here to die for our sins, who 500 years ago sponsored the inquisition, who 100 years ago was a God to be feared, and is now a personal buddy and savior who listens to my every thought and prayer and who defines birth as conception and is against gay marriage. When will this jump take place? Should I check back in July?
You're working so hard to reconcile your faith with your education, and just might find 52 logical exercises and gaps to pass the time, but at the end of the day you're still going to end up with Team Jesus claiming they have the answer, and the other side questioning that claim. This is reasonable and perfectly acceptable in a free world, but when Team Jesus wants to lobby our government on social issues like gay marriage, stem cell research, and support of Israel, then it's also reasonable and perfectly acceptable to want to stop Team Jesus.
Not my stance :"I won't believe the evidence for God becuase there can be no evidence for God"
My stance: "I don't believe in Zues/Ra/Budda/God because I have no evidence for Zues/Ra/Budda/God"
Your stance: "I don't believe in Zues/Ra/Budda because I have no evidence for Zues/Ra/Budda"
It's not that you're actively not believing in Zues/Ra/Budda, it's just that you've no need to. We're not that far apart...
In regard to Paley's 200 year old Watchmaker argument.....it gets us nowhere. You're not solving a problem, you're creating a more complex problem. I'd like to believe an all powerful supernatural ultra mega being like God would be more capable of revealing himself than through rhetorical logic problems. Maybe god is the universe, maybe they're one in the same, maybe god is the scientist and you're a brain in a vat..... Where's the beef?
Steve,
Please see my response in the Week 5 Comments section.
Skyhook,
Perhaps I should have been more clear. One of the diffuculties with this blog is that it is difficult to present things in a somewhat linear fashion because my readers know my faith. You and the rest of my readers know that Christianity professes an "all-powerful" God. I have presented no evidence for an omnipotent God; nor will I. There can be no evidence for this. After all, it would require an infinite number of tests to prove omnipotence.
The point of this post was more to address preconceptions about God and theories as to why God cannot exist at all. I haven't officially brought God into the discussion yet, so I wanted to try to remove these preconceived thoughts before I did.
Jamin,
One quick thing… Kristin would never point this out herself, but I can’t help but notice that everyone is spelling her name with an “e” on the end.
“I certainly saw faith touched on in section 5, but to assert that ‘we all agreed’ should really be ‘Krist[i]n and I agree...’”
Others had asked for a working definition which Kristin provided and I agreed with, yes. Once that had been defined, I don’t believe there was any additional debate regarding faith. So long as we all know what is being discussed, feel free to call it whatever you want. As defined, however, it cannot be interchanged with “evidence”.
”I question the subjective breakdown of reasonable/unreasonable faith and hope you can devote a week to this most fundamental difference between your worldview and mine. In this case, you're using ‘reasonable’ to redefine faith, not clarify faith. Who's reason? Wouldn't we be better off saying ‘deductive reasoning’ in place of ‘reasonable faith’ and ‘hope’ in place of ‘unreasonable faith’”
I may take you up on that. At the very least, perhaps I can post a short definitions list at the beginning of the next post.
”Is there anything supernatural other than god, or are god and supernatural one in the same? Can something be supernatural and not be god?”
I don’t know. At this point in the blog, I certainly haven’t eliminated that possibility. God, Zeus, and possibly Ra still may be the eternal catalyst I spoke to (though I don’t believe Buddha quite fits the mold).
”Will you be able to make the jump of gap worship to a personal god who 4000 years ago wiped out all life on this planet save 1 pair of every species … who 500 years ago sponsored the inquisition… and is against gay marriage. When will this jump take place? Should I check back in July?”
This inquisition is brought to you by God. God: powerful, creative, and now available in 3-pack.
You’re welcome to try back in July. I have only a tentative timeline, so I can’t say for sure when I’ll be discussing what. I don’t plan to focus on social issues here, though. I do plan to discuss the Bible in general, and since Christian morality is discussed in the Bible, perhaps this will be helpful to you.
”You're working so hard to reconcile your faith with your education, and just might find 52 logical exercises and gaps to pass the time, but at the end of the day you're still going to end up with Team Jesus claiming they have the answer, and the other side questioning that claim. This is reasonable and perfectly acceptable in a free world, but when Team Jesus wants to lobby our government on social issues like gay marriage, stem cell research, and support of Israel, then it's also reasonable and perfectly acceptable to want to stop Team Jesus.”
I would love to address social issues with you. Do you have a blog of your own? It seems that you have a lot to say.
”Not my stance :’I won't believe the evidence for God becuase there can be no evidence for God’
My stance: ‘I don't believe in Zues/Ra/Budda/God because I have no evidence for Zues/Ra/Budda/God’”
Okay, but what you said was “’evidence of supernatural’ is impossible,” so hopefully my responsive did not seem too assumptive.
”It's not that you're actively not believing in Zues/Ra/Budda, it's just that you've no need to. We're not that far apart...”
I will discuss a few religions (obviously not all) down the road. I can’t jump ahead too far here, though. I will say, though, that I spent a great deal of time for a great many years as a “seeker”, so I hope you won’t be too dismissive of my religious knowledge (or lack thereof) based on my scientific discussions. I am an active non-believer in many regards.
”In regard to Paley's 200 year old Watchmaker argument.....it gets us nowhere. You're not solving a problem, you're creating a more complex problem.”
Again (see Week 1), I don’t think we should dismiss evidence for its implications. If a “more complex problem” arises, we’ll just have to examine the new problem instead.
As to evidence, perhaps the “powerful supernatural ultra mega being” feels that He/it has given enough evidence.
Randy,
I don't expect an answer to this if you feel you have already answered in a satisfying way in week 5, but I feel that I phrased the problem quite a bit better here, and that your answer will not work.
Here I phrase it more in terms of the universe's "fine tuning" (that you are more interested in), rather than in terms of humanity's existence.
"If any naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe is improbable, how does putting a God, with no explanation at all for his existence, at the beginning of things more probable?"
I think this is a fair question. Once again, I do not discount faith as the result of an emotional feeling towards a God with an intelligence like our own (but far greater). But I don't see any pure reason-based line of thought that leads to the assumption of an intelligent being. We have to let go of our emotions and intuitions (not because they don't matter, but because we're limiting ourselves to reason-based formulas right now), and see what the answer to the above question is.
and yeah, good point about Buddha. I don't think he fits in with Zeus.
Randy,
I am not interested in proving omnipotence, only understanding why it is reasonable to believe in such a proposition. As such, I find it difficult to reasonably believe (in the spirit that this blog set forth at the beginning) any proposition that is framed in a logically unfalsifiable manner. The way omnipotence has been framed to be unassailable; we might as well be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
A hugely important aspect of taking a reasonable, logical, scientific approach is the principle of falsifiablity. I know you don’t need me to detail why; you seem to understand the value of taking a reasonable, logical, scientific approach (if you do need me to, you can ask, but first you might consider explaining why any proposition might be granted exception).
In addressing the preconceived thoughts that a god cannot exist, might you address some of the preconceived thoughts that a god can exist? Are they any more or less reasonable?
Also, I maintain a website at DiscourseBoard.com that is perfect for continuing these comments section discussions. It is a forum board where all topics for discourse are encouraged. Head over there and browse around if you like. Sign in and post a topic for discussion. On DiscourseBoard.com we can all have more equal footing than compared to a blog and comment setup, we can also edit comments for typos! (I do not wish to take away from the blog here, I only offer my place as a supplement).
I agree with Skyhook and Jamin regarding their view of putting God or anything supernatural within the purview of science.
However, I also think that naturalists can take the philosophical implications of this too far. Remember, that science is a tool, a process to gain more facts for our reason to utilize. And I agree that people abuse faith by ignoring verified facts at times.
But let's remember the (highly probable) limitations of our empirical senses in giving us a full picture of the reality around us. Also, we should remember that a truly 3rd person, objective view of the universe is impossible, since our very presence by observation in any experiment will inherently taint the outcome.
When used wisely, faith is the pursuit of intuitive knowledge, not to counter reason, but to supplement it. Buddhism understands this well and tries to apply 3rd person "peer reviews" to the 1st person experiences of life. But I think that any faith can give us an advantage towards a better life, and can even possibly give us a "leg up" towards intuitively anticipating future discoveries.
"Mythos" and "logos" should complement each other. They will always both be around in each one of us.
Sorry for the sermon, but I hope that Randy's readers know that I have no problem with faith at all, when applied correctly. I do have a problem with Randy's justification for his faith ("the evidence for God is overwhelming"). And he knows this. That's why he have a lot of fun discussing this stuff.
Have an excellent week, everyone!
Randy,
I'm sorry about Budda, lets take him out and put in Unicorns. So we've got Zeus/Ra/Unicorns/God. All of these have exactly the same likelihood of creating the universe, from a scientific evidence standpoint.
"Okay, but what you said was "'evidence of supernatural' is impossible," so hopefully my responsive [sic] did not seem too assumptive."
Evidence of the supernatural IS IMPOSSIBLE!
By definition the supernatural is not subject to explanation according to natural laws, and scientific evidence is in essence an explanation according to natural laws. How can something that by it's very definition be not subject to explanation (evidence) according to natural laws be explained (evidence) according to natural laws?
I've got another word for the supernatural, magic. Magic is not subject to explanation according to natural laws. So say you present me with a magic trick and make a bunny disappear, then you say you've got evidence or an explanation on how you made the bunny disappear, then this is NO LONGER MAGIC, it is just a trick, sure you still made the bunny disappear, but by presenting evidence or an explanation you've taken the magic out of the trick, or you've taken super out of the natural.
Do you see my dilemma?
At five you believed in Santa, and you certainly believed you had "evidence" of Santa. After all, how else would you explain all the presents under the tree, the songs you sang in school, the pitter-patter of reindeer hoofs on the rooftop on Christmas Eve, and all your friends and authority figures who confirm your belief. This all seamed entirely reasonable and looked like evidence and felt like evidence, but now you see these were unreasonable assumptions.
At 30 you believe in God, and you certainly believe you have "evidence" of God. After all, how else would you explain all this life on earth, the songs you sing in church, the tingling sensation when you lift your hand during praise and worship, and all your friends and authority figures who confirm your belief. This all seams entirely reasonable and looks like evidence and feels like evidence, but one day you might see these may have been unreasonable assumptions.
So far, this blog has been dedicated to gap worship. You're attempting to expose a gap in our understanding, of which there are plenty, and in this gap, you're creating an even larger gap with even more problems and will inevitable try to reconcile a 2000 year old doctrine derived from several older religions.
Original Problem : a + b = x
Modified Problem : [{god} = a + b + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2 + 2 - 2]
As you can see, with this modification, we're not only making it more complex with unnecessary steps, we're no longer solving for x.
Kristin,
I'm sorry about the name mixup, I assure you it wasn't intentional.
Don't dis' gap worship. They have some nice sweaters.
I'm more of a Banana Republic man myself ;)
I used to be a Gap worshiper... until I considered the evidence. After learning just enough about fabrics, pricing structure, and sales techniques to get me into trouble, I became a Banana Republic worshiper. Things were going great for a while. I made new friends, felt a sense of superiority, and I was able to apply my know knowledge of retail clothing to other areas that I had never dreamed of doing back when I was a Gap worshipper.
But then something happened. I was introduced to Old Navy. Once I saw how they were able to produce sweaters of slightly lower quality but offer a great reduction in price, I knew that had to be more to retail clothing than I had learned up to this point. Worshiping Old Navy is not as fun as worshiping Banana Republic. There is a lot more uncertainty (Why do the employees wear those headsets, what is up with those strange and colorful commercials…?). But I have found Old Navy to be the most worthy of my worship.
Jamin,
“Evidence of the supernatural IS IMPOSSIBLE!”
Yes, you’ve said this several times now. What Randy was meaning to point out was that it is odd to say, “evidence of the supernatural is impossible,” but then also say, “I don’t believe in God because I haven’t seen enough evidence.” If the evidence is impossible, why do you demand evidence in order to believe?
I agree with you that there cannot be 100% scientific proof for the supernatural (because, like you said, that would mean the supernatural had in fact become natural). But, that doesn’t mean that natural things can’t POINT toward the likelihood of supernatural things. For example, if all of the predictions from the book of Revelation started to happen, would that not be evidence of the book’s truth? It would certainly not prove anything and it would not explain the supernatural, but it would give someone good reason to believe that the prophecies John made were real.
So, in the this blog so far, Randy doesn’t seem to be trying to prove God; he is simply relaying the evidence that he has found (through his physics education and personal studies) for a creator. I believe he is taking these blogs one week at a time for a reason. So far, he has only given evidence that the universe (space, matter, energy, and time) had a beginning, and that the cause of the universe must have been eternal. If you have problems with these observations, let’s debate them. As for the other stuff, let’s put that off until later.
As for Santa, if you actually heard a pitter-patter of reindeer hoofs on your rooftop, perhaps he does exist after all! I never heard that!
I jihad you Old Navy infidels, if it weren't for you and your stupid half off sales, my precious Banana Republic would have even greater collar poppin' market share.
Wait, what's this? A vast conspiracy by Gap Inc? All three are one in the same? The trinity of Gap, Baby Gap, and Gap Kids is part of a greater trinity of Gap, BR, and Old Navy? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
We must break free of this organized retail monopoly. There's only one way out, to the thrift stores gentlemen, it's our only hope!
Kristin wrote:
“For example, if all of the predictions from the book of Revelation started to happen, would that not be evidence of the book’s truth?”
Do you extend this logic to passages that do not bolster your position? For example, the passage I cited before about the Sun and Moon standing still (Joshua 10:13). If science came up with data that supported this happening, would you take this as evidence of the book’s truth? I suspect you would. (Incidentally, evidence of this would shake science to the core, the big bang theory, all laws that govern motion, gravity, relativity, etc. would be in need of major revision)
But as we all know, science has not observed anything that supports the Sun and Moon standing still. In fact, every observation and every bit of data that has ever been collected supports the view that the Sun and Moon never stood still as described in Joshua 10:13. Is this not evidence of the book’s falsity?
I anticipate something about figurative interpretation, allegory, parable… If this is the route you take, you are hereby accused of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If not, I accept that I was off the mark in my anticipation and I look forward to seeing how you can make sense of this.
"he is simply relaying the evidence that he has found (through his physics education and personal studies) for a creator."
It certainly looks like he's shining a flashlight on intelligent gaps and speculating beyond the event horizon. This is a pretty loose interpretation of "evidence". I'm afraid it's going to boil down to faith. In fact, if I replace evidence with faith, the whole argument makes perfect sense.
In regard to revelation. If I claim the sun will come up, and it does indeed come up tomorrow, is this evidence that I reliably foresee future events? Revelation was a set of broad predictions made 2000 years ago with no timeline. Since then there have been 80 generations who saw signs that lead them to believe they were living in the "end times" I've no doubt the world will come to an end, if nothing else the sun will go supernova, but this says no more about the predictive powers of the Bible than my prediction that the sun will come up tomorrow.
I see the logical trap I'm setting and wish to reconcile it here.
I don't believe in the supernatural because I have no reason to do so. My measurable abilities operating in this world are not handicapped in any way by my not worshiping a creator. If they are, I'm striving to up my stats and am open to tangible evidence that believing in x will directly increase my ability to y. If it were gravity that I didn't believe in, there would certainly be drawbacks like jumping off high places.
I understand the slow mythodical buildup, but frankly I could use a syllabus or something to help me understand where this is going. We get "more on Jesus later" and "let's not talk about (the obvious flaws in my argument) now" caveats. When you say "I find the evidence for the reliability of the Bible to be undeniable, and therefore have faith that Hell is a very real place" I find this subject far more interesting than rehashing the blind watchmaker and logical gymnastics that while fun, have been performed endlessly with no real progress.
My concern is, to the non indoctrinated, Skyhook and Steven have pretty much slam dunked each and every point brought up. The only reason I even chimed in is due to the lack of recognition of these repeated thumpings. Everyone is playing nice and that is cool, but if you're going to skip from one subject to the next in a rush to keep some arbitrary schedule I'd like to know.
I'll stick around though, if for nothing else it's like watching a train wreck, you just can't turn away :)
Jamin,
I'm glad that you support our arguments and I'm glad for another voice on Randy's blog (and a little irreverence is always nice, particularly with the retail trinity - "the one corporation exists in three stores and one substance, Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic").
However, I must put forth that although I respect many of Richard Dawkins' (and others') arguments, they do not understand why people respect religion. One doesn't need to respect a religion in of itself. But one should respect a religion because of what it means to its adherents.
Even an ancient tribal religion where someone worships a rock should be respected - not for the validity of the beliefs, but rather for how much it means to the people. It's respect for THEM more than their religion. It's respect and compassion for people and an understanding of the currency, the power of their belief systems.
However, if you believe that a religion makes the world a worse place, and even though I consider myself religion-friendly I agree that it does much of the time, you should put forth your opposition without reservation. Most of us on this blog tend to favor a dispassionate arguing style as it seems more respectful of others, but I suppose the world will always need someone to "mix it up" now and then.
Damn, could I be more condescending? I apologize. Feel free to rip me a new one. I would be entertained. I just want to show that one can be a person of faith and yet argue that faith can not be proven by wholly rational means. In fact, I believe that "proving" faith, by natural means, REDUCES faith. So that's a motivation of mine.
Kristin,
"the cause of the universe must have been eternal"
None of us has conceded this point, but I'm sure you know that! Just a friendly reminder ;)
And to all,
I am thankful that Monday is done. I admit it. Here's to a great Tuesday!
Skyhook,
Excellent.
I am a recent convert to Old Navy. I was there for an hour yesterday, pushing my son around (in his stroller!) and giving my wife some completely ignored (but asked for) opinions on clothes. (she was right)
OK, enough is enough.... right? Not if you are people like us who find entertainment in carrying on and on...
I think we are beginning to outgrow this comment section. I wrote out a big post commenting on the comments and I decided that it is getting difficult to keep up with 37 comments drifting further and further away from the original blog post.
So I decided to post my comment on DiscourseBoard for anybody interested in a little after party type extended discussion.
Again, I am not meaning to steal traffic or steer people away from here (my site does not have any ads). I just figure we all like to discuss and since we have a tendency to drift away from Randy's topics, this way we can continue discussions without getting too far off course.
Steven,
I think I'm beginning to see where the hang-up is here. Week 5 is coupled with Week 4 (the eternal catalyst). So, let's look at the two together:
(First, I will continue to maintain that nothing can come from nothing. The very concept simply doesn't make sense, so keep that in mind as you read below. If you honestly disagree with that premise, I'm afraid we're at an impasse.)
- In Week 4, I stated that the universe could not have formed from nothing (i.e. it is not self-creating) and that, by definition, whatver brought about the universe cannot exist in time (since time is of the universe) and was therefore eternal (again, by defition... just a restatement of "[not] in time").
- In Week 5, I discussed the idea that if some unintelligent catalyst brought about a universe, the universe that was brought into existence would be subject only to the physics inherent in the universe. Reasoning: Something with no intelligence has no "reason" to monkey with the universe long enough to make it more probable that the universe would form in a certain way.
So, I've basically set up an either/or scenario: Either the universe was formed by unintelligent forces (could be natural or supernatural) or it was formed by intelligent design (the assumption being that some powerful designer could manipulate probability inherent in physical processes).
Here's where it gets tricky: IF you were to suppose that the universe was formed only by unintelligent forces, would you presume that any unintelligent catalyst would interfere with quantum physical probabilities and "stack the odds" in favor of galaxy formation? If the answer is yes, I'm curious to hear your thoughts. If the answer is no, the universe is subject to the probability functions associated with physical processes regardless of what unintelligent thing caused its formation in the first place and the question breaks down to: what are the odds of galaxy formation?
The slimmest of odds does not negate the possibilty of natural processes; still, when you watch Lost, do you assume that Hurley is weird for thinking that “the numbers are bad”? When I watch, I think there’s something to them. For my thoughts on the “probability of 1” argument, see the Comments section of last week’s post.
Science = Don't know what lies beyond event horizon
Faith = Jesus or Nothing
(You're not addressing the only reasonable position)
You've established the gap, created a false dichotomy, and are attempting to deduce probabilities from said gap.
You believe something supernatural lies beyond the event horizon. OK, sure, I can go with that. Let's look at something else, say, ALL OF TIME. Since the big bang, since "god" pushed play, since the pink unicorn farted (my myth of choice) have we any evidence of the supernatural?
Lets solve for B
A + B = C
Faith based equation:
A = Absence of knowledge (check)
B = ????????
C = Christ
Science based equation:
A = Absence of knowledge (check)
B = Observation
C = ????????
Week 4 argument
“something from nothing”
I think that pretty much any scenario about the state of the universe before physical laws took shape will “not make sense” in some way. Also, I would argue that you are not providing any explanation for the “something” that is here. If a God or super-alien, etc. put the “something” here, where did he get his materials? If he doesn’t need materials, then how is that different than a quantum fluctuation “blowing up” (like a balloon) this universe? Something from nothing does seem odd, but anything before the universal laws took hold will definitely seem odd to us. God waving his hand or a quantum mutation for no apparent reason are both wholly bizarre.
Week 5 argument
Your point of view still looks backwards to the beginning from an “inevitable” current state. But perhaps our current state was not inevitable. If we rewound time and started again, perhaps humanity would never have developed (so we wouldn’t be here to wonder about it all), or perhaps the strong nuclear force would have been different, but galaxies would have developed anyway because matter would have evolved differently. Or perhaps “matter” would be completely different and whatever did evolve would not be recognizable as “galaxies” to us, but would still be something. We must not look at the universe with a lack of imagination as to what might have been. There are many scenarios/outlooks, the anthropic principle is philosophically sound, the multiverse implied by inflation solves a lot of cosmological “problems”, the idea that things can exist beyond our imagination should be considered, etc.
In your probability arguments, you still ignore the probability of God. You do this by saying that God is the answer. A scientific approach would see God as a bigger question. “How did God get here (or there)? How did he do all this?” If you answer that God is supernatural, so he is not subject to these questions, then we are back to the idea that God cannot be proven, by his nature, since he is supernatural.
I understand that your argument is “following the footprints” back to God. Once again, the God hypothesis is one of many (and I think it deserves to be called a hypothesis alongside others), but it is still gap-worship - plugging in a speculation which leads to bigger questions.
And careful about any Lost spoilers. I am waaaay behind in my viewing.
Skyhook,
I had written a lengthy reply to your omnipotence argument, and I thought I had already posted it, so I apologize for the delay.
I would never attempt to prove omnipotence… it can’t be done. That being said, if reasonable evidence was presented for a being that created the universe and performed supernatural miracles, I don’t want such evidence to be dismissed simply because there is a “logical” flaw with the very idea of omnipotence. You could certainly falsify omnipotence by demonstrating that you could form a universe (even though you may have limitations elsewhere), so I fully comprehend what you’re saying. Saying, however, that a being can never be strong enough to make itself weak is just a funny play on words. I apologize if I gave the impression that I planned to “prove” omnipotence somewhere down the line.
“…might you address some of the preconceived thoughts that a god can exist? Are they any more or less reasonable?”
I don’t think I understand your question. We have spoken of “alternate physics”, “a proto-universe”, multiple universe theory, infinite time, etc. None of these things can be proven not to exist; so, doesn’t that mean that any of these things could exist? In the same way that I could never prove that multiple universe theory is incorrect by saying “it’s a crazy notion and you’re crazy for thinking it,” I don’t believe we can disprove God by saying, “I can set up a problem with no solution; therefore God can’t be.” If we can’t prove non-existence, that leaves the door open for existence. Does it not? And if evidence points to the thing that we can’t prove does not exist, it only serves to strengthen the thought that it does exist.
Jamin,
So, you’ve set this tricky little logic loop up that prohibits arguments for God:
- Supernatural becomes natural if we can find evidence for supernatural.
- Naturalistic science has unexplained “gaps” that remain unfilled unless we find a proof-positive naturalistic explanation for them.
- Naturalistic data may point us to supernatural explanations to fill these “gaps”, but…
- Any such evidence is dismissed as “of the gaps” philosophy.
Nice, neat, and no room for God. Lovely job.
Evidence does not equal truth/explanation. I think that’s where we’re getting hung up. Let’s go back to the court of law example. Evidence is presented on both sides. If a man is innocent and evidence of his guilt is presented, does that mean that the evidence is untrue? No. It just means that the evidence was misleading… the defendant might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak. Sometimes evidence leads to false conclusions (like a wrongful conviction in a court of law) and I would never claim otherwise; most of the time, however, if you have the smoking gun, DNA, etc, a guilty verdict is still the most reasonable conclusion.
I understand your hesitance as you read these posts. I would likely be similarly predisposed to discount evidence for ghosts if it was presented to me. Years ago, I would probably have hurled insults and snide comments at whoever made the ghost claims much as you’re doing here. Years before that, I might have been equally snide to someone proclaiming the existence of God. Still, as you prepare your next zinger, I hope that you will understand that I can’t address every Biblical objection you offer and maintain a linear format. So, we will indeed have to discuss “the obvious flaws in my argument” that don’t accord with the current discussion at a later time.
With regard to Revelation, there is a clearly-defined sequence of events that would be difficult (if not impossible) to ignore. To reword Kristin’s question: If you saw:
1. Two prophets standing at a wall, speaking about God’s judgment who could not be killed,
2. A worldwide earthquake,
3. Water turning into blood,
4. The sun shining at a fraction of its current luminosity causing the earth’s temperature to plummet,
5. etc,
all within a sever-year period, though you could not explain these events with naturalistic physics, you might feel that the evidence pointed to the supernatural. I think she was trying to give an extreme example to say that evidence could point to the supernatural without that evidence having a scientific explanation. The only thing you need to present to combat a superlative such as “impossible” is one possible example (even if you believe that such evidence will never be seen). Be careful with superlatives.
With regards to faith:
“This is a pretty loose interpretation of ‘evidence’. I’m afraid it’s going to boil down to faith.”
As defined, at some point we all exercise our faith. If you’re an atheist, you have faith that there is no God. God’s absence is not fact. Facts are very few. But, you may feel that evidence points to a godless universe.
Einstein’s equations and astronomical observation lend evidence to a universal beginning. Virtually all reputable scientists agree with this notion because the evidence is so strong. This is not, however, fact. Given the strength of the evidence, it is easy to have faith in this assertion.
Steven,
I’m sorry, but it is logically impossible for something to come from nothing. The very definition of “nothing” is “the opposite of something”. God/super-alien/proto-universe would all be eternal and would all be “something”. Period. So far, this is all that has really been asserted. You’re acting as though I’m posting some outlandish idea when I say that the universe cannot come from nothing when everyone from Einstein to Hawking would agree that this simply is not possible. Please try to refrain from being “pre-defensive” (i.e. you know where I am going, so you wish to concede nothing up front). I understand that the idea of “evidence for God” must be extraordinary evidence, but the idea of an eternal catalyst should not be so hotly contested. We’re still a long way from God, I assure you… virtually all non-static universe theories presume that there was something before (ontologically speaking) the universe. This is not a Judeo-Christian philosophy. “Something from nothing” is an unreasonable assertion and one that I know you don’t believe (from other discussions).
Regarding your Week 5 assertions, why would we assume that physical laws would alter themselves? Is this a genuinely reasonable assumption? Your counterargument is basically to assume that the universe would form galaxies no matter what and that physics would change to match this universal “want” to make galaxies. Why don’t we instead “assume” what relativity, COBE, TOCO, BOOMERANG, Maxima, DASI, CBI, etc lead us to assume: that the universe had a beginning, that the physics of the universe has always been the physics of the universe, and that time began with the universe? We can speculate otherwise, sure; but, is it reasonable to abandon established theory and corroborated observation when we make such suggestions? Or is it more reasonable to try to fit theory to relativity / observations?
And, as to Lost, all of the main characters die in Season 4, only to be replaced by previously-unknown minor characters.
All,
Of course supernatural is in the gaps!
No gaps = no supernatural
Scientific explanation for supernatural = natural
Sticking every argument with an “of the gaps” label does nothing to diminish the evidence.
…all of your arguments are just “naturalistic, could-be” arguments (attempt at humor… not ridicule).
I came across this article published in Philo, Why Steven Hawking's Cosmology Precludes a Creator,
by Quentin Smith .
It argues at length about the unconditional probability of the existence of a universe and addresses several criticisms.
I have not had a chance to give this article the time it deserves, but I plan to spend some time on it this evening. I thought it seemed quite relevant to the topic at hand. Enjoy.
Sorry, I posted some stuff that was too lazy, so erased them both and re-wrote this. Looking forward to Week 7!
"I’m sorry, but it is logically impossible for something to come from nothing"
Absolutely true. I would not argue otherwise. But what is logic? Forgive a brief re-tread back to week 1, but if there are NO physical laws in place at the Big Bang, then isn't the idea of "logic" impossible? Aren't we just projecting ideas from our current state back to a time when none of this existed? It’s tough to use physics to argue propositions about a time when physics didn’t exist. But in the interest of your objectives, I will try to stop this line of reasoning, as it is, admittedly, a dead end. (though it sort of is my thesis isn't it? for us to "own up" to faith)
As to galaxy formation, I am only in a position to argue philosophically. I think your view of it seems to flip cause and effect (I'm ignoring the anthropic principle). You assume that we must have galaxies so essentially THEY are the cause for the laws of the universe. It’s the other way around. If the laws were different, who can really tell what would have happened? We only have our universe to observe, so it’s tough to speculate. Actually, it’s easy to speculate (as you rightly accuse me of doing all the time), but we can’t observe any other universes. Did life adapt to physics or was physics “fine-tuned” to support life? I don’t know.
BTW, Randy I think "God of the gaps" is fine. I agree with you. But when we fill in some of those gaps with more knowledge it shouldn't threaten our ideas of God, it should only refine our ideas of God. A truly 3rd person objective understanding of the universe is impossible for us (we're a part of the universe). Faith always plays a role.
“Stephen Jay Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the benefit of our kind of life to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns.”
Hey Randy,
I just wanted to say that I just read your replies to Jamin and Skyhook and it's good stuff. I don't have any problem with arguments for the "plausibility" for God. I just argue with someone when they dismiss atheists as having a less reasonable belief system than religious folks. I also argue with atheists who are too convinced of their own perceptions.
Skyhook,
I'm 4 pages in and so far I understand... well... the title. I hope you'll excuse a delayed response.
Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough when I said that I hated quantum mechanics... the hatred is really more for wave functions. Psi and I have had a rocky relationship.
Randy,
First, as mentioned above, I am neither a theist who claims there is a god, or an atheist who claims there is no god. Both have taken a leap of faith. Personally, I've no problem with your faith in a creator. I don't have a problem with a personal god just as I don't have a problem with an imaginary friend. It's your life, decorate it how you wish, just understand that some can't see your imaginary friend. The problem (for me) lies is when this faith/delusion/non empirically supported leap of faith creeps in to government, science, foreign policy, education ect. Take the revelations example. If any of these supernatural things occur, I will be the first to sing the praises of Jesus. In fact, I want nothing more than to see a prophet who can not be killed, water turn to blood, or the sun going dim, or any of the other wild claims presented in the Bible. Honestly, to see any of these would blow my mind. I guess this is the difference between who I am and who you want me to be. I'm not unreasonably rigid, I just have no need for faith. There are enough amazing things that are actually happening in the here and now to fill up my 100 years on this planet, I've no need to expand my criteria for reality to include pixies, warewolves, vampires, angels, demons, karma, dogma, or leprochans. I read fiction on occasion, but I'll admit I probably spend most my time in the non-fiction section. I guess the point is, your assertion that "we all take things on faith" is refutable, as I am refuting it right now provides "evidence" of its refutability ;)
Your claim: Naturalistic data may point us to supernatural explanations to fill these “gaps”, but…
My understanding: The LACK OF naturalistic data MIGHT BE USED TO point to supernatural explanations.
In regard to evidence...
You got me, I'm arguing with a physicist about evidence. Silly me, of course we're using evidence in its broadest sense. Why would I think otherwise? Your argument does make much more sense when I take my science cap off and switch over to lawyer mode. When hearsay and expert opinion are accepted as "evidence" then yes, even reasonable faith can make sense.
What's the difference between a physicist and a defense attorney?
A physicist is bound by the scientific method and scientific evidence while a defense attorney is bound by a preconceived conclusion.
You can see where a guy could get confused.
Let me try another approach with respect to preconceived thoughts that omnipotence or gods or supernatural can exist. The problem I have is that these can never be reached by logic and reason while maintaining a scientific mindset. The thing about a scientific hypothesis is that it must be testable.
If a physicist came across a man that claimed he could lift any and every amount of weight, the physicist could not start at the top and test if this man can lift an infinite amount of weight and work down from there. The physicist would begin at the bottom with a 10 pound weight and ask if this man can lift it. Then 20 lbs., 50 lbs., 100 lbs., 500…. 100,000….. At no point would the physicist ever conclude that this man can lift an infinite amount of weight. He may speculate that this is the case, but his tools of science, logic, and reason are not what his speculation is based on. These tools can only identify how much he can lift up to a point, and not beyond.
*
The scientist wants to avoid a Type I error (or alpha error). A Type I error is a case of rejecting the null hypothesis when it should have been accepted. In this example, the null hypothesis is “this man cannot lift any and every amount of weight.” After the man lifts, say, the 10^6 lb. weight, if the physicist were to reject the null and state that this man can lift any and every amount of weight, he would be at risk of committing a Type I error. Because +1 lb. can always be added and there is no way of telling if this man will meet his limit eventually, thus giving an infinitely large error margin. This is not acceptable.
*
The physicist would be better off using the methods of his discipline and framing a series of null hypotheses such as “this man cannot lift W1, W2, W3,…Wn” and working his way from the bottom up. His conclusion might be something along the lines of, “Due to practical constraints, we were unable to determine the maximum amount of weight this man can lift. However, we did confirm that he is very strong and he successfully lifted x amount of weight.”
I concede your point that just because there may be a logical flaw that does not preclude possibility (after all, anything is possible). The point I wish to make here is that using the principles set forth at the beginning of this blog, one can never reach an open ended proposition because of the amount of error he must take on. This applies to all arguments from the gap. The physicist works from the bottom up to the gap. Not starting at a position in the gap, because it is possible, and then looking for a way to justify this position in the gap.
Hey buddy! Long time listener, first time caller...and above all, staunch anti religious person. Kidding, you know I love you all.
First off, I'd like to say that I miss my former roomie a LOT, and your blog is very good! I've only had the time to look at the first post (meaning this one, so...the last post?) but I love the concept! You are a brave man! Second off: without question #2, the movie "Dogma" by Kevin Smith would not have been as funny...
...to recap the movie, two angels, banned from heaven found a loophole in catholic law that allowed them to get back into heaven proving God to be flawed thus ending everything...life...universe...time...if you know the movie, raise your hand.
I have nothing to add of any intellectual value to your stuff...just wanted to drop a line letting you know I care!
--Kyle
Post a Comment