Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lobstrosity · 03-10-2003, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor
The flaw is revealed by these two facts:

1) We have been given no reason to believe that infinite causes extend to the supernatural.

2) God is not defined as an "event".

Our understanding of cause-and-effect is based on our observance of physical law as they apply to physical events. In nearly every case of a *physical* event, we always see that the cause is separate and distinct from the effect. This is a physical principle. An action is almost always separate and distinct from the reaction.

First and foremost, you yourself admit that not every physical event has a cause. Therefore, to require that the origin of the universe must have required a cause is fallacious. It goes against clear evidence that physics doesn't have to work that way. The decay of an isotope doesn't have a cause. Similarly, the spawn of the universe needn't have a cause. Maybe it did and maybe it didn't. Logical support doesn't exist for anything more when you concede we know nothing about the physics that might have spawned creation. All we have is speculation that the universe originated in the quantum domain (i.e. it was incredibly small and thus dominated by quantum physics) where the notions of cause and effect lose meaning. Your argument fails to hold water in this regard.

Quote:

As theists, we simply extend this well-established principle to the origin of the universe itself. The cause of the universe was most likely SEPARATE and DISTINCT from the universe (the effect). The supernatural is separate and distinct from the natural. Since the universe is everything that is natural/physical, theists deduce that the cause of the universe was most likely *supernatural*. (separate and distinct)

Yes, this is the fallacy I was speaking of earlier. Your application of one macroscopic approximation of physics to the origin of the universe is not valid. There is no "most likely" that can be derived from such an act.

Quote:

However, once you get to the concept of the supernatural, we have no reason to think that the physical laws of cause and effect relating to physical EVENTS would apply to the supernatural realm, or a supernatural BEING. What your argument of infinite causation does, is it fallaciously applies causal laws of physical events to a supernatural BEING. If I defined God as physical, your causal argument would hold water. If I defined God as an event, your causal argument would hold water. But since I defined God as neither phyiscal, nor as an EVENT, your argument does not hold water.

You are sidestepping the key issue here, Refractor. I don't care about "events" and I don't care about "causes." That has nothing to do with my argument, though that seems to be the key to your rebuttal. What I care about is the need for an intelligent designer. You look around the universe and see the need for intelligent design without any justification for the claim. Nothing in the natural world requires intelligent design, yet you postulate it anyway. Therefore, why is it not valid to likewise postulate intelligent design in the supernatural world?

Lobstrosity · 03-10-2003, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor
1) Virtually all observed physical events have a cause.
2) Virtually all observed physical events have a cause that is separate and distinct from the event.
3) Therefore, for any given physical event, it most likely had a cause that was separate and distinct from the event.
4) The origin of the universe is a physical event.
5) Therefore, the origin of the universe most likely had a cause that was separate and distinct from the universe.

I hope this helps clarify my position on the issue of probability.

This is faulty logic, though. Number 2 should read "virtually all observed physical events have a physical cause that is separate and distinct from the event and is generated within the physical universe." We have absolutely no evidence of causes stemming from the "supernatural." That isn't even a valid option to consider if your goal is to use established observations to derive probabilistic explanations. Number 5 would only follow if we were allowed to consider supernatural causes, but nothing in our experience lets us do that. Your whole argument about observations and likelihoods crumbles here.

Lobstrosity · 03-10-2003, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor
Sorry Mageth, but your attempted rebuttal is the only thing that has failed. I said we don't know when the LAWS of physics came into existence. You can have physics without law. The laws of physics are simply a forulation that we use to describe the behavior of matter/energy. Its possible for matter/energy to exist without it behaving by an ordered (law).

Furthermore, I am somewhat confused with the intention of your psuedo counter-argument. If you believe that the universe wasn't a physical event, then what kind of event do you believe it was? A non-physical event? A supernatural event? Or...?

The argument is that we don't know when the current laws of physics we observe today came into effect. Specifically, we know nothing about the physics of creation. No one does. No empirical data tells us anything about these creation laws. You assume said physics was intelligently molded and controlled by an intelligent supernatural entity. I maintain that we have just as much evidence (i.e. none) that these laws were just as blind as the current laws of physics we observe around us today. The problem is that there's no reason to assume that the physical laws of creation have anything to do with the physics around us now. That physics might not require effects to have causes. Who knows? Basically, your logic argument has no merrit because it makes a whole host of unsubstantiated assumptions (see my post above for some examples that go beyond what I said here).

Fiach · 03-10-2003, 10:55 PM

Refractor:

Regarding unobserved origin events of 15 billion years go - all we have is bare assertions.

If you disregard the Hubble findings and the mathematics that place the origin at 13 point something Billion years ago.

We have no direct knowledge, no direct evidence, no direct observers, no direct data, or proof. The origin of the universe is unobservable, untestable, and unrepeatable.

It is observable and directly so. We are able to see 13 billion years back in time at the formation of the early gas clouds and later galaxies. It is direct data, admittedly technical and requiring some ease with higher math. It is not something that you can hold in your hands like a trilobite fossil.

Therefore, all we are left with is bare assertions about what we "think" may have happened.

I find the Hubble's evidence the most likely explanation yet, not based on assumption but on hard data and exquisite mathemtatics.

I base my assertion of an Intelligent Designer on the evidence of intelligent design that is found in the universe. To say design = designer is a logical induction that is well-supported by statistical probability.

What you miss is that most of the universe is in disorder. Most of it is dark matter and dark energy that is not orderly. When the early universe of diffuse high energy began to coalesce into hot pockets or clouds condensing to form clouds, it was deceptively appearing to be orderly, but it was in fact rather random with a great deal of quantum components. Galaxies sometimes do not form but break into irregular lumpy nebulous clouds. The biggest example against Intelligent design is as follows.

The fact of evolution is not in doubt. The argument is how it occurred. Darwinism proposes that small modifications scattered over 530 million years resulted in new forms adapting to environmental changes. Climate changes led to new forms and the extinction of old ones. But thousands or millions of mutations would be lethal or non-adaptive for every one that succeeds. That hardly sounds like an intelligent designer.

In Intelligent Design, Dr. Behe proposes that cellular machinery, such as rotary flagella are just too complex to explain by natural mechanisms. They require a designer. �I can�t explain it so a God must have done it.� There are other purely natural mechanisms to explain evolution apart from simple gradualism versus an intelligent design. Dr. Gould proposed Punctuated Equilibrium. Other mechanisms include viral and bacterial DNA insertions, fragility of nucleotide bonds causing mutations, and recently discovered genetic mechanisms. I prefer to group these all together with graduated Darwinian changes as �Naturalistic Evolution.� I have no need to invent a designer. Evidence based properties of matter and energy explain evolution without the need of an intelligent design hypothesis.

I.D.is more of an intuitive and emotional view without hard evidence. Behe�s evidence is his awe at the complexity of cells. The fossil record, the Cambrian Explosion, the Permian Extinction and Explosion, and Cretaceous Extinction with the Tertiary Explosion show both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.

Each resulted from big environmental challenges. I.D. is contradicted by the many failures, extinctions, and malformations suggesting a natural process with rare successes and many failures. I.D. proponents must explain a designer who makes so so many mistakes. That discards the primitive notion of an omnipotent designer. This designer�s errors far outnumber its successes. Human babies are occasionally born with vestigial tails, and rarely a human baby has a crustacean exoskelton, the gene for which we still carry from the Cambrian. We have spinal columns that seem best �designed� for quadrupeds. Random selection better explains the errors and failed experiments.

I.D. is not based on evidence but on emotional awe at complex forms. Humans need answers even if they are wrong. I.D. is no more science than the Magical Creation in the Bible. It belongs in the class on comparative mythology, not in science class.

Fiach

Shadowy Man · 03-11-2003, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor
What are you suggesting? That the origin of the universe was a supernatural event? if it wasn't a physical event, what was it?

No. I'm suggesting that there was no origin of the universe. I'm suggesting that it has always been here, in one form or another, and thus there's no origin to speak of as either a natural or supernatural event.

Jobar · 03-11-2003, 08:31 AM

A few rather parenthetical observations here. Fiach, your comments on ID are topical and relevant, but if you want to pursue that path I suggest E/C, because of the available expertise there. (Although I mod that forum too, I make no bones that I am not the acknowledged expert that so many of the E/C regulars are.)

Refractor, when a competent and well-spoken apologist for theism comes here, they do tend to get mobbed- and no matter how polite the mob may be, it's hard to keep up with the exchanges. So you do exactly what you said- answer the questions you feel are most relevant. If someone has a question they feel is important, and repeats it, please try to address it in your own time. I adjure all our infidel posters to remember this, and be patient; the same thing happens to us if we go to Christian boards, and often the mobbing is far, far less than polite. Refractor has addressed us capably and politely (save for one or two comments at the beginning, which inspired my cautionary remarks); we should continue to return the favor, even if he doesn't directly and completely address each of us. (So far, this conversation has been of very high quality all around!)

Many of us here have stated specifically that we are agnostic about a deistic god, Refractor. The trend of this conversation towards the actual moment of origin explains why- since we know nothing about the actual creation event (if creation is the correct word) we are unable to say yea or nay to the possibility that it was in some way designed or induced. But neither can you! So agnosticism is the correct stance- we have no knowledge. (Belief is the problem here, and it's perhaps impossible to justify gut feelings when no evidence pro or con is available.)

So- might I suggest that we move away from discussing the origin of the universe, and explore the reasons you believe in a God for whom you have no direct evidence? I've been fascinated by your listed belief in your profile- "agnostic theist (Christian)"- and would like to find out just why you choose to add the 'Christian' there.

(This is not to imply in the least that you are required to do that- I make that suggestion without my 'mod hat' on. If you feel that you have more to say concerning origins, please do!)

Celsus · 03-11-2003, 10:01 AM

Refractor,

I'd like to state that you've conducted well in this thread. If you're interested, and perhaps to ease the difficulties in replying to everyone, I wouldn't mind taking you up on a debate that you offered in the Welcome Forum (I know I'm joining late). I'd be happy to take up any of the topics that have been mentioned in this thread over on TheologyWeb. We managed to cover quite a lot of ground, even though the topic was supposed to be specifically on evidentiary arguments for the resurrection. Aside from that, I suppose I could muster an Evolution/Creation or Old Testament dating & authorship debate if you like. Are you game?

Joel

JBLurking · 03-11-2003, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Many of us here have stated specifically that we are agnostic about a deistic god, Refractor. The trend of this conversation towards the actual moment of origin explains why- since we know nothing about the actual creation event (if creation is the correct word) we are unable to say yea or nay to the possibility that it was in some way designed or induced. But neither can you! So agnosticism is the correct stance- we have no knowledge. (Belief is the problem here, and it's perhaps impossible to justify gut feelings when no evidence pro or con is available.) ...Jobar

Well said Jobar, even if your not a real atheist. I'm an atheist on the biblical god, but who has the answer for sure on any god? Not me.

JB

Jobar · 03-12-2003, 06:37 AM

Well said Jobar, even if your not a real atheist. I'm an atheist on the biblical god, but who has the answer for sure on any god? Not me.

Ahhh, the "no true atheist" fallacy!

Actually, I am a strong atheist with respect to the Christian pantheon. I list myself in my profile as an atheist/pantheist- but I have thought about changing the 'pantheist' part to 'Taoist' as it leaves off the theistic connotations of pantheist. What I do indeed believe in is impersonal; and more and more, I am coming to the opinion that 'theos' or 'god' should be used exclusively for an entity separate from the universe.

Mageth · 03-12-2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Refractor
Sorry Mageth, but your attempted rebuttal is the only thing that has failed. I said we don't know when the LAWS of physics came into existence.

Lobstrosity answered this better than I can, but I'll add:

Your propositions 1-3 deal with this universe and its physical laws - and your usage of the term "physical event" and the assertions 1-3 about physical events (if valid) are mandated by and valid only in regards to the laws of physics within this universe. Your statement:

The fact is, we have no idea when the laws of physics came into existence, or what the initial state of the universe was actually like prior to 10^ -42 seconds planck time.

separates what I'll label the "before" from the "after", and excludes you from extending your usage of "physical event" in this argument to the "before". Therefore, the assertion 4) "The origin of the universe is a physical event" is invalid in this argument. As Lobosity indicated, your conclusion 5) thus fails, as it fallaciously equates the origin event of the "before" with physical events in the "after".

You can have physics without law. The laws of physics are simply a forulation that we use to describe the behavior of matter/energy.

Can you? Physics is generally defined as the scientific study of the interactions of matter and energy. If a system was truly without law there would be, what, chaos, or a static, cold state, perhaps, but I don't think there'd be much physics going on.

Note, however, that one could probably define some sort of a set of physical laws to describe any system: chaotic, static, or whatever.

Its possible for matter/energy to exist without it behaving by an ordered (law).

Perhaps, but in such a universe could there be something one could truly describe as a "physical event"? Without some sort of law, how would one recognize, and label, a physical event? (Keep in mind that, in such a lawless universe, cause and effect would be meaningless - without laws, one could not link any cause with any effect).

And I'm curious, what's an "unordered law"?

Furthermore, I am somewhat confused with the intention of your psuedo counter-argument.

That much is obvious.

(sorry, couldn't resist).

If you believe that the universe wasn't a physical event, then what kind of event do you believe it was? A non-physical event? A supernatural event? Or...?

I never said I believe that the [beginning of the] universe wasn't a physical event (if there was a "beginning"). Actually, I don't really hold any belief concering the beginning of the universe. My answer: I don't know what the event was, or even if there was something one could label an event. However, I pretty much rule out the supernatural as I assume you're using it, as I lack belief in the supernatural.

03-10-2003, 10:55 PM	#104
Fiach Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 602	To Refractor Refractor: Regarding unobserved origin events of 15 billion years go - all we have is bare assertions. If you disregard the Hubble findings and the mathematics that place the origin at 13 point something Billion years ago. We have no direct knowledge, no direct evidence, no direct observers, no direct data, or proof. The origin of the universe is unobservable, untestable, and unrepeatable. It is observable and directly so. We are able to see 13 billion years back in time at the formation of the early gas clouds and later galaxies. It is direct data, admittedly technical and requiring some ease with higher math. It is not something that you can hold in your hands like a trilobite fossil. Therefore, all we are left with is bare assertions about what we "think" may have happened. I find the Hubble's evidence the most likely explanation yet, not based on assumption but on hard data and exquisite mathemtatics. I base my assertion of an Intelligent Designer on the evidence of intelligent design that is found in the universe. To say design = designer is a logical induction that is well-supported by statistical probability. What you miss is that most of the universe is in disorder. Most of it is dark matter and dark energy that is not orderly. When the early universe of diffuse high energy began to coalesce into hot pockets or clouds condensing to form clouds, it was deceptively appearing to be orderly, but it was in fact rather random with a great deal of quantum components. Galaxies sometimes do not form but break into irregular lumpy nebulous clouds. The biggest example against Intelligent design is as follows. The fact of evolution is not in doubt. The argument is how it occurred. Darwinism proposes that small modifications scattered over 530 million years resulted in new forms adapting to environmental changes. Climate changes led to new forms and the extinction of old ones. But thousands or millions of mutations would be lethal or non-adaptive for every one that succeeds. That hardly sounds like an intelligent designer. In Intelligent Design, Dr. Behe proposes that cellular machinery, such as rotary flagella are just too complex to explain by natural mechanisms. They require a designer. �I can�t explain it so a God must have done it.� There are other purely natural mechanisms to explain evolution apart from simple gradualism versus an intelligent design. Dr. Gould proposed Punctuated Equilibrium. Other mechanisms include viral and bacterial DNA insertions, fragility of nucleotide bonds causing mutations, and recently discovered genetic mechanisms. I prefer to group these all together with graduated Darwinian changes as �Naturalistic Evolution.� I have no need to invent a designer. Evidence based properties of matter and energy explain evolution without the need of an intelligent design hypothesis. I.D.is more of an intuitive and emotional view without hard evidence. Behe�s evidence is his awe at the complexity of cells. The fossil record, the Cambrian Explosion, the Permian Extinction and Explosion, and Cretaceous Extinction with the Tertiary Explosion show both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Each resulted from big environmental challenges. I.D. is contradicted by the many failures, extinctions, and malformations suggesting a natural process with rare successes and many failures. I.D. proponents must explain a designer who makes so so many mistakes. That discards the primitive notion of an omnipotent designer. This designer�s errors far outnumber its successes. Human babies are occasionally born with vestigial tails, and rarely a human baby has a crustacean exoskelton, the gene for which we still carry from the Cambrian. We have spinal columns that seem best �designed� for quadrupeds. Random selection better explains the errors and failed experiments. I.D. is not based on evidence but on emotional awe at complex forms. Humans need answers even if they are wrong. I.D. is no more science than the Magical Creation in the Bible. It belongs in the class on comparative mythology, not in science class. Fiach

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2003, 08:31 AM	#106
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	A few rather parenthetical observations here. Fiach, your comments on ID are topical and relevant, but if you want to pursue that path I suggest E/C, because of the available expertise there. (Although I mod that forum too, I make no bones that I am not the acknowledged expert that so many of the E/C regulars are.) Refractor, when a competent and well-spoken apologist for theism comes here, they do tend to get mobbed- and no matter how polite the mob may be, it's hard to keep up with the exchanges. So you do exactly what you said- answer the questions you feel are most relevant. If someone has a question they feel is important, and repeats it, please try to address it in your own time. I adjure all our infidel posters to remember this, and be patient; the same thing happens to us if we go to Christian boards, and often the mobbing is far, far less than polite. Refractor has addressed us capably and politely (save for one or two comments at the beginning, which inspired my cautionary remarks); we should continue to return the favor, even if he doesn't directly and completely address each of us. (So far, this conversation has been of very high quality all around!) Many of us here have stated specifically that we are agnostic about a deistic god, Refractor. The trend of this conversation towards the actual moment of origin explains why- since we know nothing about the actual creation event (if creation is the correct word) we are unable to say yea or nay to the possibility that it was in some way designed or induced. But neither can you! So agnosticism is the correct stance- we have no knowledge. (Belief is the problem here, and it's perhaps impossible to justify gut feelings when no evidence pro or con is available.) So- might I suggest that we move away from discussing the origin of the universe, and explore the reasons you believe in a God for whom you have no direct evidence? I've been fascinated by your listed belief in your profile- "agnostic theist (Christian)"- and would like to find out just why you choose to add the 'Christian' there. (This is not to imply in the least that you are required to do that- I make that suggestion without my 'mod hat' on. If you feel that you have more to say concerning origins, please do!)

03-11-2003, 10:01 AM	#107
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Refractor, I'd like to state that you've conducted well in this thread. If you're interested, and perhaps to ease the difficulties in replying to everyone, I wouldn't mind taking you up on a debate that you offered in the Welcome Forum (I know I'm joining late). I'd be happy to take up any of the topics that have been mentioned in this thread over on TheologyWeb. We managed to cover quite a lot of ground, even though the topic was supposed to be specifically on evidentiary arguments for the resurrection. Aside from that, I suppose I could muster an Evolution/Creation or Old Testament dating & authorship debate if you like. Are you game? Joel

03-12-2003, 06:37 AM	#109
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Well said Jobar, even if your not a real atheist. I'm an atheist on the biblical god, but who has the answer for sure on any god? Not me. Ahhh, the "no true atheist" fallacy! Actually, I am a strong atheist with respect to the Christian pantheon. I list myself in my profile as an atheist/pantheist- but I have thought about changing the 'pantheist' part to 'Taoist' as it leaves off the theistic connotations of pantheist. What I do indeed believe in is impersonal; and more and more, I am coming to the opinion that 'theos' or 'god' should be used exclusively for an entity separate from the universe.

03-12-2003, 08:15 AM	#110
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Refractor Sorry Mageth, but your attempted rebuttal is the only thing that has failed. I said we don't know when the LAWS of physics came into existence. Lobstrosity answered this better than I can, but I'll add: Your propositions 1-3 deal with this universe and its physical laws - and your usage of the term "physical event" and the assertions 1-3 about physical events (if valid) are mandated by and valid only in regards to the laws of physics within this universe. Your statement: The fact is, we have no idea when the laws of physics came into existence, or what the initial state of the universe was actually like prior to 10^ -42 seconds planck time. separates what I'll label the "before" from the "after", and excludes you from extending your usage of "physical event" in this argument to the "before". Therefore, the assertion 4) "The origin of the universe is a physical event" is invalid in this argument. As Lobosity indicated, your conclusion 5) thus fails, as it fallaciously equates the origin event of the "before" with physical events in the "after". You can have physics without law. The laws of physics are simply a forulation that we use to describe the behavior of matter/energy. Can you? Physics is generally defined as the scientific study of the interactions of matter and energy. If a system was truly without law there would be, what, chaos, or a static, cold state, perhaps, but I don't think there'd be much physics going on. Note, however, that one could probably define some sort of a set of physical laws to describe any system: chaotic, static, or whatever. Its possible for matter/energy to exist without it behaving by an ordered (law). Perhaps, but in such a universe could there be something one could truly describe as a "physical event"? Without some sort of law, how would one recognize, and label, a physical event? (Keep in mind that, in such a lawless universe, cause and effect would be meaningless - without laws, one could not link any cause with any effect). And I'm curious, what's an "unordered law"? Furthermore, I am somewhat confused with the intention of your psuedo counter-argument. That much is obvious. (sorry, couldn't resist). If you believe that the universe wasn't a physical event, then what kind of event do you believe it was? A non-physical event? A supernatural event? Or...? I never said I believe that the [beginning of the] universe wasn't a physical event (if there was a "beginning"). Actually, I don't really hold any belief concering the beginning of the universe. My answer: I don't know what the event was, or even if there was something one could label an event. However, I pretty much rule out the supernatural as I assume you're using it, as I lack belief in the supernatural.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.