Starboy

Greetings Athanasius,

Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions. I am still trying to understand your use of the word natural. If the universe and humans are natural then why is an ID necessary?

Would the universe exist without an ID? If the answer were yes would it be as it is today?

Your answer to this question is not clear to me. Could you elaborate?
What is an accurate description of reality? How would you know if you ever had one? Why would truth be an accurate description? If truth == reality and if truth never changes then why would reality ever change?

I still do not understand your distinction between the universe and the exo-universe.

If the exo-universe can be observed then what distinguish it from the universe?

Starboy

ps418

Do you really believe these types of inferences are comparable? I sure don't. Of course, we cannot SEE a black hole. We can't see electrons either. But we know that small but supermassive, non-luminous, stellar objects exist because we can observe their gravitational effects on surrounding matter. We can ever infer their location in space. This is very different from inferring the existence of an "exo-universal" thing from observations of the universe.

Athanasius

Starboy: Please undestand that I am divorcing the word "natural" entirely from metaphysical naturalism when I use it. I am not at all implying that natural things must have come into existence on their own when I use this term. Hopefully that will make my meaning clearer to you. By natural, I refer only to those things which are real in our universe.

We can speak of truth on several different levels, each of which builds on the other: (1)reality, (2)accurate symbolic representations of reality, (3) accurate reasoning from those representations.

When we combine number 3 with hypothetical assumptions, we have speculative reasoning, which may be in accord with reality, and therefore true, if it our assumptions are true. A scientific hypothesis may involve these dynamics.

I'm not saying that it can be observed, only that the effects of it may be observed.

It is only different if an exo-universal thing does not, or has not effected our universe. If it has, then existance of the exo-universal can be inferred from these effects. Time, for instance, cannot be visibly seen, but we know that it exists because we observe it's effects everyday. Have you ever tried to define time without using an effect of it in your definition? I have not been able to do this. Perhaps this is because time is something external to matter which has an effect on it. Gravitational time dialation is evidence that the two do inter-relate in some way. Likewise, to what extent does the exo-universal influence the natural? Perhaps much more than we presently know, and we may learn more as our observations, and the inferences which we gain from them, increase.

Bubba

O.K. Athanasius, what effects do you think are the direct result of a creator? Why do you think so? So far you've discussed the possibility of such a being but have not presented us with a reason that the evidence would suggests we should look to such a being as the creater of the universe.

Bubba

Starboy

Hello Athanasius,

I think I have a better understanding of your use of the word natural. I am still not clear on the words – real, universe and exo-universe.

That is probably a good part of my confusion. When I and IMHO most scientists use the word “natural” they mean it in the sense of MN (metaphysical naturalism). If you intend to have this conversation again with a scientist, perhaps you should consider using another word or make your distinctive use clear.
Since scientists observe the natural in the sense of MN, how do you propose that they observe the natural in the sense you are talking about? How would you observe something coming into existence not “on their own”? How would you know the difference? How do you know that is not how things come into existence now?

Your explanation of an accurate description of reality would be insufficient for a scientist. There is only one way that a scientist can determine if they have an accurate description of reality and that is by experiment and observation.
A scientist would say that if it can be observed or deduced from experiment then it is real and it is natural. If a scientist could conduct an experiment that would reveal properties of the exo-universe then they would also say that what was revealed was both real and natural. The exo-universe would be indistinguishable from the universe.

I have another question for you. Is {a description of reality} == {reality}?

What is the difference between the exo-universe and the universe if their effects can both be observed?

Would you agree that if the exo-universe could not be observed then it could not be studied by science?

I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Can you make your intent clear?

Starboy

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Athanasius

Hi Bubba,

Obviously, I think such effects may exist, but discussing the possibilities anymore than I already have is really going beyond my intentions, and the time that I have at my disposal right now. As a science layman with an interest in the design/evolution debate, I wanted to explore a possible theoretical framework for ID under “hostile” scrutiny, and hoped that we would both enjoy the dialogue. What you are asking for would be the next step, but I must leave the actual execution of these ideas, if they have any validity, to those who are more qualified than I. I have enjoyed this dialogue and benefited from it, and thank each of you for that.

scigirl

Thank you for posting here, and for being very courteous, and especially for making us think!

Good luck to you, and maybe we'll see you around from time to time. Never stop questioning - and learning.

scigirl

Xyzzy

Starboy,

My definition of supernatural is that body of claimed events and forces which are outside of known physics.

This includes psychic powers, remote viewing, telekenesis, spoon bending, telepathy, magical ressurection, the miraculous forces necessary for instantaneous creation, a global flood, etc.

Your assumption is that if these phenoma a "testable", they are therefore "natural". But there is no reason why these forces, whatever they might be, be explainable as natural phenomema. They "could" be testable, repeatable, and purely outside of natural material science (as their proponents continuously claim).

Again, science doesn't dismiss these phenomena because they are "magical" or non-natural., non-material.. science dismisses them because it finds absolutely no evidence for them whatsoever.

To ascribe to science a materialistic bias is a mistake. Bring us some repeatable empirical evidence of your nutty miraculous "non-materialistic" phenomena. I'm sure most science would be incredibly delighted to have a reliable method to talk directly to God (and record his voice and conversation), move mountains with telekenesis, telepathy, pyramid power, etc. etc. They're waiting for the supernaturalists to put their money where their mouth is and deliver the goods.

Stephen T-B

If science were to prove the existence of god, god would become as much a part of the physical universe as black holes, stars, planets, rocks and trees.
The question therefore, is not: could science handle that?
The question is: Could theists handle it?
They would have to think through the consequences of an entity which they had worshiped and venerated turning out to be something with properties which can be scientifically explored. and understood.
They might find themselves in the same situation as that of a sun worshipper who had thought the sun was a god and then found out it is - well, whatever the sun is.
What would happen to religion if robbed of its mysteries?

Starboy

Xyzzy,

What is your definition of natural?

Starboy

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>