|
Respect
Feb 11, 2005 17:54:26 GMT -5
Post by bobarian on Feb 11, 2005 17:54:26 GMT -5
Electron -
I think we are getting somewhere.
Your responses:
My definition of supernatural is "cute." That doesn't really matter - I am merely pointing out the definition of the word and why it doesn't apply to science. If you want to prove that the supernatural does not exist, then take the Naturalist position and argue that everything has a natural cause.
Kind of hard to do, considering then that everything is reduced to mere atoms.
Physical naturalism is a theory that has developed recently as Western civilization has grown more and more proud of its scientific achievements. All that we have really managed to is decipher processes that were occuring regardless of whether we knew them or not. Science is entirely a descriptive process - it explains the way it works, but it does not explain why it is the way it is. Unless you can explain the second, the first doesn't really matter.
You use the analogy of string theory to answer my question about gravity. String theory is merely a descriptive attempt. My question still applies - "Why is gravity then composed of strings? Why are they strings and not cubes?" Natural science is merely descriptive and since it is based on experimental observation is limited as such. It was never meant to be more - to overstep on the realms of philosophy and religion.
You dropped my analysis on how religion still falls under the realm of objective thought. Your "leprechaun" analogy doesn't apply because we are not talking about leprechauns, but religions. A religion is something that by nature has to have some contact with man - otherwise it is not a religion. Thus we can measure a religion by its physical manifestations and its logical consistency (which is what I brought up in my first post) to tell if it is truthful or not. Philosophers of religion (such as Ravi Zacharias http://www.rzim.org) spend their lives looking into this issue.
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 12, 2005 20:13:38 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Feb 12, 2005 20:13:38 GMT -5
Thus we can measure a religion by its physical manifestations and its logical consistency (which is what I brought up in my first post) to tell if it is truthful or not. Where's the formal logical proof of religion then? I don't mean this 'incompleteness' stuff that seems to be popular with Christians that don't understand logic, but a formal proof of it.
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 13, 2005 7:52:34 GMT -5
Post by Electron on Feb 13, 2005 7:52:34 GMT -5
Electron - I think we are getting somewhere. Your responses: My definition of supernatural is "cute." That doesn't really matter - I am merely pointing out the definition of the word and why it doesn't apply to science. If you want to prove that the supernatural does not exist, then take the Naturalist position and argue that everything has a natural cause.Now just how could anyone prove that something doesn't exist? Even an exhaustive search of every atom in the universe would not be enough to satisfy a truly critical thinker. Because of this anyone can claim that anything they like exists supernaturally - safe in the knowledge that they cannot be formally challenged - only ridiculed. The powers of explanation afforded by science are not as limited as you suggest. A proper explanation of the workings of an entity can also reveal the 'reason' for the entity - within a definite but 'universe sized' framework. Thus any supernaturality may be pushed further and further away from us, on a retreat towards a singularity outside our framework. This will sound to many to be a description of the very supernatural entity that they believe in. Except that, by working forwards in time from the singularity, such an entity would have already 'done her thing' having set the causal chain in motion. The susceptibilty of the universe to scientific scrutiny does not allow for any further interference to go unnoticed in the way most religions describe. Can I take it then that you accept the retreat of the supernatural to be all the way back to a point outside our framework? Becasue if you do, it would by definition have to rule out any interference beyond the possibility of getting the ball rolling in the first place (I'm quite content to let it rest there for now). If however you insist that the supernatural operates within our present framework then it is indeed superfluous given the alternative explanations available. The point of contact between man and religion still stands as the only test of the claims made about the supernatural. If the supernatural is supposed to be interacting at some more immediate level other than having set the ball rolling then there is no difference between it and my lepricorn (indeed, your "leprechaun" will be the same) I'm not the slightest bit intimidated by the thought that there are those who spend their lifetimes devoted to such matters, for all I know they are all deaf dumb and blind like the rest of us. The heros for me are those that despite their handicaps work on the clues that nature provides in order to decode her very structure - for within that magnificent structure lies a coherent story that we are priveledged enough to be able to read.
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 14, 2005 20:26:42 GMT -5
Post by bobarian on Feb 14, 2005 20:26:42 GMT -5
" The heros for me are those that despite their handicaps work on the clues that nature provides in order to decode her very structure - for within that magnificent structure lies a coherent story that we are priveledged enough to be able to read."
Well here's a turn to your entire argument. If you claim that there is something for us to decode in science then you go above and beyond science itself. Natural causes in and of themselves have no "story" and no "purpose." I.e., the order we have found so far in the universe, unless we are going to postulate an intelligent designer, is entirely random and due to merely a natural explosion.
Thus there is no use in doing science any farther because have no empirical evidence on which to say that our understanding of the universe will increase in any orderly and logical way if the universe is truly random. Without an intelligent designer (a story in nature), there is no point to even pursuing science.
However, secondly your singularity theory doesn't solve. Just because you push the singularity out of the "universal framework" doesn't mean you answer my question - so where did this singularity come from? Out of nothing? Ex nihilo? Sounds like creation to me.
Satori - there is no "formal proof" to religion except logic itself. I.e., moving from a major premise to a minor premise and not contradicting yourself. Christianity is either true or it isn't. If it contradicts itself or reality, then it isn't true. If it doesn't, then it is.
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 15, 2005 3:57:50 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Feb 15, 2005 3:57:50 GMT -5
Satori - there is no "formal proof" to religion except logic itself. I.e., moving from a major premise to a minor premise and not contradicting yourself. Christianity is either true or it isn't. If it contradicts itself or reality, then it isn't true. If it doesn't, then it is. Well, technically speaking a 'formal proof' is a work of logic. For religion to be logically sound (or 'well formed' as they say in logic) it should follow the rules of deductive reasoning. We should be able to construct something along the lines of: Suppose P [Proof of Q goes here] Therefore, P -> Q or, for proof by negation: Suppose ¬Q [Proof of ¬P goes here] Therefore, P -> Q Then, of course, one has to work back through the suppositions and prove them too. What you seem to be saying is: " Christianity is true if it doesn't contradict itself or reality", but that's not a statement that satisfies any sort of logical test because you've got the thing you're trying to prove as a supposition already (i.e. 'itself' in the above statement). We could say 'Christianity contradicting itself' is: ¬Christianity. So 'Christianity not contracticting itself' is: ¬¬Christianity, which is the same as Christianity, thus: Christianity -> Christianity. Which is obviously not any sort of sensible logic. Why, you may ask, am I going to all this bother? It's because I think it's very misleading to say that Christianity is 'logically consistent' unless we can find a way to formally prove that it is so. Of course, no proof is ever totally 'complete' within logic (so we'd never resolve the issue via logic anyway!), but even within the realms of standard logic I have never seen any evidence to support your claim.
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 17, 2005 16:50:19 GMT -5
Post by Electron on Feb 17, 2005 16:50:19 GMT -5
Well here's a turn to your entire argument. If you claim that there is something for us to decode in science then you go above and beyond science itself. Who says? I don't believe it takes a creator to make 1+1=2 On the other hand I do believe that the universre exists out of a very similar logical necessity. The order found in the universe is entirely due to gravity. Given enough electrons & atomic nuclei the rest takes care of itslef quite nicely thank you! What is the problem with randomness? It makes for no less an interesting story - one that is epic and well appreciated by those who understand that the action of hot stars shining into cold space for billions of years has driven the universe to the point where it becomes aware of itself. All of it's very own proud doing. I said I was happy to leave it there... I mentioned my feeling that the singularity was somehow a logical neccessity - and I have studied the science that shows particles appearing ex nihilo in the lab. I see this as a pretty big clue. But let me clarify something very fundamental here - even if we are directed towards a creation event orchestrated by a supernatural being of some kind, there remain two big problems - one for us and one for her!... Our problem (or at least for those of us of certain faiths) is that it all happened a unimaginable length of time ago, and the event itself was evidently rather simplistic. Big... yes, hot... yes, but with no inherrent structure to start with. The evolution of strucure has been modelled countless times and even with our partial undersatnding of the laws involved, we can already see a coherent story unfolding in a way which results in the very universe we see around us. There are no mysteries concerning stellar/galactic formation - and with these systems up-and running the resulting localised reduction in entropy furnishes the right conditions for transforming the heavier elements (synthesised in earlier generations of stars) into the stuff of life. At this point an argument about the transition from chemistry to life always crops up, but we've already covered many billions of years of universal evolution - originating from an event totally lacking in material complexity, but possesing all the ingredients needed for self-assembly. The problem for us then, would be that we pop up somewhere around chapter 12,000,000,000 after a collosal amount of the story has already been told. I find this distance between us and the start of the book to be a big hint that we are somewhat incidental to the plot. Now as to the problem for any author of such a tale - who does she worship?
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 17, 2005 19:00:56 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Feb 17, 2005 19:00:56 GMT -5
I think Bob's looking for a 'reason' behind why the universe evolved this way, as a reason would give credence to some consciousness (God or whatever). However, I can't see why there has to be a reason at all.
In our universe it evolved this way and we're here as a result. No reason as such, it simply is.
That's the way I see it anyway.
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 20, 2005 15:18:37 GMT -5
Post by bobarian on Feb 20, 2005 15:18:37 GMT -5
Electron - your answer is entirely circular.
I asked why the singularity is here, and furthermore, what came before it.
You answered by saying that we know the singularity happened because of where we are today. You also say that we are here today because of the singularity. This is entirely circular - you're using the singularity as both a premise and as a conclusion.
Yes, I know that the universe has turned out this way, I'm not arguing with that -- what I'm saying is that there's no reason you can give me for why it happened this way and not some other. The ridiculous chances of unleashing an incredible amount of energy and having an orderly system result lead to any conclusion besides the one that this all happened merely by chance or purely materiastically. Read John Polkinghorne on this.
The universe could have turned out a billion different ways and for some reason it didn't. I'm asking you why.
There is no answer to this question within the universe itself - we must look beyond the universe to find it -- to the supernatural.
"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 20, 2005 18:10:56 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Feb 20, 2005 18:10:56 GMT -5
Bob, that's not correct. The latest (and greatest) quantum models point to the chances being very much in favour of our universe turning out this way, simply because of the billions of universes in existence. The law of averages states that one of them would turn out like this.
For many years scientists had a problem with what they call the 'Goldilocks' events. Why, for example, did the four forces of nature have precisely the right values for a universe to develop intelligent life; why are the lambda and omega values exactly as they are when a .001% difference would mean no life; why are we exactly the correct distance from the sun with exactly the right moon etc.?
This all seemed just a bit too convenient. However it now appears that what used to be considered 'supernatural' (or, at least, very lucky) has been once again turned into the 'natural' by advancing scientific discovery.
Other universes quite probably have turned out billions of different ways.
Alas not, but none of this says there is or isn't a god, of course; it's just no longer a valid justification for there having to be one.
I don't see why you need justification. If God truly is supernatural then no proof could ever be found for Him within the realms of the 'natural'.
|
|
|
Respect
Feb 26, 2005 10:18:45 GMT -5
Post by Electron on Feb 26, 2005 10:18:45 GMT -5
Electron - your answer is entirely circular. Well, that's just the way the universe appears to be to cosmologists these days. Satori was right to mention the anthropic principle. You can apply it to yourself when you stop to wonder at how you came to be you. If you hadn't been born, you wouldn't be able to wonder about it. So where was god before this beginning? I often marvel at the wisdom locked away in these very words... god exists only in words. Words that pour from the restless imagination of man.
|
|