God Did It - A Necessary Scientific Heuristic
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
God Did It - A Necessary Scientific Heuristic
Historically, of course, this is patently false. The history of science is full of devout believers who, even though they firmly believed that "god did it", didn't use that belief as a reason to stop investigating; rather, it propelled them to continue. They believed that a rational, purposeful god intentionally created the universe the way it was, and created reason and gave man free will so that he could apprehend and appreciate His creation. Newton, Kepler, Bacon, etc. were, in their minds, seeking to understand the mind of god by examining the sequences of cause and effect in the physical world.
For these men, science was about finding and uncovering truths about the world through empirical and methodical investigation; they fashioned the scientific method, still used today, to best pursue that knowledge.
Of course there were those in positions of power - at the time, the church - that didn't like what certain scientists discovered, and attempted to censor that information. However, that is hardly because of religion, since the history of secular science is full of exactly the same kind of behavior. People in power, who have reputations and credibility on the line, do not like factual information to spread that undermines their reputations, credibility, and authority - whether they are in positions religious or secular.
No religious scientist of any historical merit ever used "god did it" as a reason to stop investigating the cause and effect sequences of any phenomena, even while concurrently believing that god was the first cause and prime mover of existence itself.
But, let us say that at some time, somewhere, a scientist did reach a conclusion - let's say, "where gravity came from" or "why the universal constants are set at what they are set at" - of "god did it". Is such a finding unscientific? Preposterous? A "science-stopper"?
Recently, Stephen Hawking has asserted that the universe created itself. Apparently, now, entire universe can just "create themselves"; exactly what science can be conducted after we decide that a thing created itself out of "nothing"? If we are talking about true "nothing", then there are no properties to investigate or theorize, no potential, no time or space. What exactly is science supposed to do with that? Isn't saying that something created itself out of nothing a true science stopper?
At least with the conclusion that a god, as prime mover and first cause, created the universe - you have something, and something is always better than nothing when it comes to the potential of further scientific or at least rational inquiry.
After all, it is only materialist ideology that claims that science can only investigate the material world; Isaac Newton didn't subscribe to that notion as he set about to discover the mind of god by rationally examining the patterned behavior of physical matter and thus discern the invisible, non-material "laws" that govern our universe. If Newton had begun with "the universe creating itself out of nothing", exactly what principle would have led him to think that there existed rationally-discernible laws of matter that governed a universe?
One can see why the consequent would follow if a rational god created both the universe and those who would be living in it; but a universe that springs ex nihilo has no obligation to be rationally discernible, nor offers any reason to believe it even could be. Such a premise offers zero heuristic rationale or impetus to do science of any sort.
However, the premise or conclusion that a rational first cause and prime mover is informing both the form and substance of our universe, and our mind in correlation to that universe, at least offers a reason why the pursuit of rational scientific methodology should be productive, while materialism offers no basis whatsoever for such a perspective. In materialism, reason itself is just whatever each individual set of colliding molecules happens to think it is, rendering it utterly relative and not a means of discerning any truths at all.
In the end, only the premise and conclusion that a rational first cause and prime mover, operating from purpose and intent - God did it - can originate, promote, and inform sound scientific investigation; otherwise, we end up with nihilistic and absurd proclamations such as "the universe created itself from nothing" and an abandonment of science as a search for truth.
God did it is not only a viable explanation that promotes scientific inquiry; it is the only viable ultimate explanation, and it is a necessary explanation as the basis for meaningful scientific inquiry.
-
- Posts: 220
- Joined: July 6th, 2010, 2:15 pm
Re: God Did It - A Necessary Scientific Heuristic
Meleagar, I would sincerely be inclined to agree with you if I thought that the Big Bang was a scientific/empirical fact.Meleagar wrote: God did it is not only a viable explanation that promotes scientific inquiry; it is the only viable ultimate explanation, and it is a necessary explanation as the basis for meaningful scientific inquiry.
But it's not. It's an hypothesis.
If the universe has always existed, is an eternal physical existence, then infinite regress is not logical.
There would have been NO ('scientific' or 'theological'/teleological) ex-nihilo creation.
Furthemore, the same concept cannot be illogical if used by science and be meaningful rational if used by theology.
Whatever it's the universe or God that has been spontaneously created it's as irrational as it can get.
That's why I speak about the limit of our cognitive capacity.
What is infinite? What is eternal? What is existence? What is nothing?
We have these concepts, we use them but do we trully understand them?
The only (logical and intellectual) way (at our disposal now) to step out/go beyond this false dichotomy fallacy (The universe or God created itself from nothing) is to understand/accept, as some Greek philosophers did long ago, that the universe has always been existing. It is eternal.
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
Without a rational god as first cause and/or prime mover, science (and, indeed, logic) lacks any significant motivating or explanatory heuristic.
"God did it" is necessary whether the universe had a beginning or is eternal. Questioning the cognitive capacity of humans undermines your own argument as well, and is thus self-defeating.
-
- Posts: 45
- Joined: January 18th, 2010, 4:26 pm
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 220
- Joined: July 6th, 2010, 2:15 pm
(Or positively: "a universe which has always been existing and will always exist")
P2: A eternal universe imply the non-existence of an event creating it (since it hasn't be created in the first place).
Conclusion: An eternal universe doesn't need a (First) cause (a first event allowing/inducing/causing its creation).
It would have a lot more implications/consequences than that, but let's stay on topic.
Therefore God, as the idea of a first cause, prime mover wouldn't be necessary anymore to explain the existence of the Universe... Nor is the idea of a creation ex-nihilo (of our universe).
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
The "prime mover" has nothing to do with explaining the origin of the universe; in an eternal universe, it is still required to provide sufficent cause for any effect.Persecrates wrote: Therefore God, as the idea of a first cause, prime mover wouldn't be necessary anymore to explain the existence of the Universe... Nor is the idea of a creation ex-nihilo (of our universe).
-
- Posts: 649
- Joined: July 19th, 2010, 9:46 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Peter Singer _ David Pearce
Re: God Did It - A Necessary Scientific Heuristic
That's a lie, the big bang happened for a fact(as much as it gets in science that is), the evidence for it is overwhelming.Persecrates wrote:Meleagar, I would sincerely be inclined to agree with you if I thought that the Big Bang was a scientific/empirical fact.
But it's not. It's an hypothesis.
But you could be right with the 'always existing' thing. The big bang applies only to our universe, and maybe there's an underlying structure that is always existing.
By using string theory, scientists have actually done calculations about BEFORE the big bang and gotten sensible results.
The always existing thing wouldn't be 'nothing'. In fact, 'nothing' is simply a human construct, in reality, there's never absolute nothing. Even in a vacuum, particles are popping in and out of existance enabling the 'casimir effect'.
String theoriests say a collision of universe-membranes could have caused the big bang (and there's actually a way to prove it, if we look back long enough, we might see that our universe, at the big bang, had an umbilical cord.
Others think string theory is nonsense, yet even these have ideas and testable concepts to offer.
So again, "goddidit" is just a lame conversation stopper, real science is much more interesting.
-
- Posts: 220
- Joined: July 6th, 2010, 2:15 pm
Your whole argumentation is based on the creation of the universe and the necessity of a first cause it implies.Meleagar wrote:The "prime mover" has nothing to do with explaining the origin of the universe; in an eternal universe, it is still required to provide sufficent cause for any effect.Persecrates wrote: Therefore God, as the idea of a first cause, prime mover wouldn't be necessary anymore to explain the existence of the Universe... Nor is the idea of a creation ex-nihilo (of our universe).
If you wish to speak specifically about the Aristotelian Prime Mover (motion) not necessarily related to the creation of the universe please do so.
Don't blame me for being on topic.
In the context of your OP, I demonstrated that God was not necessary to explain the existence of the universe.
Oh, I forgot...
My argument is not self-defeating. It is diminished by our cognitive capacity to truly validate it... Of course.Questioning the cognitive capacity of humans undermines your own argument as well, and is thus self-defeating.
What we do is speculation, as much as I (you don't seem to be as concerned as I am with intellectual rigour) try for it to stay in the ream/boundaries of logic, I'm bound to imperfection.
What concerns me is that you don't apply that fact (we have no empirical definitive proof for the creation or eternal existence of the universe.) to (the formulation of your) reasoning.
You act as if you knew and as if I didn't just develop a demonstration clearly contradicting (defeating) yours.
Still, using logic (as I did), it is rational to say that the universe hasn't been created. Or, at least, that God is not a logical necessity because the creation of the universe is not the only possible explanation for its existence.
You should, above all, realize that affirming that God is a rational concept/necessity is not enough to make it so...
If you think the concept of creation ex-nihilo illogical, you have to apply that conclusion to both the universe and God.
If you think it logical, you must admit that the so-called infinite logical/causal regress can stop at the "universe-level".
There is no logical necessity/proof for one to be sound while the other is not.
That's why you should stop claiming something to be logical and true when it's not proven (by you) to be so and not even the only possibility we can consider today with the (limited) understanding we have of concepts such as existence, creation, eternal, nothing...
Why asserting this idea in the first place?
Ought of belief and desire for this belief to be true, of course.
This has nothing to do with logic nor "necessary scientific heuristic"... But with faith...
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
No, it isn't. The "first cause" portion of the O.P. was only offered as one example of how "god did it" is a better heuristic for science than what science offers in that particular case, which is "nothing created the universe".Persecrates wrote: Your whole argumentation is based on the creation of the universe and the necessity of a first cause it implies.
In other cases, such as Newton, I showed how the "god did it" heuristic not only didn't stop science, but informed the search for rational, universal laws, whether or not they were generated at any creation point. The "mind of god" argument (for the investigatory heuristic) can be seen either as a prime mover or a first cause argument.
I already have, in prior posts.If you wish to speak specifically about the Aristotelian Prime Mover (motion) not necessarily related to the creation of the universe please do so.
Infinite regress and "lack of human cognitive capacity to find alternatives" is not a rational explanation for the universe as we find it.In the context of your OP, I demonstrated that God was not necessary to explain the existence of the universe.
Because wether the universe had an origin point or not is irrelevant to my argument; my argument accomodates both. I just used the big bang as an example of one aspect of my argument - the first cause. The prime mover is still a necessary aspect even if the universe is eternal.What concerns me is that you don't apply that fact (we have no empirical definitive proof for the creation or eternal existence of the universe.) to (the formulation of your) reasoning.
As far as "definitive proof", that is up to the individual to decide. Unless you are going to argue that thermal entropy is somehow compensated for or reversed, the fact that there is order in the universe is pretty conclusive evidence (for many) that entropy hasn't been in effect since "forever".
If you are defining the universe as a rational acausal cause with intent and purpose, then our difference is just one of semantics. If not, then your "universe as cause" fails to account for logic, intent, purpose, and the comprehsible nature of the world.If you think it logical, you must admit that the so-called infinite logical/causal regress can stop at the "universe-level".
-
- Banned
- Posts: 348
- Joined: June 19th, 2010, 10:30 pm
Your red herrings don`t apply Meleagar, evolution asserts regress and progress. A pendulum effect throughout history.Infinite regress and "lack of human cognitive capacity to find alternatives" is not a rational explanation for the universe as we find it.
Therefore Your Goddidit is a pendulum then? Scientifically speaking.
No you haven`t shown Newton said gravity is goddidit!! Newton said his science and his findings scientifically show gravity. Newton believing in his god didn`t make his science relevant, his discovery of gravity did.In other cases, such as Newton, I showed how the "god did it
A madman serial killer could claim goddidit, god inspired him to kill, he would find short shrift from those listening to his claim. Didn`t your U.S. former president G.W. Bush claim this to defend his slaughter of Iraq civilians? God fearing people tend to become the executioners of humanity in any religion. So much for their loving god. : Meleagar ON THESE BOARDS you call materialist determinists robots, not human beings, what is next, annihilation of human robots ..your a breath away from becoming Hitler and exterminating those whom you don`t define as human!
What I find odd about Meleagars argument is he wants science to explain his god to him..Most theists say science can`t explain their god, their god is outside of this universe and mans sciences.. difference between science and religion is, scientist can`t definately explain why people decide to become religious, and religion doesn`t intrude on the sciences or calls itself science. It doesn`t make either the lesser, it just means if you study history your are not studying math.
When the religious try to take over science it is like a history teacher trying to teach math...it doesn`t work. Instead of criticisng evolution and darwin, the religious should thank him..in this place at this time he did earth humans a favor. Religion deals with human spiritual vexations and the ? afterlife, science doesn`t interfere with them, why do they insist on interfering with science?
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
I didn't say that Newton argued that god did it; that was his axiomatic assumption which provided the heuristic for his investigations and theories.Eveready wrote:Meleagar,Newton didn`t argue scientifically that goddidit, he showed scientifically gravity exists, did Newton call his scientific finding god? nope and your pseudo argument [for that is what this is]has to be the first I`ve read about it
The rest of your post clearly indicates you didn't understand anything I wrote, at least not in any way I intended it, so there isn't much to comment on seeing as it doesn't address anything I meant.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 348
- Joined: June 19th, 2010, 10:30 pm
So you deny now, that you claim determinist and materialist are robots? funny but most of your recent threads claim that! what is dissassocation but claiming humans are just robots..expendable ..like Hitler thought..I didn't say that Newton argued that god did it; that was his axiomatic assumption which provided the heuristic for his investigations and theories.[/quote
Yes you did you asserted without his god Newton would not find gravity..you can`t speak for Newtons axiomatic investigations as you are not him, many like Newtons of his era had to pretend to seek god in science due to science being overseen by the religious.
The rest of your post clearly indicates you didn't understand anything I wrote
-
- Posts: 45
- Joined: January 18th, 2010, 4:26 pm
nihilcertum wrote:If God created the universe, where did God come from (who/what created God)? I don't understand how the explanation of creation by God does not beg the question, where did God come from?
Meleager, the opening post does not answer my question. You say the universe couldn't create itself, that God did it is a "necessary scientific heuristic". I am asking about how God came into existence.Meleagar wrote:Your clarification is in the O.P.Nihilcertum wrote:Thanks for any clarification on this.
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
Since all things that have a beginning or an end are caused to have a beginning or an end, god as a necessary first cause concept is considered acausal, meaning without cause - no beginning, no end.Nihilcertum wrote:
Meleager, the opening post does not answer my question. You say the universe couldn't create itself, that God did it is a "necessary scientific heuristic". I am asking about how God came into existence.
By the way, I didn't say that the universe couldn't create itself. I said that such a position is irrational. An acausal cause as first cause and/or prime mover is necessary in logic to keep from referring to infinite regress, or something being caused by itself or nothing.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023