Post Number:#121 
March 14th, 2012, 10:44 am
edelker,
What do you think is responsible for the creation of the universe?
What do you think is responsible for the creation of the universe?
Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free! If you are a member, please log in.
An argument for God's existence
Post Number:#122 March 14th, 2012, 12:30 pm
Eric the crucial point you accepted, it is luck. Pure luck that we arrived at our point in evolution. If we discovered other life no matter what stage of development it had reached, luck would have to be excluded. If there is no determined effort by nature through a formula then there is no formula and life will not occur ever again. There is no other life in the universe, we are alone. This in itself is starting to sound like magic an act of creation something my religous friends should find appealing.
I still maintain that nature through a simple formula created life and complexity leading to success after millions of attempts. There is no rational alternative other than natures natural ability to be determined. The failures are insignificant many fruitless paths have been trod. Nature itself is not consciously designing it simple carries out the task it is confronted with. Success will survive failures are doomed till a point is reached were conscious ability becomes an asset to survival. All we have to decide is our conscious ability the ultimate prize of evolution?
I still maintain that nature through a simple formula created life and complexity leading to success after millions of attempts. There is no rational alternative other than natures natural ability to be determined. The failures are insignificant many fruitless paths have been trod. Nature itself is not consciously designing it simple carries out the task it is confronted with. Success will survive failures are doomed till a point is reached were conscious ability becomes an asset to survival. All we have to decide is our conscious ability the ultimate prize of evolution?
Post Number:#123 March 14th, 2012, 2:20 pm
Fanman/Xris
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fanman asked,
“What do you think is responsible for the creation of the universe?”
Ultimately, I don’t know! I’m not entirely convinced that the question can even be answered. There are lots of candidates-but in the end analysis is not something I know or even deem relevant to, ultimately, to having a rational metaphysics.
‘God’ as a defining creative feature works only as a vague abstraction-leaving more questions than answers. Even a physicalist position would be explanatorily equivalent to that of a divine being: both advocate some sort of pre-causal conditions out of nothing or virtually nothing. Both end with the same basic sets of questions. I would say, however, that a physical explanation is likely to be a better explanation because we have some idea as to what “physical” is. When one posits a “spirit” or some supernatural force, then we have to explore what that even would be. In other words, whether we find a physical explanation ultimately satisfying or not-it at least provides us with something far more familiar and intelligible.
At any rate, my dharmic view is that what we structure with our conceptual faculties about the world will always lead to more questions because our concepts are ‘dependent’ or ‘in relational’ properties: that is to say, that they depend on whole networks of other concepts-the phenomenal world-culture our languages etc. to even exist. It is hard, if not arguably impossible, to know ultimately what we’re describing in the end: our conceptualized experiences of the world-or the world itself. It seems to me, that we’re doing both-but separating the two ultimately will not work.
I want to be clear here. I’m not advocating for a kind of cultural or metaphysical relativism here. I’m arguing that we “know” the universe through two facets: (1) conceptual, and (2) pure awareness. Our conceptual conventions are exhaustible only in terms of still other concepts and so on. This is a problem for us. We may know that some conventions explain better than others-but we can never be sure that our conventions capture the “truth” or just a sense of meaning that is appealing to current ‘other’ meanings. Awareness begins not by examining the outside world and its contents-but our experiences of them. We also view ‘how’ our emotions and thoughts play out in our heads. We can do this without assigning ‘values’ to our internal and external experiences.
What would any of this have to do with this particular metaphysical and scientific issue? That we come to “know” the world NOT principally through some externalized understanding of causal relations-but rather through our own individual-cultural-and verbal associations. This need not mean that when we ponder the world external-that this understanding is truth-relative-only that it is human relative. I can see that while our understanding alters, our awareness does not. I can see that ideas are vital-but it is our interwoven experiences that matter more. The truths that affect our interpretations, therefore, are not external-independent things from us, but rather, they are dependent on our internal relationship with our own mind’s contents. Once I address why it is that certain ideas perplex me-why certain circumstances seem to frustrate me-why am I bothered by others and their notions, and my own emotional states are such a challenge to me, then I can see that the problems that face us in philosophy are not so different than what face us at the kitchen table: the feeling that “I” must be in some control or have some meaning for my own self or feel secure in my own knowing or experiencing or I am in dire trouble. Once I give up on this impulse, and its causes, I can see the world as it is a little more clearly on its own terms and not on mine.
I’m, therefore, free to question and explore. I need not be fixed to any certain thing if I genuinely find problems with that thing. I see no problem with not knowing-and because our concepts are interdependent on still other concepts , which, obviously, includes concepts of our world, our “world” simply exists-the causes of the world externally, therefore, will likely mirror concepts that betray personal biases and temperaments more than some actually-grasped truth. What we can know from this is that our concepts and awareness experiences depend on one another and on the very world that is the source and crucible of our being.
This sort of freedom from being attached to any convention-allows me to accept skepticism and explore assertions with the upmost rigor. While it is interesting and relevant to explore where we came from, it is far more interesting and important to ‘see’ our own rationales and what makes them related to the subject at hand. For me, to understand the world is experiencing it as it is-not as we would have it. We may find a nexus where convention and ‘external’ truth meet perfectly well and we can know it! But whether or not I know the universe and its contents now in terms of its origins , is irrelevant to whether or not I can genuinely experience that world of which I-and all others-are but a-part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xris wrote,
“Eric the crucial point you accepted, it is luck. Pure luck that we arrived at our point in evolution.”
Nope-not quite! Never stated that. Obviously, there are factors at work that are grounded in material causation-so to speak. But, there are OTHER contributing causes—life contributes to how natural selection is played out in its details. You simply ignore this and never address it-and it is a valid point: to bring out as a vital objection to your point of view-that is.
Xris wrote,
“If we discovered other life no matter what stage of development it had reached, luck would have to be excluded. If there is no determined effort by nature through a formula then there is no formula and life will not occur ever again.”
This is an unsubstantiated claim. You may re-assert it all you’d like-it doesn’t make it so! (1) I’m not denying that there is no determining forces; (2) luck? Or can I simply mean highly fortunate or favorable circumstances that had precedents in other “fortuitous” situations. I can say this, Xris, because there’s NO logical a priori reason for saying that these things had to happen in the sequence they did. Obviously, these are contingent-material-causal factors that need not have happened at all. Once life began-luck in the “success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions,”-sense- would not apply! Why? Because living agents are evitable game changers-they-themselves change the outcome of events. Natural selection isn’t a formula that normatively works out inevitable ends-it is a descriptive process of what living-changing beings do! You simply haven’t dealt with this fact! It doesn’t go away simply because you don’t choose to address it!
Xris wrote,
“There is no other life in the universe, we are alone. This in itself is starting to sound like magic an act of creation something my religous friends should find appealing.”
K… I see no reason why my comments imply anything religious! We are talking about what is logically possible! Moreover, my comments are well within the realm of science-which is something yours is far-far from!
Xris wrote,
“still maintain that nature through a simple formula created life and complexity leading to success after millions of attempts. There is no rational alternative other than natures natural ability to be determined.”
Or it could be the so-called ‘rationale’ of genetic reproduction! Such a process is just happening-it isn’t working to some end by necessity of design! This would be like saying that gravity is nature’s way of bringing things closer to itself because what goes up comes down.
Xris wrote,
“failures are insignificant many fruitless paths have been trod. Nature itself is not consciously designing it simple carries out the task it is confronted with.”
I can agree with the crux of this! But you should keep in mind that “nature” isn’t trying anything. Bacteria, crows, and flies are all perfect by natural selection’s standard, which is they are all fit-adapted-to their current environment. Also, had a comet not slammed into the earth-we wouldn’t have come about-that and a number of other occurrences!
Those failures, in part, led to us and all that is here. Again, what you consider a failure is an opinion-a value that you carry to the discussion-not a value that nature simply gives you. Just as nature “gave” us this existence-it will take it. There’s nothing special about that-we are just like all other species in that regard. We are likely not to be nature’s final story!
Xris wrote,
“Success will survive failures are doomed till a point is reached were conscious ability becomes an asset to survival. All we have to decide is our conscious ability the ultimate prize of evolution?”
Only living valuing beings can make conscious-self-awareness a value. As far as brute nature is concerned-we will go the way of the dinosaur. It is written in our geological record! The issue is not “if” it will happen-only “when.” That we do know!
Eric D.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fanman asked,
“What do you think is responsible for the creation of the universe?”
Ultimately, I don’t know! I’m not entirely convinced that the question can even be answered. There are lots of candidates-but in the end analysis is not something I know or even deem relevant to, ultimately, to having a rational metaphysics.
‘God’ as a defining creative feature works only as a vague abstraction-leaving more questions than answers. Even a physicalist position would be explanatorily equivalent to that of a divine being: both advocate some sort of pre-causal conditions out of nothing or virtually nothing. Both end with the same basic sets of questions. I would say, however, that a physical explanation is likely to be a better explanation because we have some idea as to what “physical” is. When one posits a “spirit” or some supernatural force, then we have to explore what that even would be. In other words, whether we find a physical explanation ultimately satisfying or not-it at least provides us with something far more familiar and intelligible.
At any rate, my dharmic view is that what we structure with our conceptual faculties about the world will always lead to more questions because our concepts are ‘dependent’ or ‘in relational’ properties: that is to say, that they depend on whole networks of other concepts-the phenomenal world-culture our languages etc. to even exist. It is hard, if not arguably impossible, to know ultimately what we’re describing in the end: our conceptualized experiences of the world-or the world itself. It seems to me, that we’re doing both-but separating the two ultimately will not work.
I want to be clear here. I’m not advocating for a kind of cultural or metaphysical relativism here. I’m arguing that we “know” the universe through two facets: (1) conceptual, and (2) pure awareness. Our conceptual conventions are exhaustible only in terms of still other concepts and so on. This is a problem for us. We may know that some conventions explain better than others-but we can never be sure that our conventions capture the “truth” or just a sense of meaning that is appealing to current ‘other’ meanings. Awareness begins not by examining the outside world and its contents-but our experiences of them. We also view ‘how’ our emotions and thoughts play out in our heads. We can do this without assigning ‘values’ to our internal and external experiences.
What would any of this have to do with this particular metaphysical and scientific issue? That we come to “know” the world NOT principally through some externalized understanding of causal relations-but rather through our own individual-cultural-and verbal associations. This need not mean that when we ponder the world external-that this understanding is truth-relative-only that it is human relative. I can see that while our understanding alters, our awareness does not. I can see that ideas are vital-but it is our interwoven experiences that matter more. The truths that affect our interpretations, therefore, are not external-independent things from us, but rather, they are dependent on our internal relationship with our own mind’s contents. Once I address why it is that certain ideas perplex me-why certain circumstances seem to frustrate me-why am I bothered by others and their notions, and my own emotional states are such a challenge to me, then I can see that the problems that face us in philosophy are not so different than what face us at the kitchen table: the feeling that “I” must be in some control or have some meaning for my own self or feel secure in my own knowing or experiencing or I am in dire trouble. Once I give up on this impulse, and its causes, I can see the world as it is a little more clearly on its own terms and not on mine.
I’m, therefore, free to question and explore. I need not be fixed to any certain thing if I genuinely find problems with that thing. I see no problem with not knowing-and because our concepts are interdependent on still other concepts , which, obviously, includes concepts of our world, our “world” simply exists-the causes of the world externally, therefore, will likely mirror concepts that betray personal biases and temperaments more than some actually-grasped truth. What we can know from this is that our concepts and awareness experiences depend on one another and on the very world that is the source and crucible of our being.
This sort of freedom from being attached to any convention-allows me to accept skepticism and explore assertions with the upmost rigor. While it is interesting and relevant to explore where we came from, it is far more interesting and important to ‘see’ our own rationales and what makes them related to the subject at hand. For me, to understand the world is experiencing it as it is-not as we would have it. We may find a nexus where convention and ‘external’ truth meet perfectly well and we can know it! But whether or not I know the universe and its contents now in terms of its origins , is irrelevant to whether or not I can genuinely experience that world of which I-and all others-are but a-part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xris wrote,
“Eric the crucial point you accepted, it is luck. Pure luck that we arrived at our point in evolution.”
Nope-not quite! Never stated that. Obviously, there are factors at work that are grounded in material causation-so to speak. But, there are OTHER contributing causes—life contributes to how natural selection is played out in its details. You simply ignore this and never address it-and it is a valid point: to bring out as a vital objection to your point of view-that is.
Xris wrote,
“If we discovered other life no matter what stage of development it had reached, luck would have to be excluded. If there is no determined effort by nature through a formula then there is no formula and life will not occur ever again.”
This is an unsubstantiated claim. You may re-assert it all you’d like-it doesn’t make it so! (1) I’m not denying that there is no determining forces; (2) luck? Or can I simply mean highly fortunate or favorable circumstances that had precedents in other “fortuitous” situations. I can say this, Xris, because there’s NO logical a priori reason for saying that these things had to happen in the sequence they did. Obviously, these are contingent-material-causal factors that need not have happened at all. Once life began-luck in the “success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions,”-sense- would not apply! Why? Because living agents are evitable game changers-they-themselves change the outcome of events. Natural selection isn’t a formula that normatively works out inevitable ends-it is a descriptive process of what living-changing beings do! You simply haven’t dealt with this fact! It doesn’t go away simply because you don’t choose to address it!
Xris wrote,
“There is no other life in the universe, we are alone. This in itself is starting to sound like magic an act of creation something my religous friends should find appealing.”
K… I see no reason why my comments imply anything religious! We are talking about what is logically possible! Moreover, my comments are well within the realm of science-which is something yours is far-far from!
Xris wrote,
“still maintain that nature through a simple formula created life and complexity leading to success after millions of attempts. There is no rational alternative other than natures natural ability to be determined.”
Or it could be the so-called ‘rationale’ of genetic reproduction! Such a process is just happening-it isn’t working to some end by necessity of design! This would be like saying that gravity is nature’s way of bringing things closer to itself because what goes up comes down.
Xris wrote,
“failures are insignificant many fruitless paths have been trod. Nature itself is not consciously designing it simple carries out the task it is confronted with.”
I can agree with the crux of this! But you should keep in mind that “nature” isn’t trying anything. Bacteria, crows, and flies are all perfect by natural selection’s standard, which is they are all fit-adapted-to their current environment. Also, had a comet not slammed into the earth-we wouldn’t have come about-that and a number of other occurrences!
Those failures, in part, led to us and all that is here. Again, what you consider a failure is an opinion-a value that you carry to the discussion-not a value that nature simply gives you. Just as nature “gave” us this existence-it will take it. There’s nothing special about that-we are just like all other species in that regard. We are likely not to be nature’s final story!
Xris wrote,
“Success will survive failures are doomed till a point is reached were conscious ability becomes an asset to survival. All we have to decide is our conscious ability the ultimate prize of evolution?”
Only living valuing beings can make conscious-self-awareness a value. As far as brute nature is concerned-we will go the way of the dinosaur. It is written in our geological record! The issue is not “if” it will happen-only “when.” That we do know!
Eric D.
Post Number:#124 March 14th, 2012, 3:25 pm
Eric I am trying to deduce what your actual opposition to my premise is. I have no doubt that we will expire and nature will carry on attempting to secure life. I understand we are simple observers of evolution and we can not fully comprehend its purpose. I can not accept that if we had sufficient knowledge we could not predict the outcome of evolution given the correct facts.If it could be predicted then a set of rules governs its progress.
You want to reject chance, luck but you are drawn ever closer to it the more you deny my determined nature. You know in your heart it can not be chance that's why you try to avoid using the term. Trying to use an alternative like favourable only makes my position stronger. Yes nature does look for favourable circumstances. It requires favourable circumstances for its formula. They are not chance, chance happens only with mans inability to comprehend.
When you refuse to admit that life might or might not be elsewhere in the universe you are refusing to acknowledge the crucial question it implies. We have one of three scenarios. One it was a complex chain of chance event accumulating into conscious ability. Two a formula from nature, a natural formed formula, predetermined the eventual outcome and conscious life was inevitable. Three an engineer or engineers from an advanced civilisation introduced life understanding the consequences. I know you may say there could be a reasonable alternative but I am damned if I have heard of one or even sniffed one. If there is no other form of life in the universe you must admit it is chance and then you must consider the impossible odds that it infers. If there is life then a formula must exist. To repeat an experiment you need a formula.A formula that will determine the outcome.
You want to reject chance, luck but you are drawn ever closer to it the more you deny my determined nature. You know in your heart it can not be chance that's why you try to avoid using the term. Trying to use an alternative like favourable only makes my position stronger. Yes nature does look for favourable circumstances. It requires favourable circumstances for its formula. They are not chance, chance happens only with mans inability to comprehend.
When you refuse to admit that life might or might not be elsewhere in the universe you are refusing to acknowledge the crucial question it implies. We have one of three scenarios. One it was a complex chain of chance event accumulating into conscious ability. Two a formula from nature, a natural formed formula, predetermined the eventual outcome and conscious life was inevitable. Three an engineer or engineers from an advanced civilisation introduced life understanding the consequences. I know you may say there could be a reasonable alternative but I am damned if I have heard of one or even sniffed one. If there is no other form of life in the universe you must admit it is chance and then you must consider the impossible odds that it infers. If there is life then a formula must exist. To repeat an experiment you need a formula.A formula that will determine the outcome.
Post Number:#125 March 14th, 2012, 5:02 pm
Xris wrote,
“I can not accept that if we had sufficient knowledge we could not predict the outcome of evolution given the correct facts.If it could be predicted then a set of rules governs its progress.”
Well, this is a bit muddled: If we had “sufficient” knowledge-which would have to be quite a bit-indeed! However, you might mean something like ‘in principle’ it could be possible to predict outcomes etc. This follows, of course, if and only if-living beings were/are equally as determined-in meaning- as gravity or the ‘rules’ of chemistry were/are. A quite contentious claim.
Yet, you seem to reason that if something follows ‘rules’ it must be predictable and-thus determined. But this is an assumption! We can have ‘things’ that follow or operate within and by certain ‘rules’ that make prediction either highly unlikely-or even practically impossible! For example, we may well notice that tossing six-million dice at time X and record the specified total outcome—where each individual dice is laying after the toss-the number each dice displayed-where dice #3000987 is in relation to dice #45998-record the total number all dice added up to etc.—will not likely repeat the same exact sequence of outcomes if done thousands of times a day for billions of years. This isn’t only possible-it is likely that it would never happen again-even if it is possible that it could. Now, no one would be tempted to think that just because you couldn’t repeat this scenario-that there are no rules to explain any given outcome or the behaviors that lead up to those outcomes! There are rules that predict outcomes-but there are also rules that merely describe the other features of the process-and not outcomes.
Humans, in fact, and, also, biological beings in general, are vastly more complicated than the dice example. We are ‘choosers’ within our environment-altering it, moving through it, deciding on what to do when and so on. I may design a study that will observe and trace cause-and effect relations. Yet, I myself am confronted with numerous options of how to handle what I’m observing-making decisions and acting on certain values-known and unknown to even myself. This hardly suggests that my choice is random or anti-causal or that there’s no physical or physicalist explanation for my cognitive process. It only means that as a cognitive living agent, I’m affecting change-causing effects within my own mind and my environment. Such complexity is not governed in the same way as are rocks and photons. Natural selection tells us how evolution works-not what specified outcomes life must produce. Just like the dice tossed up in the air and landing the way they did at time X can be explained by appeal to physical laws, does not mean, given these rules of physics, that we can predict what the next outcome will be.
There are causal-determining forces-but not all these forces operate the same in all things. If you want to believe that-fine….but it is a mere belief that has no more reason, apparently, than you simply not being able to imagine an opposite case. Well, if so, then this is an issue of imagination-not of what is logically possible or even likely.
Xris wrote,
“You want to reject chance, luck but you are drawn ever closer to it the more you deny my determined nature. You know in your heart it can not be chance that's why you try to avoid using the term. Trying to use an alternative like favourable only makes my position stronger. Yes nature does look for favourable circumstances. It requires favourable circumstances for its formula. They are not chance, chance happens only with mans inability to comprehend.”
No…I simply do not see why I am committed to having to abide by your interpretation of chance as something like ‘infinite indeterminacy.’ To speak of chance as variable potentials is not the same as saying all things are random forevermore simply because at time Y there were no fixed laws. I can argue that a kind of randomness existed at time X without having to say that-that randomness means no determinacy whatsoever. These initial phases can emerge into more stable patterns. There’s nothing that makes that impossible or even unscientific-since that is what current day cosmology is saying happened. To suppose that randomness exists means that all is random or that randomness excludes order for all time is not only a sort of slippery slope argument-it is also a ‘false choice’ argument. Randomness need not mean NO determinacy whatsoever! If so, please argue that point!
Xris wrote,
“When you refuse to admit that life might or might not be elsewhere in the universe you are refusing to acknowledge the crucial question it implies. We have one of three scenarios. One it was a complex chain of chance event accumulating into conscious ability. Two a formula from nature, a natural formed formula, predetermined the eventual outcome and conscious life was inevitable. Three an engineer or engineers from an advanced civilisation introduced life understanding the consequences. I know you may say there could be a reasonable alternative but I am damned if I have heard of one or even sniffed one. If there is no other form of life in the universe you must admit it is chance and then you must consider the impossible odds that it infers. If there is life then a formula must exist. To repeat an experiment you need a formula.A formula that will determine the outcome.”
Obviously I’ve more than provided another alternative. One that is both empirically valid and logically possible. I’m sorry that you cannot seem to imagine those other possibilities or take up what the sciences are saying on the topic-but your unwillingness to accept current science and lack of imagination is neither an argument favoring your position nor is it a good enough reason to reject plausible explanations to the contrary.
Chat tomorrow all,
Eric D.
“I can not accept that if we had sufficient knowledge we could not predict the outcome of evolution given the correct facts.If it could be predicted then a set of rules governs its progress.”
Well, this is a bit muddled: If we had “sufficient” knowledge-which would have to be quite a bit-indeed! However, you might mean something like ‘in principle’ it could be possible to predict outcomes etc. This follows, of course, if and only if-living beings were/are equally as determined-in meaning- as gravity or the ‘rules’ of chemistry were/are. A quite contentious claim.
Yet, you seem to reason that if something follows ‘rules’ it must be predictable and-thus determined. But this is an assumption! We can have ‘things’ that follow or operate within and by certain ‘rules’ that make prediction either highly unlikely-or even practically impossible! For example, we may well notice that tossing six-million dice at time X and record the specified total outcome—where each individual dice is laying after the toss-the number each dice displayed-where dice #3000987 is in relation to dice #45998-record the total number all dice added up to etc.—will not likely repeat the same exact sequence of outcomes if done thousands of times a day for billions of years. This isn’t only possible-it is likely that it would never happen again-even if it is possible that it could. Now, no one would be tempted to think that just because you couldn’t repeat this scenario-that there are no rules to explain any given outcome or the behaviors that lead up to those outcomes! There are rules that predict outcomes-but there are also rules that merely describe the other features of the process-and not outcomes.
Humans, in fact, and, also, biological beings in general, are vastly more complicated than the dice example. We are ‘choosers’ within our environment-altering it, moving through it, deciding on what to do when and so on. I may design a study that will observe and trace cause-and effect relations. Yet, I myself am confronted with numerous options of how to handle what I’m observing-making decisions and acting on certain values-known and unknown to even myself. This hardly suggests that my choice is random or anti-causal or that there’s no physical or physicalist explanation for my cognitive process. It only means that as a cognitive living agent, I’m affecting change-causing effects within my own mind and my environment. Such complexity is not governed in the same way as are rocks and photons. Natural selection tells us how evolution works-not what specified outcomes life must produce. Just like the dice tossed up in the air and landing the way they did at time X can be explained by appeal to physical laws, does not mean, given these rules of physics, that we can predict what the next outcome will be.
There are causal-determining forces-but not all these forces operate the same in all things. If you want to believe that-fine….but it is a mere belief that has no more reason, apparently, than you simply not being able to imagine an opposite case. Well, if so, then this is an issue of imagination-not of what is logically possible or even likely.
Xris wrote,
“You want to reject chance, luck but you are drawn ever closer to it the more you deny my determined nature. You know in your heart it can not be chance that's why you try to avoid using the term. Trying to use an alternative like favourable only makes my position stronger. Yes nature does look for favourable circumstances. It requires favourable circumstances for its formula. They are not chance, chance happens only with mans inability to comprehend.”
No…I simply do not see why I am committed to having to abide by your interpretation of chance as something like ‘infinite indeterminacy.’ To speak of chance as variable potentials is not the same as saying all things are random forevermore simply because at time Y there were no fixed laws. I can argue that a kind of randomness existed at time X without having to say that-that randomness means no determinacy whatsoever. These initial phases can emerge into more stable patterns. There’s nothing that makes that impossible or even unscientific-since that is what current day cosmology is saying happened. To suppose that randomness exists means that all is random or that randomness excludes order for all time is not only a sort of slippery slope argument-it is also a ‘false choice’ argument. Randomness need not mean NO determinacy whatsoever! If so, please argue that point!
Xris wrote,
“When you refuse to admit that life might or might not be elsewhere in the universe you are refusing to acknowledge the crucial question it implies. We have one of three scenarios. One it was a complex chain of chance event accumulating into conscious ability. Two a formula from nature, a natural formed formula, predetermined the eventual outcome and conscious life was inevitable. Three an engineer or engineers from an advanced civilisation introduced life understanding the consequences. I know you may say there could be a reasonable alternative but I am damned if I have heard of one or even sniffed one. If there is no other form of life in the universe you must admit it is chance and then you must consider the impossible odds that it infers. If there is life then a formula must exist. To repeat an experiment you need a formula.A formula that will determine the outcome.”
Obviously I’ve more than provided another alternative. One that is both empirically valid and logically possible. I’m sorry that you cannot seem to imagine those other possibilities or take up what the sciences are saying on the topic-but your unwillingness to accept current science and lack of imagination is neither an argument favoring your position nor is it a good enough reason to reject plausible explanations to the contrary.
Chat tomorrow all,
Eric D.
Post Number:#126 March 14th, 2012, 5:41 pm
Eric I would never bet on the fall of a coin or a dice. The laws that govern their predicted outcome are too complex. I would with consideration bet on a horse race. Complexity for nature is not an issue. It just reacts to the circumstances.
Your view on random has me slightly bemused. Random is no different than luck it does not exist. If you maintain that is how nature operates you must put your signature on that opinion.
Why am I questioning science Eric? I believe I am confirming the observations science has made. Extraterrestrial life has no future in my opinion without believing nature is always determined to create conscious ability. The alternatives? If it is luck then even finding similar planets as ours does not mean life will exist there. We would need to increase the odds to such a degree life would be virtually impossible.
Your view on random has me slightly bemused. Random is no different than luck it does not exist. If you maintain that is how nature operates you must put your signature on that opinion.
Why am I questioning science Eric? I believe I am confirming the observations science has made. Extraterrestrial life has no future in my opinion without believing nature is always determined to create conscious ability. The alternatives? If it is luck then even finding similar planets as ours does not mean life will exist there. We would need to increase the odds to such a degree life would be virtually impossible.
Post Number:#127 March 15th, 2012, 3:52 pm
Xris wrote,
“Eric I would never bet on the fall of a coin or a dice. The laws that govern their predicted outcome are too complex. I would with consideration bet on a horse race. Complexity for nature is not an issue. It just reacts to the circumstances”
Complexity of patterns is part of the argument and predictability. In other words, this isn’t about complexity per se-it is about rule-governing patterns and variability of outcomes as opposed to other kinds of predictions we can or may make. Not sure how that essential point was missed here.
Xris wrote,
“Your view on random has me slightly bemused. Random is no different than luck it does not exist. If you maintain that is how nature operates you must put your signature on that opinion.”
Xris-a position doesn’t have to abide by your definitions in order to make a case. All one needs to do is clearly show what one means by the use of their terms- define if necessary, and/or outline examples of such usage. Your view only works if we accept the terms you use in some loose populist sense. However, we need not do this! We can refine what we mean and make clear the nuances in our arguments. You have to show WHY I must accept the semantics you lay out and their dilemma-like consequences. I’ve shown, through the course of this discussion, a plausible set of alternatives. The only reply you have seems to be, “Yeah, but I don’t like using those terms that way! They have to be used this way.” That’s a weak argument-period! Why does chance have to mean—infinite indeterminism, or determinism mean or exclude the presence of non-fixed order? You give no argument for your usage of these terms. You simply rely on populist meanings-and leave the argument. You never answer the objections.
Xris wrote,
“Why am I questioning science Eric? I believe I am confirming the observations science has made.”
Because present day cosmology or natural selection (biological science) would never dream of arguing that the universe is engineered—determined—to produce US or life analogous to us. Those that speculate that there may be some sort of principle a-work here that might do admit that such an issue is an empirical one and still must yet be confirmed. You’re claiming something far beyond what current science would be willing to accept. Your argument is a metaphysical one based on a priori principles-or so it seems—of course, you never say or argue the point-so that is hard to say.
Xris wrote,
“Extraterrestrial life has no future in my opinion without believing nature is always determined to create conscious ability.”
Well, and, once again, that’s a belief! It is possible that nature isn’t trying to do anything and still generate life-or conscious ability. This is possible. But, again, you provide no reason why it isn’t possible. Saying otherwise, doesn’t make it so.
Xris wrote,
“The alternatives? If it is luck then even finding similar planets as ours does not mean life will exist there. We would need to increase the odds to such a degree life would be virtually impossible.”
Not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. We might find a watery planet. We may even find amino acids—the necessary building blocks for life—and find NO life. Why? Because there are numerous OTHER conditions, some we know had to be, and others probably unknown, that also have to occur to presumably bring about life. The search for life is based on the empirical assumptions that (a) life is here-so there’s no reason to think life, in some form or other, couldn’t have formed elsewhere, and (b) the sheer numbers of planets, stars and entire galaxies—along with having billions of years, may increase the chances of their being life elsewhere. Ultimately, whether or not there is life out there will have to be confirmed or disconfirmed through actual search and discovery. If, however, we found life-and even intelligent life at that—it wouldn’t necessitate, even then, that life is a must! Only that it does occur.
If it does turn out that life is something that the universe produces—and intelligent life is produced from time to time—this would be at best an empirical finding-not a logical a priori one. As such, ‘empirical truths’ are never necessary ones—they could always have been otherwise!
Eric D.
“Eric I would never bet on the fall of a coin or a dice. The laws that govern their predicted outcome are too complex. I would with consideration bet on a horse race. Complexity for nature is not an issue. It just reacts to the circumstances”
Complexity of patterns is part of the argument and predictability. In other words, this isn’t about complexity per se-it is about rule-governing patterns and variability of outcomes as opposed to other kinds of predictions we can or may make. Not sure how that essential point was missed here.
Xris wrote,
“Your view on random has me slightly bemused. Random is no different than luck it does not exist. If you maintain that is how nature operates you must put your signature on that opinion.”
Xris-a position doesn’t have to abide by your definitions in order to make a case. All one needs to do is clearly show what one means by the use of their terms- define if necessary, and/or outline examples of such usage. Your view only works if we accept the terms you use in some loose populist sense. However, we need not do this! We can refine what we mean and make clear the nuances in our arguments. You have to show WHY I must accept the semantics you lay out and their dilemma-like consequences. I’ve shown, through the course of this discussion, a plausible set of alternatives. The only reply you have seems to be, “Yeah, but I don’t like using those terms that way! They have to be used this way.” That’s a weak argument-period! Why does chance have to mean—infinite indeterminism, or determinism mean or exclude the presence of non-fixed order? You give no argument for your usage of these terms. You simply rely on populist meanings-and leave the argument. You never answer the objections.
Xris wrote,
“Why am I questioning science Eric? I believe I am confirming the observations science has made.”
Because present day cosmology or natural selection (biological science) would never dream of arguing that the universe is engineered—determined—to produce US or life analogous to us. Those that speculate that there may be some sort of principle a-work here that might do admit that such an issue is an empirical one and still must yet be confirmed. You’re claiming something far beyond what current science would be willing to accept. Your argument is a metaphysical one based on a priori principles-or so it seems—of course, you never say or argue the point-so that is hard to say.
Xris wrote,
“Extraterrestrial life has no future in my opinion without believing nature is always determined to create conscious ability.”
Well, and, once again, that’s a belief! It is possible that nature isn’t trying to do anything and still generate life-or conscious ability. This is possible. But, again, you provide no reason why it isn’t possible. Saying otherwise, doesn’t make it so.
Xris wrote,
“The alternatives? If it is luck then even finding similar planets as ours does not mean life will exist there. We would need to increase the odds to such a degree life would be virtually impossible.”
Not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. We might find a watery planet. We may even find amino acids—the necessary building blocks for life—and find NO life. Why? Because there are numerous OTHER conditions, some we know had to be, and others probably unknown, that also have to occur to presumably bring about life. The search for life is based on the empirical assumptions that (a) life is here-so there’s no reason to think life, in some form or other, couldn’t have formed elsewhere, and (b) the sheer numbers of planets, stars and entire galaxies—along with having billions of years, may increase the chances of their being life elsewhere. Ultimately, whether or not there is life out there will have to be confirmed or disconfirmed through actual search and discovery. If, however, we found life-and even intelligent life at that—it wouldn’t necessitate, even then, that life is a must! Only that it does occur.
If it does turn out that life is something that the universe produces—and intelligent life is produced from time to time—this would be at best an empirical finding-not a logical a priori one. As such, ‘empirical truths’ are never necessary ones—they could always have been otherwise!
Eric D.
Post Number:#128 March 16th, 2012, 12:24 am
Discordia wrote:1) Either God's existence is necessary or impossible.
2) God's existence is not impossible.
3) Therefore, God's existence is necessary.
#2 could just as well be "God's existence is possible", but the necessity of God would not rest on possibility, but actuality, because then what you're merely saying is that God's necessity is merely possible. This gets muddled in your simple syllogism because of the dichotomy you put out, which ignores the various interplays, dynamics, overlap, and relationships between contingency/possibility and actuality/necessity.Fhbradley wrote:I'm sure one would right away claim the first premise is a false dichotomy, but it isn't. Essentially, if God existed, he could not exist contingently, he would have to exist necessarily (that is, exist in all possible worlds). It would be a part of his nature, just as if abstract objects existed, they would also exist necessarily.
You have indeed not proven that his existence is necessary, because you have provided that the conditional for this necessity is his very existence:if [God] existed, [he] would also exist necessarily.
Too bad this very sentence makes the existence of that which exists necessarily contingent. In other words, all you're really saying is: "If he happens to exist, then he [necessarily] exists." Its a useless hidden tautology that proves little to nothing.If one would then want to argue God's existence is impossible to avoid the conclusion, they would have to show that the idea of God is contradictory, or at least incoherent.
The Christian G-d blatantly is, but this simply means that God is indeed not-God, and that that is the only way in which he can "exist".
Well, if something is possibly necessary, it follows that it is actual. Secondly, you say my conditional makes his existence automatically contingent, but that's false. The logical particles if and then are not themselves a part of the statement 'God exists'. Rather, these logical particles merely set up implication to deduce logical consequences. That is, if the statement 'God exists' is true (or 'is the case'), it follows that such-and-such is true (or 'is the case'). Whatever that such-and-such might be. To say then, if p, does not entail p is itself a contingent thing. Also, the term 'if' usually implies epistemic uncertainty, which is why I think you were led astray when thinking that 'if' implies contingency. Usually this would be expressed as 'if x is the case, then y". Here, 'if' suggests that this speaker does not know whether or not x is true. Of course, not knowing x does not mean ~x.
Next, about the Christian God. This argument was not an argument for the Christian God, but rather, a sort of Deistic God (general, that is). Whether or not this God would have personal attributes, I believe, is unknowable. However, if we posit that there truly is such a thing as 'good' and 'bad', it would not be unreasonable to infer that this God was in fact personal. But you should give some justification for the claim that the Christian God is blatantly contradictory. I don't think the traditional arguments for Atheism work anymore, especially the 'problem of evil' and the notion that God's knowing that p implies that necessarily p and hence there is no free-will.
Post Number:#129 March 16th, 2012, 1:48 am
Clarify, Verify, and Instill the Hopes and Threats that lead to the Maximum Momentum of Self-Harmony for the Living - Measure your Progress.
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homosapian shall never awake.
What remains in harmony cannot perish.
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homosapian shall never awake.
What remains in harmony cannot perish.
Post Number:#130 March 16th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Fhbradley wrote:Well, if something is possibly necessary, it follows that it is actual. Secondly, you say my conditional makes his existence automatically contingent, but that's false. The logical particles if and then are not themselves a part of the statement 'God exists'. Rather, these logical particles merely set up implication to deduce logical consequences.
You're right--conditionals set up these "logical particles" to deduce logical consequences. However, the conditional itself does not deduce anything--its setting up a condition, where the first condition under "if" becomes a premise that has to be proven for the conclusion "then". In other words, the conditional itself makes the conclusion logically contingent, whether or not defacto contingent (which, whether it is de-facto contingent or necessary is determined by proving the first part of the contingent under "if"). Remember that a conditional has a protasis for a reason. If the conditional itself is true, and the protasis is a necessary rather than sufficient condition, the only thing that one can conclude is that its inverse is true: If not X, not Y. In this case, "If God does not exist, then God is not necessary." You can't actually go about proving his necessity by simply proving the validity of the conditional. You can only prove other and further conditionals, which doesn't work as a proof of a non-conditional, or definitive, proposition (if [lol] we can even say "God exists" is an intelligible proposition).
If something is possibly necessary, nothing follows. I don't see how contingent necessity --> necessary contingency, without doing a bit of work in-between; y'know, in the "-->".
To say then, if p, does not entail p is itself a contingent thing.
You don't say?
Quite a good thing that protasis is backed up!
Also, the term 'if' usually implies epistemic uncertainty, which is why I think you were led astray when thinking that 'if' implies contingency. Usually this would be expressed as 'if x is the case, then y".
It implies logical contingency--which is just another way to say "epistemic uncertainty", although more accurate since conditionals do not necessarily imply uncertainty, for we may be certain of the conditional and may also be certain of both our premises and conclusions. Epistemic certainty is an entirely different discussion--the conditional only so far indicates a logical relation, with a protasis, which means it involves logical contingency: the apodosis relies on the protasis.
Here, 'if' suggests that this speaker does not know whether or not x is true. Of course, not knowing x does not mean ~x.
That's besides the point. The point is your argument is fallacious, precisely because you imply that having a protasis is sufficient to warrant the apodosis true in this case. You're putting out a conditional that is "uncertain" (or more accurately, logically contingent), and have not managed to back up the truth of the statement-variables of the conditional, specifically the protasis. All you did was assume the statement-variables truth through the conditional itself through some strange magic trick.
But you should give some justification for the claim that the Christian God is blatantly contradictory.
You missed what I was trying to imply, but never-mind.
I don't think the traditional arguments for Atheism work anymore, especially the 'problem of evil' and the notion that God's knowing that p implies that necessarily p and hence there is no free-will.
Cool story bro. Also, you're conflating my criticism. "If God knows p, then necessarily x" is perfectly fine. I don't have a problem with those statements. The apodosis is still contingent, though, in logical relation to the protasis "God knows p". You have to prove or justify that first protasis, unless you take it for granted for discussion's sake--but taking it for granted for discussions sake does not stand as proof, instead working better for disproofs involving logical absurdities. Same with "If God exists, he is necessary" or "If God is necessary, he exists". The conditional by-itself does not prove the apodosis, it simply sets up the logical relation.
"If X exists, necessarily P"=/="If X, P is necessary." One says the relational consequences are necessary (which is essential to a conditional), the other "necessary" is a qualifier for the variable (not very essential to the conditional as it only creates a particular statement-variable). Yet, both are very similar propositions, and what I'm saying is not that its a problem conditionals involve a concept of necessity, but that the necessity only qualifies the relationship relative to the apodosis, but is itself actually contingent relative to the protasis (especially if it only works as a qualifier within the apodosis [i.e., "If X, P is necessary"]). In regards to "If X, necessarily P" you would have to show the conditional as a whole, i.e. the relation itself, "sound".
Last edited by Discordia on March 16th, 2012, 4:15 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Post Number:#131 March 16th, 2012, 3:40 pm
Eric, I think we are at an impasse. I am not sure if I simply replied to your post it would resolve our differences. You must have noticed by now I am no academic philosopher, I therefor appreciate your patients. So how to I maintain my views but carry the debate forward has been my main concern. If I restated my claim that a formula must exist and form my reasoning around that statement we might be able to concentrate our argument.
With a formula we could imaging life occurring wherever it found the correct elements in abundance and the conditions correct. Can we agree or disagree on that crucial question first Eric..thanks xris.
With a formula we could imaging life occurring wherever it found the correct elements in abundance and the conditions correct. Can we agree or disagree on that crucial question first Eric..thanks xris.
Post Number:#132 March 17th, 2012, 6:50 am
Hi edelker,
I think that we have agreed that chance does not have the capability of creating form and matter from nothing. Yet the universe exists. Therefore, I surmise, that there must be an entity, which precedes any such notion of chance as we have discussed. An entity which makes chance and / or cause and effect possible. I think that the entity I am describing could be called a first or initial cause. Being a theist I believe that the entity is God, whereas an atheist / science posits that the entity is the catalyst of the Big Bang. However, if the Big Bang did occur, then after all of these years, why have we not been able to isolate the actual cause / entity / catalyst of it? Such knowledge remains elusive to us, and still it is not clear how the cosmological bodies where created. The scientific explanation we have for the creation of life on earth, is that our solar system formed by chance; even though the odds of that happening are extremely minimal.
The existence of God cannot be proven, it requires faith to believe in him, but I think there are enough questions and signs regarding the creation of the universe to argue that there is an intelligent creator. And that the universe or more specifically our solar system, was designed to support life. So too, the existence of God cannot be disproved, giving more grounds to argue a case for his existence. Not a perfect argument beyond reproach or doubt, but an argument that stands on equal footing with the Big Bang, in terms of being able to prove how the universe was created.
I think that we have agreed that chance does not have the capability of creating form and matter from nothing. Yet the universe exists. Therefore, I surmise, that there must be an entity, which precedes any such notion of chance as we have discussed. An entity which makes chance and / or cause and effect possible. I think that the entity I am describing could be called a first or initial cause. Being a theist I believe that the entity is God, whereas an atheist / science posits that the entity is the catalyst of the Big Bang. However, if the Big Bang did occur, then after all of these years, why have we not been able to isolate the actual cause / entity / catalyst of it? Such knowledge remains elusive to us, and still it is not clear how the cosmological bodies where created. The scientific explanation we have for the creation of life on earth, is that our solar system formed by chance; even though the odds of that happening are extremely minimal.
The existence of God cannot be proven, it requires faith to believe in him, but I think there are enough questions and signs regarding the creation of the universe to argue that there is an intelligent creator. And that the universe or more specifically our solar system, was designed to support life. So too, the existence of God cannot be disproved, giving more grounds to argue a case for his existence. Not a perfect argument beyond reproach or doubt, but an argument that stands on equal footing with the Big Bang, in terms of being able to prove how the universe was created.
Post Number:#133 March 17th, 2012, 12:10 pm
Xris/Fanman
Xris wrote,
“You must have noticed by now I am no academic philosopher, I therefor appreciate your patients. So how to I maintain my views but carry the debate forward has been my main concern. If I restated my claim that a formula must exist and form my reasoning around that statement we might be able to concentrate our argument. With a formula we could imaging life occurring wherever it found the correct elements in abundance and the conditions correct. Can we agree or disagree on that crucial question first Eric..thanks xris.”
K… I can see at least two ways this could go: (1) you could argue that once natural selection-plus the conditions around which life- emerged certain determining properties about that process emerged, or (2) that in order for there to be any determining property X, there must be some sufficiently determining precondition Y that gives rise to X. In (1) the argument might generally be that the determining characteristics of natural selection must produce those bio-trends that maximize adaptive utility—meaning that increased intelligence is more maximally adaptive than those types of mental properties that possess either less intelligence, because they possess less adaptive utility, or those bio-forms that possess only “chemical intelligence,” that may be highly adaptive-but not as efficient—and, presumably, it is reasonable to assume that increased efficiency (perhaps better defined than this) is better than mere highly adaptive traits of the chemical non-intelligent sort. Meaning, that nature will select, under the right conditions, those taxonomies that tend towards increased intelligence.
If (2) is more what you’re after, then I can see an argument generally along the lines of: That in order to have ‘determining’ properties X there at least must be probability potentials that have some intrinsic trend towards X—so, even if there are ‘chance conditions’ these conditions cannot be ‘fixed’ random conditions and yet must eventually lead to more stable determining streams of patterned organization-since such organization is what has occurred and continues-even from quantum levels of chance occurrences. This form of ‘retrograde’ reasoning is justified on the rational assumption that even if chance conditions occur-they cannot occur infinitely given the fact that we presently have determined-like order now all around us AND that order came-presumably- from some other pattern that is not this pattern,i.e, our current universe . We could call this the ‘retrograde justification’ principle. Now, since nature seems to favor such patterns, even over random ones, it appears that nature’s organizational structure can be rightly considered determined. As such, given enough time and determining conditions, then, it seems reasonable to conclude-more or less-that intelligence fits the conditions for higher more efficient (or what have you) organizing taxonomic bio-systems as well—since bio-systems are another form of physical systems. This too is justified along the same lines given above. Given this, determinism and naturally organizing systems of “higher” intelligence appears to be favored (determined) by such a universe. In other words, it is the case that the universe inherently tends towards high patterns of organization and biological intelligence. Hence, one could easily see an argument being formulated from these rudimentary propositional elements to an argument of the intrinsic nature of the universe being one that works towards higher forms of efficiency and organization—or something analogous to this.
Naturally, and as you might expect, there are problems with either of these approaches. However, I think I could go a long way in agreement with some variation of these arguments and further discussion given these sorts of options we might have. I think these approaches would at least have resources to further the dialectical agenda for their side even if they didn’t possess a sort of ‘knock out’ dialectic punch against all forms of indeterminism. What do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fanman wrote,
“I think that we have agreed that chance does not have the capability of creating form and matter from nothing. Yet the universe exists. Therefore, I surmise, that there must be an entity, which precedes any such notion of chance as we have discussed. An entity which makes chance and / or cause and effect possible.”
I do not accept the proposition ‘that chance does not have the capability of creating form and matter.’ I tend to agree that there seems to be something present for ‘something’ to become. But chance is not a thing! It is a way to characterize, here, an ontological state of affairs that possess only potential states for varying kinds of determinative consequences. Something from nothing and chance/determinism are two separate issues. One deals with ultimate causation of all things (chance and/or determined)-and the other concerns how those things exist in a certain way or ontological sense.
Fanman wrote,
“I think that the entity I am describing could be called a first or initial cause. Being a theist I believe that the entity is God, whereas an atheist / science posits that the entity is the catalyst of the Big Bang. However, if the Big Bang did occur, then after all of these years, why have we not been able to isolate the actual cause / entity / catalyst of it? Such knowledge remains elusive to us, and still it is not clear how the cosmological bodies where created.”
Well, many physicists actually argue that the universe seems to have come from nothing. But, for the time being, I’ll leave that to them. What you’re addressing here is the ‘known’ cause of the universe issue. What we want from any given candidate for such a cause is its explanatory significance. In other words, we have several options-but how does any one of these options explain the universe? Here-in this context you’re asking two separate questions—one which relates to the one above-provided by me: (a) what is the cause of the Big bang, and (b) why, given a certain option, let’s call it the physicalist option, have we not found the physical cause? Well, for me, I do not know what caused the big-bang. This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold given that such a cause should be able to (1a) explicate most of the phenomena around us or provide such principles for an explanation, and (2a) eliminate other competing explanations. Since (2a) appears to be the current state of academic affairs-in my view-we must wait for (1a) to emerge.
Now, you offer ‘god’ as a candidate. But, once again, doing this not only doesn’t explain the something from nothing question, it leads to problems of how you explicate the physical in terms of the ontological other. This sort of ‘other’ is not merely different from the physical-it is its logical opposite: god has no geometric or temporal limitations or confinements. His fundamental make-up appears to be utterly simple-having no parts or local. This not only lacks explanatory dimension-as it does geometric-it lacks any seeming explanation for ‘how’ such a being ‘supernatural’ in the opposite sense as this-can create its opposite. Moreover, once we begin to try to understand what god means in this way-we realize that we have no ‘positive’ descriptive-only negative: god isn’t physical-god has no time confinements-god is a spirit etc. We have no idea what god is-only what he isn’t. As an explanatory concept, in this context, ‘god’ is not only a poor candidate, we have no way of knowing what god would explain-given this utterly impoverished conceptual content of god.
It should also be pointed out that just because a cause has not been identified-hardly means one won’t be! Theologians for eons have made the gross error of arguing for ‘god of the gaps’: wherever there’s a gap in our current knowledge of something-one simply plugs the gap with ‘god did it.’ Naturally, such gaps have become increasingly filled over time. It is a very dangerous thing to posit that one knows before the jury is in on the matter. Time is not the issue-finding the truth is! Sometimes, that might mean we never find it-but we keep trying nonetheless.
Fanman wrote,
“The scientific explanation we have for the creation of life on earth, is that our solar system formed by chance; even though the odds of that happening are extremely minimal.”
The way our solar system formed is not the scientific explanation for life on earth. Life on earth occurred after—or largely after—that formation. One is Cosmology-geo-physics and the other is abiogenesis. What the chances are or were of life forming is dependent on known variables at the time. We simply do not know what all the variables were-nor is it likely we could ever know. Here nor there, ‘chance’ factors might well be dramatically decreased if life emerged simply and progressed slowly over time. This is certainly possible and it is believed to be the way life got going-so to speak.
Fanman wrote,
“The existence of God cannot be proven, it requires faith to believe in him, but I think there are enough questions and signs regarding the creation of the universe to argue that there is an intelligent creator.”
There are lots of answers and possibilities too! God is far from the only one or even the best one on offer. Plus, science is hardly done lol!
Fanman wrote,
“And that the universe or more specifically our solar system, was designed to support life.”
Well, our planet was. As far as we know-all the other planets are vast toxic wastelands. Even the history of the earth is one where much of what has existed went extinct. Let’s keep in mind that life has to struggle to meet environmental demands. Even our earth is not friendly to life-life has to earn its existence all of the time. Life is part of the environment-whether life wins out or not is still an ending not yet told.
Fanman wrote,
“So too, the existence of God cannot be disproved, giving more grounds to argue a case for his existence.”
God cannot be disproved because the concept of god is in such poor propositional shape that we cannot determine what god is sufficiently to even know if such an asserted existence is true or false. Prior to determining the existence of something, we have to know what “it” is. Yet, by definition, we cannot know what god is. If we could define god-he would be amendable to human knowledge-but he/she/it isn’t. So, we cannot say what the existential status of god is at all because no one can even say what god is! Not a good basis for a rational argument of any kind.
Fanman wrote,
“Not a perfect argument beyond reproach or doubt, but an argument that stands on equal footing with the Big Bang, in terms of being able to prove how the universe was created.”
Again, there are lots of options to consider. God is not even in the running.
Eric D.
Xris wrote,
“You must have noticed by now I am no academic philosopher, I therefor appreciate your patients. So how to I maintain my views but carry the debate forward has been my main concern. If I restated my claim that a formula must exist and form my reasoning around that statement we might be able to concentrate our argument. With a formula we could imaging life occurring wherever it found the correct elements in abundance and the conditions correct. Can we agree or disagree on that crucial question first Eric..thanks xris.”
K… I can see at least two ways this could go: (1) you could argue that once natural selection-plus the conditions around which life- emerged certain determining properties about that process emerged, or (2) that in order for there to be any determining property X, there must be some sufficiently determining precondition Y that gives rise to X. In (1) the argument might generally be that the determining characteristics of natural selection must produce those bio-trends that maximize adaptive utility—meaning that increased intelligence is more maximally adaptive than those types of mental properties that possess either less intelligence, because they possess less adaptive utility, or those bio-forms that possess only “chemical intelligence,” that may be highly adaptive-but not as efficient—and, presumably, it is reasonable to assume that increased efficiency (perhaps better defined than this) is better than mere highly adaptive traits of the chemical non-intelligent sort. Meaning, that nature will select, under the right conditions, those taxonomies that tend towards increased intelligence.
If (2) is more what you’re after, then I can see an argument generally along the lines of: That in order to have ‘determining’ properties X there at least must be probability potentials that have some intrinsic trend towards X—so, even if there are ‘chance conditions’ these conditions cannot be ‘fixed’ random conditions and yet must eventually lead to more stable determining streams of patterned organization-since such organization is what has occurred and continues-even from quantum levels of chance occurrences. This form of ‘retrograde’ reasoning is justified on the rational assumption that even if chance conditions occur-they cannot occur infinitely given the fact that we presently have determined-like order now all around us AND that order came-presumably- from some other pattern that is not this pattern,i.e, our current universe . We could call this the ‘retrograde justification’ principle. Now, since nature seems to favor such patterns, even over random ones, it appears that nature’s organizational structure can be rightly considered determined. As such, given enough time and determining conditions, then, it seems reasonable to conclude-more or less-that intelligence fits the conditions for higher more efficient (or what have you) organizing taxonomic bio-systems as well—since bio-systems are another form of physical systems. This too is justified along the same lines given above. Given this, determinism and naturally organizing systems of “higher” intelligence appears to be favored (determined) by such a universe. In other words, it is the case that the universe inherently tends towards high patterns of organization and biological intelligence. Hence, one could easily see an argument being formulated from these rudimentary propositional elements to an argument of the intrinsic nature of the universe being one that works towards higher forms of efficiency and organization—or something analogous to this.
Naturally, and as you might expect, there are problems with either of these approaches. However, I think I could go a long way in agreement with some variation of these arguments and further discussion given these sorts of options we might have. I think these approaches would at least have resources to further the dialectical agenda for their side even if they didn’t possess a sort of ‘knock out’ dialectic punch against all forms of indeterminism. What do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fanman wrote,
“I think that we have agreed that chance does not have the capability of creating form and matter from nothing. Yet the universe exists. Therefore, I surmise, that there must be an entity, which precedes any such notion of chance as we have discussed. An entity which makes chance and / or cause and effect possible.”
I do not accept the proposition ‘that chance does not have the capability of creating form and matter.’ I tend to agree that there seems to be something present for ‘something’ to become. But chance is not a thing! It is a way to characterize, here, an ontological state of affairs that possess only potential states for varying kinds of determinative consequences. Something from nothing and chance/determinism are two separate issues. One deals with ultimate causation of all things (chance and/or determined)-and the other concerns how those things exist in a certain way or ontological sense.
Fanman wrote,
“I think that the entity I am describing could be called a first or initial cause. Being a theist I believe that the entity is God, whereas an atheist / science posits that the entity is the catalyst of the Big Bang. However, if the Big Bang did occur, then after all of these years, why have we not been able to isolate the actual cause / entity / catalyst of it? Such knowledge remains elusive to us, and still it is not clear how the cosmological bodies where created.”
Well, many physicists actually argue that the universe seems to have come from nothing. But, for the time being, I’ll leave that to them. What you’re addressing here is the ‘known’ cause of the universe issue. What we want from any given candidate for such a cause is its explanatory significance. In other words, we have several options-but how does any one of these options explain the universe? Here-in this context you’re asking two separate questions—one which relates to the one above-provided by me: (a) what is the cause of the Big bang, and (b) why, given a certain option, let’s call it the physicalist option, have we not found the physical cause? Well, for me, I do not know what caused the big-bang. This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold given that such a cause should be able to (1a) explicate most of the phenomena around us or provide such principles for an explanation, and (2a) eliminate other competing explanations. Since (2a) appears to be the current state of academic affairs-in my view-we must wait for (1a) to emerge.
Now, you offer ‘god’ as a candidate. But, once again, doing this not only doesn’t explain the something from nothing question, it leads to problems of how you explicate the physical in terms of the ontological other. This sort of ‘other’ is not merely different from the physical-it is its logical opposite: god has no geometric or temporal limitations or confinements. His fundamental make-up appears to be utterly simple-having no parts or local. This not only lacks explanatory dimension-as it does geometric-it lacks any seeming explanation for ‘how’ such a being ‘supernatural’ in the opposite sense as this-can create its opposite. Moreover, once we begin to try to understand what god means in this way-we realize that we have no ‘positive’ descriptive-only negative: god isn’t physical-god has no time confinements-god is a spirit etc. We have no idea what god is-only what he isn’t. As an explanatory concept, in this context, ‘god’ is not only a poor candidate, we have no way of knowing what god would explain-given this utterly impoverished conceptual content of god.
It should also be pointed out that just because a cause has not been identified-hardly means one won’t be! Theologians for eons have made the gross error of arguing for ‘god of the gaps’: wherever there’s a gap in our current knowledge of something-one simply plugs the gap with ‘god did it.’ Naturally, such gaps have become increasingly filled over time. It is a very dangerous thing to posit that one knows before the jury is in on the matter. Time is not the issue-finding the truth is! Sometimes, that might mean we never find it-but we keep trying nonetheless.
Fanman wrote,
“The scientific explanation we have for the creation of life on earth, is that our solar system formed by chance; even though the odds of that happening are extremely minimal.”
The way our solar system formed is not the scientific explanation for life on earth. Life on earth occurred after—or largely after—that formation. One is Cosmology-geo-physics and the other is abiogenesis. What the chances are or were of life forming is dependent on known variables at the time. We simply do not know what all the variables were-nor is it likely we could ever know. Here nor there, ‘chance’ factors might well be dramatically decreased if life emerged simply and progressed slowly over time. This is certainly possible and it is believed to be the way life got going-so to speak.
Fanman wrote,
“The existence of God cannot be proven, it requires faith to believe in him, but I think there are enough questions and signs regarding the creation of the universe to argue that there is an intelligent creator.”
There are lots of answers and possibilities too! God is far from the only one or even the best one on offer. Plus, science is hardly done lol!
Fanman wrote,
“And that the universe or more specifically our solar system, was designed to support life.”
Well, our planet was. As far as we know-all the other planets are vast toxic wastelands. Even the history of the earth is one where much of what has existed went extinct. Let’s keep in mind that life has to struggle to meet environmental demands. Even our earth is not friendly to life-life has to earn its existence all of the time. Life is part of the environment-whether life wins out or not is still an ending not yet told.
Fanman wrote,
“So too, the existence of God cannot be disproved, giving more grounds to argue a case for his existence.”
God cannot be disproved because the concept of god is in such poor propositional shape that we cannot determine what god is sufficiently to even know if such an asserted existence is true or false. Prior to determining the existence of something, we have to know what “it” is. Yet, by definition, we cannot know what god is. If we could define god-he would be amendable to human knowledge-but he/she/it isn’t. So, we cannot say what the existential status of god is at all because no one can even say what god is! Not a good basis for a rational argument of any kind.
Fanman wrote,
“Not a perfect argument beyond reproach or doubt, but an argument that stands on equal footing with the Big Bang, in terms of being able to prove how the universe was created.”
Again, there are lots of options to consider. God is not even in the running.
Eric D.
Post Number:#134 March 17th, 2012, 2:03 pm
Logically, without being superficially philosophical about it, one could conclude that if God existed it wouldn't require our own pathetic little attempts to prove it. But then again our efforts to reconcile non sequiturs are so much fun especially when they have absolutely no value. God is the greatest philosophical chessboard of all...with no rules attached. Clearly this "Nonentity" will live forever meaning for as long as we're around.
Post Number:#135 March 18th, 2012, 2:15 pm
Eric I think I would go along with your very interesting and astute reasoning. It is subject that has to be considered without prejudice or fear of the consequence. Thanks xris.
Return to Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
Philosophy Book of the Month Updates
The January book of the month is Two Cheers for Anarchism by James C. Scott. Discuss it here or buy it here.
The November book of the month is On the Internet by Hubert L. Dreyfus. Pick it up, read it and discuss it with us as a group!