31 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadas twhitehead correctly says above I believe we are going into realms of logical and illogical.
Exactly. So what you are talking about it logic, not nature. Hence anything that defies it is illogical, not supernatural.
Fabian added to the words of the above in the following post, also being correct in manner.
Let us consider complete illogic, which is also logical as an example.
Throw a stone into the air. To come down it must come half way. i.e. the height it reaches, be it X, must (for it to come half way down again) be X/2. To reach a quarter of the height it reached then it must fall X/4. To go on X/8, X/16 and so on, until infinity.
So, throw a stone into the air and it never reaches the ground?
But we hear the sound. How is that? Logic, or expected logic?
-m. 🙂
Edit: I believe a stone never hits the ground as much as I believe in the infinte force of a God. 😏
31 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton==================================
“...My position - From the inifinite past to today, logically not possible.
From today on and on forever, logically possible. ...”
how can one be logically possible but not the other?
Whatever reason you give for one being possible, you could give an adapted version (to take into account the change in tense and change in direction in time) of t se probably has NO supernatural cause and can you justify/qualify that criteria?
“...We had two logical problems:
1.) how to traverse infinity past to arrive at now.
2.) how to traverse infinity in the future starting from now.
I am saying logically #2 is possible whereas #1 is not. ...”
again, how can one be logically possible but not the other?
Whatever reason you give for one being possible, you could give an adapted version (to take into account the change in tense and change in direction in time) of the same reason to give as a reason why the other is possible.
==================================
I don't think your "adoption" is really a prfectly reflexive way of discribing the problem. You will have to convince me that you are stating the same issue in the same way.
I have read your replies and I plan to read through the last one a few more times. But I don't think your "adoption" is really another exact way of looking at what I am saying.
Here you say:
"how can one be logically possible but not the other?
Whatever reason you give for one being possible, you could give an adapted version (to take into account the change in tense and change in direction in time) of the same reason to give as a reason why the other is possible. "
To take into account the change in TENSE, I assume means that you are somehow imagining Time to run in reverse. Or you are assuming we are going to count back into the past, ie. moments which were once now but have become the past.
The reason I see why your "adoption" is not the same problem I have already given. In the first instance Time has NO starting point. In the "adoption" you propose for all intents and purposes Time DOES have a start - from NOW.
There is a difference between From no beginning until NOW and "From Now to no end".
I hear your protest that they are the same, they are exactly the same. I don't believe that you have a mirror image of the same issue. If and when you convince me that you have a mirror image of the same problem, I'll let you know.
I hear your protest essentially "But we're assuming that Time will have no end."
We should be assuming this situation;
1.) Time with no beginning but for all practical purposes has a point NOW that we have arrived at. That is all.
2.) Now is the point we start reckoning Time and assume no end in the other direction.
If you really want to make a mirror image of the situation have to make things equal.
#1) NO start until a POINT (now)
#2) A POINT to NO end (future)
Please don't tell me that these two situations are equivalent:
#1) NO start until a POINT (now)
#2) A POINT until a POINT (future)
Your #2 is not an "adoption" of the scenario represented by #1.
I see #2 as a kind of jury rigged and modified scenario to convince me that both are possible.
You protest "But you're assuming that Time will have no end in #2.
Correct. The assumption that we held for scenario #1 (Time had no beginning) we reflectively now move over from the past to the future (Time will have no end). That makes an equivalent. That makes a mirror image of the problem.
I think what you are attempting is to propose another image and convince me that it is a mirror image when it is not.
31 Jan 11
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywill“....How can you speak of Occam's razor in the problem of the origin of the universe when you tactically remain silent and uncommitted to any explanation ? ...”
[b]==================================
“...But I'm running with God Almighty as the cause.
That's the best assumption I think. ...”
in what way is this the “best” assumption? It certainly doesn't use Occam’s razor here.
=================================
How can you speak of Occam's razor in the problem of the origin of the universe w e of the methods that science has at its disposal.
Have to cont. latter[/b]
because I am uncommitted to any explanation AND I don't make the baseless and unnecessary assumption that something supernatural both exists and is involved -there is no contradiction there. Occam's razor does not commit you to give an explanation for something iin the presence of only insufficient relevant data and, if you think it does, you haven’t understood it.
Remember, Occam's razor is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
“....a principle which generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects ...” Or, put it in another way, “...entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity..." ( “entities” means “assumptions” here )
and the totally baseless and unnecessary assumption that something supernatural both exists and is involved in something will be an assumption that would make any hypothesis on that same something less agreeable according to Occam's razor as described above.
“...
==============================
If there IS a cause to the universe, then I would make no assumption of what that cause is (because I have insufficient data in my brain) .
=================================== (my quote)
But you also may plead "insufficient data in the brain" perpetually simply because you do not like where the EVIDENCE points. This is bigotry of a sort. ...” (my emphasis)
what “ EVIDENCE” ? As yet, science hasn't got any creditable evidence of A cause let alone what such a cause may be of the universe.
And how can one be a bigot just by acknowledging and admitting ignorance on something?
“...You MAY have personal metaphysical preferences which compel you to plead " insufficient data". ...” (my emphasis)
or I “MAY” not 😛
I think that I have insufficient data/knowledge on the cause (assuming there is a “cause”, -no clear evidence of one so far) of the universe because I have yet to see any evidence that the universe HAS a cause let alone what that cause is.
So any “personal metaphysical preferences” I may have regarding this (and I am not even sure myself which ones I would 'prefer' ) is irrelevant to my “plead " insufficient data"” for I have " insufficient data" whether or not I have “personal metaphysical preferences” and regardless of what those 'preferences' would be.
“...So we're talking about at this time the DATA we have points to something timeless, non-material, immensly powerful, supremely purposeful, outside of the univese itself as the origin for its existence. ...” (my emphasis)
what are you talking about? There is no such “DATA” that points to any such thing. Where is this data? Can you give me a specific example of just one piece of this data? And where does this data originate?
“...=============================
If you didn't know what caused a particular avalanche of snow, would you assume a supernatural cause?
============================== (my quote)
I am not talking about an avalanche of snow. …
….
…
...The origin of the existence of everything is what I am concerned with here. ...”
which “concerns” you is irrelevant to my argument here: if the logic you apply to “ everything “ is valid, then that SAME logic must valid if you apply it to “a particular avalanche of snow” else, logically, it is INVALID.
And, if we can demonstrate that logic to be INVALID when applied to “a particular avalanche of snow” then that will demonstrate that logic to be INVALID when applied to “ everything “ and therefore that would prove that logic invalid.
So lets test you logic by seeing if you CAN give an answer to my question using the SAME logic. So back to my question:
If you didn't know what caused a particular avalanche of snow, would you assume a supernatural cause?
If the answer is “no”, then you are not using the same logic as what you apply to “ everything “ ; surely an implicit admittance that it would be invalid logic if you applied it to “a particular avalanche of snow” and therefore invalid logic when applied to “ everything “ .
31 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=============================
“....How can you speak of Occam's razor in the problem of the origin of the universe when you tactically remain silent and uncommitted to any explanation ? ...”
because I am uncommitted to any explanation AND I don't make the baseless and unnecessary assumption that something supernatural both exists and is involved -there is no contradiction the snow” and therefore invalid logic when applied to “ [b]everything “ .[/b]
“....How can you speak of Occam's razor in the problem of the origin of the universe when you tactically remain silent and uncommitted to any explanation ? ...”
because I am uncommitted to any explanation AND I don't make the baseless and unnecessary assumption that something supernatural both exists and is involved -there is no contradiction there. Occam's razor does not commit you to give an explanation for something iin the presence of only insufficient relevant data and, if you think it does, you haven’t understood it.
Remember, Occam's razor is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
“....a principle which generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects ...” Or, put it in another way, “...entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity..." ( “entities” means “assumptions” here )
=====================================
Do you have anything like a competing hypothesis ?
How is "no commitment" a "competing hypothesis" ?
31 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill“...There is a difference between From no beginning until NOW and "From Now to no end".
[b]=============================
“....How can you speak of Occam's razor in the problem of the origin of the universe when you tactically remain silent and uncommitted to any explanation ? ...”
because I am uncommitted to any explanation AND I don't make the baseless and unnecessary assumption that something supernatural both exists and is involved -the ...[text shortened]... like a competing hypothesis ?
How is "no commitment" a "competing hypothesis" ?[/b]
I hear your protest that they are the same, they are exactly the same. I don't believe that you have a mirror image of the same issue. ...”
so they are “different”. Exactly WHAT “difference” is there between them that would mean you can apply one kind of logic to one but only another contrary logic (that logically contradicts the first logic) to the other?
“...So, throw a stone into the air and it never reaches the ground? ...”
no, it would reach the ground. And nowhere have I used the same flawed logic used to argue that it wouldn't.
“....Do you have anything like a competing hypothesis ? ...”
regarding the origins of the universe; no.
“....How is "no commitment" a "competing hypothesis" ? ...”
where did I say/imply that? I do NOT believe that "no commitment" = "competing hypothesis" and I don't see how that relates to the contents of my post.
Now, I have answers your questions to the best of my ability so, Back to my critical question that remains unanswered:
If you didn't know what caused a particular avalanche of snow, would you assume a supernatural cause?
as I said in my last post, If the answer to the above is “no”, then you are not using the same logic as what you apply to “ everything “ ; surely an implicit admittance that it would be invalid logic if you applied it to “a particular avalanche of snow” and therefore invalid logic when applied to “ everything “ .
31 Jan 11
4 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton====================================
“....How can you speak of Occam's razor in the problem of the origin of the universe when you tactically remain silent and uncommitted to any explanation ? ...”
because I am uncommitted to any explanation AND I don't make the baseless and unnecessary assumption that something supernatural both exists and is involved -there is no contradiction the snow” and therefore invalid logic when applied to “ [b]everything “ .[/b]
I think that I have insufficient data/knowledge on the cause (assuming there is a “cause”,
====================================
Should science look in the direction of there being no cause ?
Should science in this case suspend the principle of cause and effect and assume a universe uncaused ?
You don't know?
Not commited yet?
==============================
-no clear evidence of one so far) of the universe because I have yet to see any evidence that the universe HAS a cause let alone what that cause is.
==============================
Do you have enough evidence that the universe exists at all ?
Maybe if we assume that it doesn't exist we will escape the problem of having to think about a cause for its being here.
I am not trying to be silly. I'm only exploring possible alternatives if I were in your shoes.
Another route is to down play the great scientific principle of cause and effect. But I think that would do damage to the scientific method.
But let me ask you this:
A belief in God didn't stop Pastuer from inventing pasturization. It didn't stop Galileo. A belief in God didn't stop many other scientists from great discoveries and great inventions.
I just watched a fierce debate between a Evolutionist who happened to be a Congregational Theist and Michael Behe an IDer. Belief in God certainly didn't stop that advocate of Evolution from arguing quite forcibly for the theory.
Is there something that you deem will be obliterated or destroyed if you take a position that maybe God created the universe ?
Are you going to lose grant money for research?
Are you going to forfeit a degree?
Gonna lose a wife?
Are you going to lose an employment ?
Are you going to lose precious personal autonomy ?
Will believing that God created the universe leave you with no more science mysteries to happily explore with your good mind ?
If you believe that God may have created the universe, you won't love science anymore ? You'll be forced to sing hymns and drop bills into a plate ?
Did you ever think maybe believing in a Supreme Intelligence as the Originator of the universe might even help your science exploration some ?
You'll have to believe in the Speghetti Monster ??
You'll have to believe in leprechauns too ?
31 Jan 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonTry not to get your posters mixed up.
“...There is a difference between From no beginning until NOW and "From Now to no end".
I hear your protest that they are the same, they are exactly the same. I don't believe that you have a mirror image of the same issue. ...”
so they are “different”. Exactly WHAT “difference” is there between them that would mean you can apply one kind of l ...[text shortened]... ar avalanche of snow” and therefore invalid logic when applied to “ everything “ .
I don't recall writing anything about a stone not falling to the ground.
"
“...So, throw a stone into the air and it never reaches the ground? ...”
Who wrote that ? I didn't.
31 Jan 11
1 edit
================================
Now, I have answers your questions to the best of my ability so, Back to my critical question that remains unanswered:
If you didn't know what caused a particular avalanche of snow, would you assume a supernatural cause?
===============================
I have a few questions unanswered too I think. But I'll obligue you.
No. Not knowing the cause of an avalanche I would not necessarily jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause.
Is that what you need ?
31 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill“...Should science look in the direction of there being no cause ? ...”
[b]====================================
I think that I have insufficient data/knowledge on the cause (assuming there is a “cause”,
====================================
Should science look in the direction of there being no cause ?
Should science in this case suspend the principle of cause and effect and assume a universe uncaused ? o believe in the Speghetti Monster ??
You'll have to believe in leprechauns too ?[/b]
only if the evidence points that way. Some would say it already does but there is currently some controversy there about the assumptions that is based on so, me not being an expert on this, I am not actually sure which way the evidence actually DOES points.
“...Do you have enough evidence that the universe exists at all ? ...”
yes; we observe it. Even if the universe is in some sense an “illusion” then the universe exists and exists as an “illusion” and that is just the nature of the universe and the “illusion” still “exists”!
“...Maybe if we assume that it doesn't exist ...”
is an observation an assumption? It isn’t an “assumption” so we don't “assume” it.
“...Another route is to down play the great scientific principle of cause and effect. But I think that would do damage to the scientific method. ...”
what “great scientific principle of cause and effect”?
“...Is there something that you deem will be obliterated or destroyed if you take a position that maybe God created the universe ? ...”
No. And there is nothing that would “obliterated or destroyed” if I take a position that maybe the spaghetti monster created the universe; so the spaghetti monster created the universe?
...and the answer is “no” to each of the rest of your questions.
31 Jan 11
2 edits
=================================
Now, I have answers your questions to the best of my ability so, Back to my critical question that remains unanswered:
================================
You have an answer to the avalanche question. Are you going with this that if I am consistent, every unkown cause must be attributed to the supernatural ?
Briefly to you, is this a statement you would agree with ?
"The only way man can know truth is through scientific research"
Are you uncommited on that one ? Or do you agree ?
Disagree ?
31 Jan 11
Originally posted by jaywill“....No. Not knowing the cause of an avalanche I would not NECESSARILY jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause.
[b]================================
Now, I have answers your questions to the best of my ability so, Back to my critical question that remains unanswered:
If you didn't know what caused a particular avalanche of snow, would you assume a supernatural cause?
===============================
I have a few questions unanswered too I think. B ...[text shortened]... d not necessarily jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause.
Is that what you need ?[/b]
Is that what you need ? ….” (my emphasis)
not sure; I am bothered by the word “ NECESSARILY” inserted into your above answer.
Are you implying that you MAY actually “jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause” of the start of a particular avalanche!!! and, if so, why!?
OK, so if not knowing the cause of an avalanche would not NECESSARILY lead you to jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause of the avalanche (I would really want to be able to drop the word “NECESSARILY” here but I wait your reply to my previous question to see if I can) then would that mean that not knowing the cause of the universe (assuming there is a cause) would not NECESSARILY lead you to jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause of the universe?
If not, then you appear to be using different conflicting logic for each.
31 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill“...You have an answer to the avalanche question. Are you going with this that if I am consistent, every unkown cause must be attributed to the supernatural ? ...”
[b]=================================
Now, I have answers your questions to the best of my ability so, Back to my critical question that remains unanswered:
================================
You have an answer to the avalanche question. Are you going with this that if I am consistent, every unkown cause must be attributed to the supernatural entific research"[/b]
Are you uncommited on that one ? Or do you agree ?
Disagree ?[/b]
No.
“...Briefly to you, is this a statement you would agree with ?
"The only way man can know truth is through scientific research"
...”
no, there is also knowledge picked up by personal observation and also picked up through personal logical deduction (providing it is flawless).
But as for the truth of the universe and its origins, overwhelmingly the most reliable source must surely be the totality of accumulated scientific research although that does not necessarily mean we will one day science could give us ALL the answers (although it has given us many of the answers).
31 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton===================================
“....No. Not knowing the cause of an avalanche I would not NECESSARILY jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause.
Is that what you need ? ….” (my emphasis)
not sure; I am bothered by the word “ NECESSARILY” inserted into your above answer.
Are you implying that you MAY actually “jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause” of the star ...[text shortened]... use of the universe?
If not, then you appear to be using different conflicting logic for each.
not sure; I am bothered by the word “ NECESSARILY” inserted into your above answer.
Are you implying that you MAY actually “jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause” of the start of a particular avalanche!!! and, if so, why!?
=======================
Any given random avalanche I would not assume was supernaturally caused. Any given random avalanche probably has no particular theological meaning associated with it.
There is no particular issue with WHY it happened. But suppose there was ? Suppose there was a nearby town who for hundreds of years was losing young people. They were trying to climb up the side of the mountain. And the people could not take one more death of a young team of climbers. They fasted and prayed for four days asking "To Whom It May Concern" that something had to be done about the problem.
Then afterwards an avalanche made the area safer for traveling. Then the avalanche has some theological meaning associated with it. And I might consider not the how so much but the WHY at this time did it occur so coincidently.
I might be inclined to muse on something supernatural at work. The timing and the associated matters and petitioning of God or Someone who can hear the heartfelt cries of parents.
The coincidence of it might cause me to consider the supernatural at work somewhere. But any random, run of the mill, typical avalanche, would not cause me to assume the supernatural.
=========
OK, so if not knowing the cause of an avalanche would not NECESSARILY lead you to jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause of the avalanche (I would really want to be able to drop the word “NECESSARILY” here but I wait your reply to my previous question to see if I can) then would that mean that not knowing the cause of the universe (assuming there is a cause) would not NECESSARILY lead you to jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause of the universe?
==============================
In the case of the origin of EVERYTHING physical in existence - our entire universe, knowing as I do how finely tuned it is for the existence of human beings and life in general, I think the causse for itself is to be sought in a Divine Will transcending the universe.
To me there is tremendous theological and philosophical issues associated to why there is such an environment for us to exist. Not only the HOW is probably supernatural. The WHY is also something greatly transcendent.
Chrstopher Hitchens wrote a book called "God is Not Great". I disagree with his premise. If Hitchens were to ask me "How great is God ?" . I would reply that God is so great as to give you the ability and the right to not even believe God exists if you choose.
I think to argue against God is to argue against the One who gave you the ability to argue at all. He's THAT great.
"If you really don't want to have anything to do with Me, you can choose that life."
31 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton==============================
“...You have an answer to the avalanche question. Are you going with this that if I am consistent, every unkown cause must be attributed to the supernatural ? ...”
No.
“...Briefly to you, is this a statement you would agree with ?
"The only way man can know truth is through scientific research"
...”
no, there is also knowledge picked u ...[text shortened]... one day science could give us ALL the answers (although it has given us many of the answers).
no, there is also knowledge picked up by personal observation and also picked up through personal logical deduction (providing it is flawless).
But as for the truth of the universe and its origins, overwhelmingly the most reliable source must surely be the totality of accumulated scientific research although that does not necessarily mean we will one day science could give us ALL the answers (although it has given us many of the answers).
======================================
You say the most reliable source must be the totality of accumulated scientific research.
But when will you decide that there is, as you said, enough data in your brain ? You protest that the totality has not been reached.
So why do you call a couple of hard working data collectors "morons" because they imploy some logical thinking about the problem ?
This kind of ad hom seems like a fear reaction. It seems that you have to contemptiously denounce anyone that figures that forces which are themselves responsible for Time and Space, Energy and Matter could be called supernatural.
Why is Carl Sandage a moron ?
Why is Robert Jastrow a moron ?
Do you mind if I take your comment to the National Academy of Sciences to get a few responses on your opinion ?
31 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton==============================
“....No. Not knowing the cause of an avalanche I would not NECESSARILY jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause.
Is that what you need ? ….” (my emphasis)
not sure; I am bothered by the word “ NECESSARILY” inserted into your above answer.
Are you implying that you MAY actually “jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause” of the star ...[text shortened]... use of the universe?
If not, then you appear to be using different conflicting logic for each.
OK, so if not knowing the cause of an avalanche would not NECESSARILY lead you to jump to the conclusion of a supernatural cause of the avalanche (I would really want to be able to drop the word “NECESSARILY” here
=================================
Get use to disappointment. Sure, you'd prefer a bunch of things.
The word necessarily stays. I commit to that phrase " not necessarily."
Now you seem to leave yourself loopholes here and there.
You are careful not to say Time started or Time did not, etc.
So you shouldn't complain if I have a little caveat in my reasoning either.