The NT Application of the Canaanite Conquest

I'm a physicist by training (I work as a computer programmer these days), so I tend to think about these things in that way.

Hi. I was a computer programmer too.

To me statements like "something can't come out of nothing" when translated into physics jargon is a statement of a conservation law - "Energy is conserved" or "Fermion number is conserved". In fact if those last two statements weren't true then the statement "something can't come out of nothing" wouldn't have any intuitive appeal. Conservation laws in Physics are entailed by symmetries. The relevant one for energy is symmetry under translations in time. That symmetry is not valid at t = 0, for fairly obvious reasons, there isn't a before which is the case at all subsequent times. So there's no particular physics based objection to vast amounts of energy spontaneously appearing at the beginning of time.

I'd like to think on some of that.

LemonJello might be more accustom to philosophic jargon from what I gather.

And something from nothing would violate a philosophic law of law of causality which I hear is an extension of the law of non-contradiction.

The law of causality is necessary for acquiring knowledge. It has been assumed by all people from the beginning of the existence of the human race. It is important in the natural sciences. Knowledge about the external world would be impossible without the law of causality.

Don't we reject the law of causality if we say the universe came uncaused into existence ? The price for saying "something can come out of nothing" is to suggest we cannot do science.

How come a horse or a pyramid does not simply pop into existence in my room? It doesn't happen uncaused. Am I right ?

In physics there is no particular reason for quantum fluctuations, they just happen.

A quantum field is not nothing though. A panel of philosophers met with physicist Lawrence Kraus, champion of a universe out of nothing. And they were by no means all Christian theists. They told him his "nothing" was in fact NOT nothing.

In effect some of them said "What you are saying is incoherent."

Besides, particles seeming to pop into existence for a fraction of a second is one thing. The entire universe popping into existence in this way for 13 or so billion years is another thing.

Based on Standard Model physics the universe started as a quantum fluctuation which started to expand. It didn't vanish again due to an inflationary phase. There are various speculative theories where the universe we see is embedded in a higher dimensional space called the bulk.

I have heard it argued that any multiverse or any "higher dimensional space" or higher dimensional string catalyst HAD to have had a beginning.

We do not seem to be able to get away from a universe that had a beginning. Your fields where quantum fluctionations can occur is not nothing.

Now Hume attacked causality. But he really didn't say, from what I study. that there was no causality but that we cannot rationally tell what the real cause of anything is.

I think lots of people assume erronsiously Hume dealt a blow to the law of causality. But I am still looking into it. I think he argued that we have to forget about thinking we can ascertain what the real cause of anything is.

This comes short of saying there are no causes.

Then philosophically speaking, to say the universe came into existence by nothing is also a violation of a law of logic that something is not itself and not itself at the same time in the same way.

The universe cannot be the universe and not the universe at the same time in the same way.

I don't know if that is required to have some sort of "start". The interesting question for me is not material stuff appearing out of nowhere, that just relies on the asymmetry at the start of time, but where the rules come from. How did the laws of physics come about, are they the only ones possible? Are there other universes with different laws?

The matter of a "beginning" in time is interesting problem.
I am a Christian believing the truth of Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

To the question of "What was God doing before?" I have decided that what we call Time is something We need for our existence. God has created this Time and Space because we need it. It is not because God needs it.

I believe that the biblical word for this matter of God being in a catagory uniquely occupied by Himself alone is the word "holy". It takes on not only a percularly unique characteristic. But according to its usage it takes on a awesomely sacred characteristic - ie. something worthy of our worship. God is different from all other things the exist. God is holy. And in the "beginning" for the sake of the limitation of human language, God created the univese for our existence.

He trancends the universe. He transcends time and space. Yet He can penetrate into it if He wills.

I think, but will not elaborate now, that when God penetrates time and space there is something about this contact with Him that is astounding. He is Triune. He is one God yet penetrating into our realm in a way which we cannot completely comprehend seeing Him as Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

I think that when this one transcending Time penetrates from that transcendent "place" in which God inhabits the tree penetration points is the One Person incomprehensibly reaching us as Three-one God which is hard for us to understand.

An excperiencial yet incomprehensible three-oneness is manifested. The Trinity, I think, is proof of a "Person" as a "realm" transcendent to the universe.

That He loves us to the point of desiring our eternal communion and fellowship is more than amazing to me.

But I believe the "before" a beginning of the universe, consists of a "holy" divine God. He is in a class all His own.

IE. to be fair, things consecrated to His will are also said in the Bible to be holy. ie. "holy angels" or "the marriage bed is holy". Strictly speaking of God it rightly says "You ALONE are holy" (Rev. 15:4) - .

4 "Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed."

I regard this uniqueness to be something like "sacred" and infinitely morally pure and spiritually beautiful not to mention perfect in righteousness.

Originally posted by sonship

I'm a physicist by training (I work as a computer programmer these days), so I tend to think about these things in that way.

Hi. I was a computer programmer too.

[quote]
To me statements like "something can't come out of nothing" when translated into physics jargon is a statement of a conservation law - "Energy is conserved" or "F ...[text shortened]... " and infinitely morally pure and spiritually beautiful not to mention perfect in righteousness.

In its modern form, the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) simply states that ~(P&~P); that it's not the case that a proposition can be both true and not true. If by "law of causality" you mean something like the claim that every event has a cause, then I'm not sure how it would be derivable from LNC. If you assume both that every event has a cause and that there is some event (e.g., the beginning of the universe) that is uncaused, then you can derive a contradiction and thereby violate LNC. But it's an open question whether such a "law of causality" (or, similarly, the Principle of Sufficient Reason) is true. According to physicists, there are quantum events that are metaphysically random (i.e., they lack causally sufficient antecedents). Further, if you're committed to a "law of causality" or the Principle of Sufficient Reason, then you court the very same contradiction by claiming that God's existence is uncaused. Of course, you may claim that God is eternal, self-caused, or whatever. But it's open to others to claim similar things about the existence of the universe itself.

You're right that in our quest for knowledge we assume that events have preceding causes. This is a methodological commitment of most scientific inquiry. But this commitment can be very useful even if it has limits. We can posit causes of the events we study right up until the preponderance of the evidence suggests we have to give it up in some domain (e.g., for quantum systems upon measurement, given Bell's experimental evidence against the possibility of a hidden variable theory).

Originally posted by bbarr
In its modern form, the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) simply states that ~(P&~P); that it's not the case that a proposition can be both true and not true. If by "law of causality" you mean something like the claim that every event has a cause, then I'm not sure how it would be derivable from LNC. If you assume both that every event has a cause and that th ...[text shortened]... rement, given Bell's experimental evidence against the possibility of a hidden variable theory).

According to physicists, there are quantum events that are metaphysically random (i.e., they lack causally sufficient antecedents).

According to which of the several or more schools of Quantum Mechanics are you referring?

What would be your comment on William Lane Craig's comments on this particular video on "Does Quantum Physics Proves that Something Can Come From Nothing." ?

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship

I'm a physicist by training (I work as a computer programmer these days), so I tend to think about these things in that way.

Hi. I was a computer programmer too.

[quote]
To me statements like "something can't come out of nothing" when translated into physics jargon is a statement of a conservation law - "Energy is conserved" or "F ...[text shortened]... " and infinitely morally pure and spiritually beautiful not to mention perfect in righteousness.

I think Hume was making a methodological point. We see a correlation and we infer a causation - are we justified in doing that? At a fundamental level not, but Hume accepted that in practice it is a reasonable thing to do.

My point was at a different level. It's not that something acausal absolutely can't happen at a macroscopic level, provided there are no conservation laws broken, it's just it's wildly improbable. For example, the reason heat flows from hot to cold is that there are more ways of sharing quanta of energy evenly between two bodies than not. The probability that bringing two macroscopic bodies together, one hotter than the other, and having even a fairly small amount of heat flowing the wrong way comes out at 10^300 to one against (that figure's from an undergraduate lecture, I can't remember the other numbers) which is so unlikely it's probably never happened in the history of the universe. So our macroscopic intuition is that heat flows from hot to cold.

Quantum theory does some real damage to classical logic if you're not really careful with your propositions. Systems can be in linear superpositions of states so that something like the law of non-contradiction only starts to apply after an observation. In the Schrődinger's cat thought experiment the cat is both dead and alive until the box is opened so if you have a proposition P "the cat is alive" then P&¬P is kind of true until after the observation when one has ¬(P&¬P). Which means that one is restricted to propositions along the lines of "on observation the cat will be seen to be alive" if you want to use classical logic.

I can't prove that God did not create the universe. It's just that the normal macroscopic rules don't apply at the very beginning of time. The normal explanatory power of physics breaks down at the very start. So you can't use reason based on experience to prove that God must have created the universe by excluding the possibility that it happened by itself.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I think Hume was making a methodological point. We see a correlation and we infer a causation - are we justified in doing that? At a fundamental level not, but Hume accepted that in practice it is a reasonable thing to do.

My point was at a different level. It's not that something acausal absolutely can't happen at a macroscopic level, provided the ...[text shortened]... that God must have created the universe by excluding the possibility that it happened by itself.

I can't prove that God did not create the universe.

I'll digest more your interesting comments latter.
Neither can anyone prove with mathematical certainty that God created the universe.

I believe I am on the right track to believe God did.

Originally posted by sonship
I would say mostly only the new atheists [...] attempt to modify the definition of atheism to maximize a totally defensive posture with all burden of argumentation on the theist.

Only if you consider Bertrand Russell to be one of these "new" atheists. He wrote in 1952:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. It doesn't really matter if it's a religious claim, or any other, if it can't be verified and is hard to believe, then you can't be too surprised if others don't believe as you do.

I reposted this, thinking maybe you missed it.

Originally posted by C Hess
Only if you consider Bertrand Russell to be one of these "new" atheists. He wrote in 1952:

[quote]
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving ...[text shortened]... ised if others don't believe as you do.

I reposted this, thinking maybe you missed it.

This rather depends. I don't agree that the burden of proof lies with the person who takes the positive position. I think the burden of proof lies with anyone making any kind of claim. So if I claimed that the burden of proof lied with those who claim that Neptune has moons - when it's an established observational fact that it has 14 - then the burden of proof would lie with me. I'd presumably have to redefine moon to somehow get rid of them.

I'd put the burden of proof with the person initiating the debate. The burden of proof lies with the proposer of the motion whether it is positive or negative. So if one of the creationists comes over to the Science Forum and claims that the world is 6000 years old then it is up to him to prove his case - it is enough for us to pick holes in it. On the other hand when we initiate the debate here in Spirituality it is up to us to prove the world is 4 billion years old (happily that is not difficult).

In the case of ontological arguments concerning the existence of God then since we are debating in the Spirituality forum (and only because of that), if there is a burden of proof it lies with the atheists.

Burden of proof depends on the context of the argument.

Originally posted by sonship
I believe I am on the right track to believe God did.

You are welcome to believe that, but you would be wrong if you believe that you believe that because of the law of causation or the law of non contradiction or quantum physics or some other scientific/philosophical argument. The truth is that none of those things point towards God creating the universe. If you want to believe you are on the right track, then believe it for other reasons.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This rather depends. I don't agree that the burden of proof lies with the person who takes the positive position. I think the burden of proof lies with anyone making any kind of claim. So if I claimed that the burden of proof lied with those who claim that Neptune has moons - when it's an established observational fact that it has 14 - then the ...[text shortened]... n of proof it lies with the atheists.

Burden of proof depends on the context of the argument.

You may be right in that positive is the wrong word there. Perhaps I should have used the word: assertive. It's not true however, that any claim made needs to be defended by the person making the claim. Suppose I tell you: "I don't believe god exists", just like that, out of the blue. I have then potentially initiated a debate with you, should you believe in god, but I have made no claim that on the face of it needs defending. I wouldn't be expected to defend the claim that I also don't believe in the existence of goggleberryboy. Suppose instead that I make the claim: "God does not exist". Now, that's an assertion, and the burden of proof is now mine.

The burden of proof always fall first to the one making a positive claim, and only shifts side if an assertive counter-claim is made.

A negative can never be proven though, so I would be foolish to make the assertion that god does not in fact exist, in face of religious people who believe otherwise, since I would then find myself with the impossible task of having to prove a negative. It would be perfectly reasonable of me to think and behave as though no god exists; to proclaim that I have no belief in any gods (so long as no evidence to the contrary is presented), but I can never make an assertion to that effect.

I also can't make the assertion that goggleberryboy does not exist.

Originally posted by C Hess
You may be right in that positive is the wrong word there. Perhaps I should have used the word: assertive. It's not true however, that any claim made needs to be defended by the person making the claim. Suppose I tell you: "I don't believe god exists", just like that, out of the blue. I have then potentially initiated a debate with you, should you believe in ...[text shortened]... assertion to that effect.

I also can't make the assertion that goggleberryboy does not exist.

The Law of Non-Contradiction is itself a negation stating 'It's not the case that a proposition can be both true and not true'. It's also a theorem, meaning it's derivable from no premises. So, it is possible to prove negations.

But you're making a more moderate claim, like that it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. My question is what you mean by 'prove'. If you mean 'provide evidence sufficient to justify belief' or even 'show beyond a reasonable doubt', then we can prove all sorts of negatives. I can prove there isn't any beer in my fridge by looking thoroughly...

You could respond that this isn't really proof; that to prove something doesn't exist requires providing evidence that renders it absolutely, epistemically certain that thing doesn't exist. But that is an unreasonable standard. If that were the standard of proof, then it would follow we couldn't prove any 'positive' claims either. How can you show, with absolute epistemic certainty that something exists? After all, no matter the evidence it's always at least nominally possible you're the victim of some Cartesian Demon bent on your deception...

Originally posted by sonship
But to me, some things true may be offensive, even if temporarily. Some things true may just be offensive always.


I had a friend who offended me when I was far away from God. She told me that I was a "lost sheep."

I [b]RESENTED this a lot. " I am no lost sheep !!" I said to myself. I imagine that I felt then the way some atheist feels hea ...[text shortened]... eless, pitch black, voided ruin eons upon eons ago ?

Do you commit to an eternal universe ?[/b]

While I am not as well versed in philosophy as you, I would say mostly only the new atheists who attempt to modify the definition of atheism to maximize a totally defensive posture with all burden of argumentation on the theist.

What you initially claimed was "I think by saying one is an atheist one has made a choice concerning something very important - whether God is or nothing brought everything into existence." Then I rebutted by saying that, on the contrary, to say one is an atheist is basically to report a fact that he or she lacks belief in a god or gods, which is not to make a choice, let alone the particular choice you outline. Now you're countering on the grounds that my objection supposes only a rather weak form of atheism. Well, yes, it is basically atheism in the most general sense because I was making a general objection. That's not really relevant, and you have missed the point regarding why your initial statement was false. If it helps you, I will recast my objection supposing a strong form of atheism, although this is generally over-reaching. Here goes: contrary to your initial claim, to say that one is an atheist is to say that he or she believes that God does not exist. Again, that's just reporting a fact about one's belief structure, not making a choice, let alone the particular choice you outline. So, still, we see that your earlier claim was confused.

Based on your clarifications, I understand your claim to be that when one self-identifies as a strong atheist, it indicates that a choice has been made. In other words, you are claiming that a strong form of atheism (say one in which one feels justified in asserting that God does not exist) is principally a reactionary stance, one that is willfully adopted in a display of opposition towards God or the concept 'God'. As has been pointed out time and time again, this claim is generally false. Take me for example, since I am a strong atheist with respect to your conception of God. As I have told you, this stance of mine is based on rational arguments that have convinced me that this God does not exist. It is not a stance I have just somehow chosen at will. It has been pressed into service by my honest studies on the matter, not substantially different in this respect from other beliefs I hold on all kinds of theoretical matters. My theoretical beliefs are generally handcuffed to my evidential deliberations, and this one is no different. At this point, you have no excuse for continuing to get this point wrong, especially given the fact that I have for years on this forum presented and defended several dispassionate arguments that work explicitly to the conclusion that your God does not exist. As I hinted before, I could just write off the theistic position on some lame accusation that theists are somehow psychologically and volitionally wed to their position in a way that sacrifices their impartiality and makes them blind to the obvious fact that their position is wrong. But that would be lazy, presumptuous, and intellectually disingenuous of me. Instead, I go into debates provisionally assuming that the theist has some actual arguments and evidential considerations that they can offer in support of their position (as well as substantive counterarguments that they can offer against my arguments). Of course that may not actually pan out, but I consider this a basic matter of respect and courtesy. And if they do have some arguments, I try to give them the consideration they deserve. It is disconcerting and puzzling that you do not reciprocate in this regard.

I think I did say "Something or Someone" brought everything into existence. I think that leaves room for some other possibility besides theism. You'd have to propose what that might be.

The actual dilemma you presented was "Something brought all things into existence.
Or nothing brought all things into existence." And you presented that as though it is exhaustive, in the sense that these are the only two options one has available. But here is your problem. The first horn seems incoherent, as I already explained, and that one was supposed to represent your position. In order to be exhaustive, I have to read the second option as just a negation of the first. So, I think the second would read roughly as "there exists no thing, such that this thing brought all things into existence." Yes, that seems quite right, especially since the alternative is incoherent. So you really shot yourself in the foot there, didn't you? The option that is supposed to represent your position seems incoherent; and the one that is supposed to be so troublesome for me seems trivially correct.

The other problem you have is that you equivocate on just what exactly the second option asserts. You want to act like the dilemma you presented is exhaustive; and, so, I think I would need to interpret the second option in the way I just described above. On the other hand, you imply at other times that the second option asserts that the universe came about ex nihilo. Well, that's a substantially different reading, and in that case, what you have presented is clearly a false dilemma.

Right. So there IS a referent to oppose. That is the existence of God.
And when atheist's mockingly refer to the Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn there is also there a referent to oppose as to their existence.

You're so confused. Where to begin? By 'referent' we mean the actual thing to which a word or expression or concept refers. Is there an actual thing to which 'Invisible Pink Unicorn' refers? No. The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist; as a concept it fails to be instantiated; it has no referent. Well, I think the same about your 'God'. I think that it does not exist; that as a concept it fails to be instantiated; that it has no referent. Does it make sense now? Again, the reason I brought up the term 'referent' was because if you are trying to say that atheists stand in willful rejection to God, then you are notionally confused, since that would require that atheists think 'God' has some referent towards which they then stand in rejection. That makes no sense, since atheist more or less by definition do not think 'God' has a referent. As you have clarified it, I think your claim is that atheists stand in rejection not towards God but towards the idea that God exists. I would think this collapses back into your earlier claim that atheism is a reactionary stance that is chosen at will. I've already addressed this point.

You are making it so that no burden of a truth claim whatsoever is upon the atheist.

No. If, say, a strong atheist asserts that God (referenced to some particular conception or definition of 'God' ) does not exist, then I think a burden of supporting that claim falls to him or her. Nothing I have said here implies otherwise, so perhaps your reading comprehension faculties are on holiday. Remember those arguments of mine that I have presented and defended over the years; the ones that work explicitly and dispassionately toward the conclusion that your God does not exist; you know, the ones you have conveniently ignored or otherwise failed to factor when you tell me that my atheism is just a willful, choice-based affair? Yeah, those are examples of my diligence in meeting my burden. And I acknowledge that there are strong atheists who fail to support their position, just like there are theists who fail to support theirs.

Of course, in general, an atheist need not make any "truth claim" in the relevant sense here. He or she can just sit back and inform you theists when you fail to support your own case. This sort of weak, watered-down atheism seems to be what irks you, but I would say them's the breaks. My advice would be to get better, more convincing arguments in support of your position.

Which one of these arguments do you think is your strongest ?

With respect to your conception of 'God' I would think the evidential problem of evil is perhaps the most forceful. For example, I presented for discussion an inductive version I found on the web in the following thread not too long ago: Thread 158939. Several years ago, bbarr presented and nicely defended a version of the argument here: Thread 21886. It's good stuff.

Originally posted by sonship
But to me, some things true may be offensive, even if temporarily. Some things true may just be offensive always.


I had a friend who offended me when I was far away from God. She told me that I was a "lost sheep."

I [b]RESENTED this a lot. " I am no lost sheep !!" I said to myself. I imagine that I felt then the way some atheist feels hea ...[text shortened]... eless, pitch black, voided ruin eons upon eons ago ?

Do you commit to an eternal universe ?[/b]

Then you should inform physicist Lawrence Kraus. He has spent considerable brain power to prove that the universe came from nothing. You better tell him that this cannot be the case because whatever "nothing" he proposes MUST be a part of the universe.

The "nothing" that the physicist Lawrence Kraus says brought into existence the univese did not because it is part of the universe. This amounts to the universe being eternal.

What a bizarre argument. That doesn't follow at all. If someone claims that there exists some thing that brought all things into existence; then the obvious objection to make is that this claim is incoherent, since that would entail that this thing brought itself into existence, which does not make any sense. Now you're trying to bring a structurally similar objection against the claim that nothing brought all things into existence? How does this objection go exactly? That this claim is incoherent, since it would entail that this nothing brought itself, nothing, into existence? Obviously, this objection doesn't fly, since the claim does not entail that: if anything, it entails just the opposite, that nothing brought something other than nothing into existence. Anyway, this is another example of the equivocation I mentioned earlier. If you read "nothing brought all things into existence" as things coming about ex nihilo, then your initial dilemma is clearly a false one. If you want the initial dilemma to be exhaustive, we need to read it is saying that there exists no thing such that this thing brought all things into existence, or some such. I see nothing mysterious or puzzling about this claim, and I see no good objection against it. So what's the problem?

Do you commit to an eternal universe ?

No, I do not profess to know if the universe is eternal or not. Further, I do not really see how a question like this is to be settled through scientific inquiry. Even if there were overwhelmingly plausible physical models that trace history back to a singularity, such as the big bang, that would not settle this question. Physical models break down at singularities, and so assigning t=0 at something like the big bang is stipulative. Here is a quote from Hawking’s A Brief History of Time that touches on this: " … Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity. In fact, all our theories of science
are formulated on the assumption that space-time is smooth and nearly fiat, so they break down at the big bang
singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. This means that even if there were events before the
big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would
break down at the big bang.
Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we could not
determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no
consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang…. "

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm a physicist by training (I work as a computer programmer these days), so I tend to think about these things in that way. To me statements like "something can't come out of nothing" when translated into physics jargon is a statement of a conservation law - "Energy is conserved" or "Fermion number is conserved". In fact if those last two statements w ...[text shortened]... a macroscopic scale there is so much that can't happen it appears as if effects require causes.

Thanks, this is good food for thought.

How did the laws of physics come about, are they the only ones possible?

Regarding the question of whether or not they are the only ones possible: if the possibility at issue is logical possibility, then I would think the answer is no, since logical possibility is broader than nomological possibility.

At a quantum scale it needs restating in a negative way, so instead of: "Events can only occur if there is sufficient reason for them to." I suggest: "Events can occur spontaneously and without prior cause provided there is no sufficient reason they shouldn't."

Instead of restating the PSR, this just basically entails that the PSR (in any strong formulation) is false, period. That sounds about right to me.

I think one interesting PSR-related question is in regards to what is required of an explanation. For example, some versions of PSR will state that there is an explanation for every event/fact, or some such. But what can constitute explanation seems contentious. Regarding causal explanation, for example, does it need to be deterministic? I know several who would argue that the answer is no. Given your background, do you have thoughts on this? For example, suppose some system exhibits stochastic patterning; or suppose it can be attributed to the system a property or natural propensity to exhibit certain patterns; to what extent can this be explanative?

Originally posted by C Hess
You may be right in that positive is the wrong word there. Perhaps I should have used the word: assertive. It's not true however, that any claim made needs to be defended by the person making the claim. Suppose I tell you: "I don't believe god exists", just like that, out of the blue. I have then potentially initiated a debate with you, should you believe in ...[text shortened]... assertion to that effect.

I also can't make the assertion that goggleberryboy does not exist.

You can prove a negative. Here's a little informal article on this topic that I like:

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Originally posted by bbarr
The Law of Non-Contradiction is itself a negation stating 'It's not the case that a proposition can be both true and not true'. It's also a theorem, meaning it's derivable from no premises. So, it is possible to prove negations.

But you're making a more moderate claim, like that it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. My question is what you m ...[text shortened]... at least nominally possible you're the victim of some Cartesian Demon bent on your deception...

Silly me. It was not the point of my post, but such a blatant oversight on my part that I can only thank you for pointing it out. You're right that I didn't realise the full scope of the statement "you can't prove a negative", but were in fact making the more moderate claim "you can't prove something doesn't exist", and I never even considered the almost trivial cases of smaller, overseeable spaces. Talk about stumbling through the room.

Again, thank you for taking me to school, and please don't hesitate to do it again. For instance, do you disagree with me that not every claim made needs defending?

Now, if you'll excuse me I shall retreat into my cave for a moment and pout about this little faux pas. 😵