Argument against Naturalism

[Perplexity]

I apologize Shike for that last message, I was rude.

I want you to know that I use non-contradiction when I debate folks, so dialogue isn’t precluded by my dialetheism.

If you’re intersted, one of the simplest arguments against non-contradiction comes from logician Graham Priest:

Basically, look at the statement ‘this statement is false.’ If it’s true, it’s false, if it’s false, it’s true. Therefore, it’s both true and false.

 

[Shike]

Yeah, so the “law” of non-contradiction is just an axiom of certain languages. We only use it if we’re speaking those languages, which we needn’t do. (that’s really all a logic is: a language)

So, I’ll call your BS and raise you a ‘do some homework’:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

I’ve read a bit about paraconsistent logics and the entry relating dialetheism to it was helpful. But it is still BS. Any distinction a person makes, whether in thought or word relies on the principle of non-contradiction. To say or think otherwise is to babble nonsense because the principle of non-contradiction is the flip side of the principle of identity. To even point to a supposed dialetheia is to engage the principle.

Any distinction or possible distinction relies on it. I cannot give a formal argument for it, however, because it is a first principle–that does not mean it is ludicrous for someone to reject it.

Read also Van Inwagen’s intro to metaphysics where he’ll tell you there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in philosophy. Take a test in History or Math (etc.) and your answers can be either true or false. There’s nothing like that in philosophy. Of course, if you’re doing history of philosophy, or trying to describe a philosophical position your answers may be true or false, but that’s not ‘philosophy’ per se.

No, I have not read Van Inwagen (thanks for asking if I have ), but I doubt I would agree with him–I think his philosophy on this point is wrong.

That’s nice, but how does this relate to whether saying a state of the universe is ‘in principle’ unexplainable amounts to a logical contradiction?

Talk of non-contradiction only came up because of your denial of ‘from nothing, nothing comes.’

If you’re intersted, one of the simplest arguments against non-contradiction comes from logician Graham Priest:

The Liar Paradox, yes, yes.

First, if you put it in the form of an argument against the law of non-contradiction it is very circular.
Second, what does it mean for a sentence to be true?
I think the Liar Paradox can be translated as saying ‘this sentence doesn’t match reality in some way’. And if that is the case, it starts to raise questions about what such a sentence could possibly mean.

By the way, I thought the article in favor of dialetheism was very quick to dismiss Aristotle’s defense of the law of non-contradiction. It seemed to be more of a history article than a philosophical one.

 

[Perplexity]

I’ve read a bit about paraconsistent logics and the entry relating dialetheism to it was helpful. But it is still BS. Any distinction a person makes, whether in thought or word relies on the principle of non-contradiction. To say or think otherwise is to babble nonsense because the principle of non-contradiction is the flip side of the principle of identity. To even point to a supposed dialetheia is to engage the principle.

I don’t need to disagree that everyone uses the principle, because the dialetheist will have no problem contradicting it, meaning they have to use it first. That said, I don’t think you’re arguing for your position just saying it’s really hard to believe otherwise, which I understand.

Any distinction or possible distinction relies on it. I cannot give a formal argument for it, however, because it is a first principle–that does not mean it is ludicrous for someone to reject it.

Meh, one man’s modus ponens is another’s modus tollens. I’m not asking you to question non-contradiction, as noted, I presume it in most dialogues.

Talk of non-contradiction only came up because of your denial of ‘from nothing, nothing comes.’

You’re the first person I’ve talked to that’s suggested ‘from nothing, nothing comes’ is based on non-contradiction. Nearly everyone else I’ve spoken to on this thinks it’s based on some PSR.

First, if you put it in the form of an argument against the law of non-contradiction it is very circular.

I’m not sure what you mean. I can logically deduce dialetheism from the liar paradox using only excluded middle and constructive dilemma.

Second, what does it mean for a sentence to be true?

Logicians don’t get into that.

I think the Liar Paradox can be translated as saying ‘this sentence doesn’t match reality in some way’. And if that is the case, it starts to raise questions about what such a sentence could possibly mean.

If it doesn’t match with reality, then it’s true that it doesn’t match reality. If it does match reality, then it’s false that it doesn’t match with reality.

 

[Perplexity]

What I am saying is nothing new. Go watch this video. All I am doing is taking what Tim Staples sets forth (a restatement of Aquinas) and fleshing it out with the relevant science.

Atheists love science until we start talking about the cause of the Bang. Then they lose all faith in science and claim thermodynamics and causality no longer exist. Meh.

(i): Science tells us that we can’t know if the Big Bang had a cause, we’re utterly ignorant about what happened prior to Planck time 10^-43.

(ii): If Staples is just restating Aquinas’ arguments, then it doesn’t matter what science he appeals to, the arguments can’t get off the ground (they’re fallacious, and invalid).

 

[Shike]

That said, I don’t think you’re arguing for your position just saying it’s really hard to believe otherwise, which I understand.

I’m not saying it’s really hard to think or communicate without the principle of non-contradiction–I’m saying it’s impossible.

I’m not asking you to question non-contradiction, as noted, I presume it in most dialogues.

I’m not opposed to questioning the principle. I’m opposed to giving a formal argument in defense of the principle (And that came with questioning!).

You’re the first person I’ve talked to that’s suggested ‘from nothing, nothing comes’ is based on non-contradiction. Nearly everyone else I’ve spoken to on this thinks it’s based on some PSR.

That’s interesting, I guess.

I’m not sure what you mean. I can logically deduce dialetheism from the liar paradox using only excluded middle and constructive dilemma.

I’m interested in seeing such a deduction for the sake of argument. However, I think it wouldn’t refute my point. Any time one makes a distinction one relies upon the law of non-contradiction… otherwise there can be no specific meaning to one’s words.

Logicians don’t get into that.

Error is not as discriminating.

If it doesn’t match with reality, then it’s true that it doesn’t match reality. If it does match reality, then it’s false that it doesn’t match with reality.

And don’t you see how the paradox fizzles out when you put it in these words? The paradox seems to be confusing for a number of reasons… but making one think what truth is requires deeper questions.

“This sentence is false” – denoted as the sentence LP (for Liar Paradox).

If we make the judgment that LP is true, we are in effect saying that, “The sentence, “this sentence is false” corresponds to reality in some way”. And if we make the judgment that LP is false, then we are in effect saying that, “The sentence, “this sentence is false” does not correspond to reality in some way”. But notice that there is no contradiction unless both our judgments are true… and in order to know that both our judgments are true on the matter we would have to spell out in what way the sentence LP corresponds to reality–good luck on that!

It’s one of those confusing self-referential things… but it can be worked out. The problem is we confuse our judgment with the meaning of the sentence.

(i): Science tells us that we can’t know if the Big Bang had a cause, we’re utterly ignorant about what happened prior to Planck time 10^-43.

Actually, science says that the current models break down at that time. And, if it indeed were the case that science gives us necessary knowledge (it doesn’t), it could only tell us that it cannot tell us the cause of the Big Bang by its methods. To say anything more is to treat science like metaphysics.

(ii): If Staples is just restating Aquinas’ arguments, then it doesn’t matter what science he appeals to, the arguments can’t get off the ground (they’re fallacious, and invalid).

Now that is interesting. I am interested in you giving a brief description of some of the fallacies and where and why they crop up. I say this because I have been at this a long time and still have not found an objection that screws with the intended definitions of the words or gets something else wrong–it is usually the logician mistaking the word “necessary” to mean logical necessity or some such misunderstanding.

I hope I sound sincere (I am). And if you don’t want me to comment back on the apparent fallacies you point out I won’t… just say so and I will merely listen.

ciao,
Michael

 

[Cat_Herder]

(i): Science tells us that we can’t know if the Big Bang had a cause, we’re utterly ignorant about what happened prior to Planck time 10^-43.

Actually, science says that the current models break down at that time. And, if it indeed were the case that science gives us necessary knowledge (it doesn’t), it could only tell us that it cannot tell us the cause of the Big Bang by its methods. To say anything more is to treat science like metaphysics.

Actually, Stephen Hawking disagrees. He asserts that gravity caused the Bang which of course presupposes that gravity existed and was operative from before the Bang. He does not attempt to explain where gravity and the whatever gravitated to cause the Bang came from.

 

[Shike]

Actually, Stephen Hawking disagrees. He asserts that gravity caused the Bang which of course presupposes that gravity existed and was operative from before the Bang. He does not attempt to explain where gravity and the whatever gravitated to cause the Bang came from.

Sure. But he’s not science.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Sure. But he’s not science.

Correct, but most atheists treat him like he is, so this is a good way to boomerang them on their argument that all physical laws cease to exist once you go back far enough.

 

[Shike]

Correct, but most atheists treat him like he is, so this is a good way to boomerang them on their argument that all physical laws cease to exist once you go back far enough.

Okay

Myself, I like sticking closer to Aquinas’ proofs as they could incorporate any possible state of physical laws.

 

[Perplexity]

Correct, but most atheists treat him like he is, so this is a good way to boomerang them on their argument that all physical laws cease to exist once you go back far enough.

I’m not sure why you think most atheists think this, or use it as an argument. I mean, it’s used as a premise in some arguments like Quentin’s cosmological argument against Gods existence, but it actually comes from science, not atheology. It’s ironic that you appeal to Hawking given that it’s his and Penroses principle used to show that the singularity breaks all laws down.

 

[AnAtheist]

You are ignoring the cited laws of physics (conservation and thermodynamics).

Hm, there is enough evidence that the total energy of the universe is 0. Thus energy conservation supports that the universe may very well come from “nothing”. As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is an empirical law and apart from statistical quantum mechanics that doesn’t take gravity into account there is no theoretical foundation of it yet. Gravity has the ability to produce structure from chaos and it is the ruling force on a cosmological scale (at least for last 13bln years).

So I really don’t see how those laws of physics refute naturalism.

As for the OP, I don’t go along with “Whatever has a beginning needs a real cause for its beginning.”
If one accepts the Kopenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, there are things that happen without a “real cause”. The beginning of the universe may one of those things.

 

[Perplexity]

Shike: I’ve launched numerous critiques of the quinque viae on this forum, but I’m not sure where all these are. So, I’ll try and compile what I take to be the strongest. I apologize if this takes a few days.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Hm, there is enough evidence that the total energy of the universe is 0. Thus energy conservation supports that the universe may very well come from “nothing”. As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is an empirical law and apart from statistical quantum mechanics that doesn’t take gravity into account there is no theoretical foundation of it yet.

Last time I checked the temperature outside it was well north of absolute zero. Also, the ice in my cup of water melts instead of freezing the water. So I think you are confusing the theoretical models that say there could be net energy of zero when regular matter and energy are offset by dark matter and antiparticles with the gross amount of energy. I’m not taken by slight of hand.

Gravity has the ability to produce structure from chaos and it is the ruling force on a cosmological scale (at least for last 13bln years).

But gravity has to act on something. Sorry, not fooled.

 

[AnAtheist]

Last time I checked the temperature outside it was well north of absolute zero. Also, the ice in my cup of water melts instead of freezing the water. So I think you are confusing the theoretical models that say there could be net energy of zero when regular matter and energy are offset by dark matter and antiparticles with the gross amount of energy.

I am not the one who is confusing things. Temperature is not the same as energy, there is no temperature conservation law in physics.

Besides, the argument was (my “opinion” on that):

1. Energy is conserved (correct)
2. The universe had a beginning (correct)
3. The total energy of the universe hasn’t change since the beginning (correct, because of 1)
   Big question:Where does all the energy the universe contains come from, if not from a unnatural source?

Right? Well, if the total amount of the energy today is 0, then was 0 all the time, and the answer is there never was any energy that needn’t to come from somewhere unnatural.

You may now ask, why has the state/structure of the universe *changed *from its beginning to now, esp. from “nothing” to “something”, but energy conservation isn’t an argument against naturalism.

 

[Shike]

Shike: I’ve launched numerous critiques of the quinque viae on this forum, but I’m not sure where all these are. So, I’ll try and compile what I take to be the strongest. I apologize if this takes a few days.

I thank you.

And if you think it merits a private message, by all means PM me.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I am not the one who is confusing things. Temperature is not the same as energy, there is no temperature conservation law in physics.

Heat is energy. That’s why the Big Bang was very hot. That’s also why they’re called laws of thermodynamics, thermo meaning heat.

 

[AnAtheist]

Heat is energy. That’s why the Big Bang was very hot. That’s also why they’re called laws of thermodynamics, thermo meaning heat.

Well, heat is NOT temperature. Furthermore heat is only one “form” of energy.
Thus, the fact that the universe had a very high temperature in the beginning (nowadays it is quite cold) has nothing to do with the possibility that its total energy was 0 back then.

But I understand the problem. Non-physicists often confuse heat and temperature. Example: If you touch the metal part of a bicycle’s handlebar it feels colder than the rubber part, though both hat exactly the same temperature. Why? Because metal has a higher thermal conductivity than rubber, the body looses heat (=energy) faster to the metal than to the rubber.

 

[Perplexity]

I thank you.

And if you think it merits a private message, by all means PM me.

In organizing this material, I think it might be best if I go one at a time, and begin with a preface about the form of the arguments. Hopefully, tomorrow I’ll be able to post on the logical forms of the five ways and the various ways of understanding them, that way we can be clear on what I’m objecting to btw, I don’t mind if you respond, by all means if you see weaknesses in my arguments, have at 'em.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Well, heat is NOT temperature. Furthermore heat is only one “form” of energy.
Thus, the fact that the universe had a very high temperature in the beginning (nowadays it is quite cold) has nothing to do with the possibility that its total energy was 0 back then.

But I understand the problem. Non-physicists often confuse heat and temperature. Example: If you touch the metal part of a bicycle’s handlebar it feels colder than the rubber part, though both hat exactly the same temperature. Why? Because metal has a higher thermal conductivity than rubber, the body looses heat (=energy) faster to the metal than to the rubber.

If you really want to insist that the temperature was 0 during the Big Bang then I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[AnAtheist]

If you really want to insist that the temperature was 0 during the Big Bang then I don’t know what to tell you.

I didn’t say that. Please read what I am writing, not what you think I am writing. Oh, and it might help to read a physics book first.