Bertrandd Russell's China Teapot

[Peter_Plato]

How can you “prove” that science will “never” be able to explain “why” the universe exists?
.

Since science deals with observable and measurable phenonomena, it can only resort to verifiable (i.e, repeatable) physical causal events to explain the means by which any event comes about.

To explain why the universe exists a physical cause would have to be the necessary and sufficent reason for the entire universe. That is the only possible way that a “why” could collapse into a “how.” How could any physical cause explain the existence of the universe itself when the Big Bang is the beginning of the physical causal order?

There are only a few last resorts left to science.

1. We don’t know and can’t explain why the universe exists using the scientific method.
2. The universe or its precursor is a brute fact and simply exists without explanation.
3. The universe is an aspect of a larger multiverse or spawning mechanism of some kind. (In which case that possibility is proposed as another “how” answer and why is still unanswered.)
4. Lawrence Krauss’ logically untenable suggestion that the universe simply arose from “nothing.” This possibility is untenable because it contradicts a very basic tenet of metaphysics - From nothing nothing comes (Ex nihilo nihil fit) - which is based upon two basic philosophical principles, (which are likewise contradicted):
   A) The principle of non-contradiction. Something is not the same as nothing.
   B) The principle of sufficient reason. Nothing does not serve as an explanation for everything.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Daddy

Peter has explained why a “why the universe exists” question is impossible to answer. I will only add that it’s impossible for us to get back “before” the Big Bang to explain why the Big Bang occurred for the simple reason that there is no “before” for us to get back to.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

So then…those who believe other religions are true in their hearts, and also thru reason…know the truth.
Those who know and feel in their hearts and with reason that same-sex marriage is good, also know the truth.

And so on…

.

They know in their hearts there is truth, but by accident of birth or circumstance attach to it one thing or another.
[we know what we worship, you do not know what you worship]

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I feel you’ve completely missed his point.
The whole gist is that someone who doesn’t believe in a God isn’t usually “rejecting” the existence of a God.
They just can’t see any bit of information or evidence that leads to believe there is a God.

Can you see the difference?

People are not born with a religious belief in God; they are taught it. If it doesn’t make sense to someone, they are not “rejecting” it…how do you reject something you don’t think exists? They are just not believing it or convinced by the information presented to them.

.

Everything you see proves the existence of God. To see the existence of everything and believe it had no origin is more difficult than to believe it has an origin. That, and many other reasons, is why people turn to religion and return to religion. It offers an explanation for the information and evidence they see.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Since science deals with observable and measurable phenonomena, it can only resort to verifiable (i.e, repeatable) physical causal events to explain the means by which any event comes about.

To explain why the universe exists a physical cause would have to be the necessary and sufficent reason for the entire universe. That is the only possible way that a “why” could collapse into a “how.” How could any physical cause explain the existence of the universe itself when the Big Bang is the beginning of the physical causal order?

There are only a few last resorts left to science.

1. We don’t know and can’t explain why the universe exists using the scientific method.
2. The universe or its precursor is a brute fact and simply exists without explanation.
3. The universe is an aspect of a larger multiverse or spawning mechanism of some kind. (In which case that possibility is proposed as another “how” answer and why is still unanswered.)
4. Lawrence Krauss’ logically untenable suggestion that the universe simply arose from “nothing.” This possibility is untenable because it contradicts a very basic tenet of metaphysics - From nothing nothing comes (Ex nihilo nihil fit) - which is based upon two basic philosophical principles, (which are likewise contradicted):
   A) The principle of non-contradiction. Something is not the same as nothing.
   B) The principle of sufficient reason. Nothing does not serve as an explanation for everything.

The cool principle in science Is the more one knows the less one knows

God bless

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**aragon

The cool principle in science Is the more one knows the less one knows **

The coolest principle in science is that the more one knows, the more one knows how little one knows.

 

[Gricken]

But also…if someone prays for something and it happens, it doesn’t mean the prayer is what made it happen.

And people pray for a lot of important things, and they don’t happen…like…“please, don’t let that person murder my child.” But it still happens.

And people hope and really want things to happen, but they don’t pray for them…and they still happen. So prayer is not involved there.

.

Which is why I don’t advocate prayer experiments at all. The only reason I brought it up is because the other person did.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Daddy

And people pray for a lot of important things, and they don’t happen…like…“please, don’t let that person murder my child.” But it still happens.**

All murdered children go directly to heaven, I do believe. God is just. The child will go to heaven. The child’s killer … the other place.

God is just and merciful.

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry for not responding to you – I was away from my office, and unable to post at length. Perhaps others have already responded to you (I’ve only skimmed the seven pages of responses that have been posted over the past week!), but here is my take:

Gorgias:

Here’s the problem, though: in order to defend the reasonableness of Russell’s argument,you need to explain why the absence of physical evidence to prove the existence of a physical object is logically equivalent to the lack of physical evidence to prove the existence of a being that is not part of the physical order. The latter is an unreasonable demand…

Not quite. God is supposed to have been intermingling with us (Genesis), he is supposed to have been taking a human form (Jesus) and he supposed to constantly “fiddling” with reality - to maintain it. Also supposed to perform “miracles”, interfering with the “natural” state of affairs.

Your objection would be correct, if you did not believe that there is a constant interaction between God and our reality - this is called the interface problem. So it is perfectly reasonable to demand physical evidence - which is of course, never forthcoming.

I don’t think this argument helps your case. Again, it all comes down to the definition of what counts as ‘evidence.’ Nero existed; we have physical evidence (writings, statues, etc). Jesus existed; we have similar physical evidence. There’s no problem there.

What about God’s existence? Well, what kind of physical evidence are you looking for? Are you seriously suggesting that we should see God’s ‘footprint’ as evidence of His interaction with the physical world? That’s ludicrous. So… what are you looking for, and what standard of evidence do you propose?

In other words, unless you are able to present a case for the kind of physical evidence that a non-physical being leaves behind, then you can’t claim that this demand is ‘perfectly reasonable’.

Bagheera:

Gorgias:

In any case, the set of all conceivable non-physical beings is necessarily larger than the set of all actual non-physical beings.

Certainly, since there is not one example of an “actual non-physical being”.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

 

[Gorgias]

It should be obvious.

1. Conclusion: since everything within the physical world is subject to the scientific method (observation, etc…) and since the effect of God’s interaction happens in the physical world, therefore it is subject to the scientific method.

Yes! Exactly! Now, here’s the $64,000 question: how do you distinguish a physical effect with physical causes from a physical effect with non-physical causes? Can you require that no potential physical causes be present? That doesn’t seem reasonable: after all, for any physical effect, there are often a variety of possible physical causes that are reasonable. Well, then, can you require that there be some sort of ‘non-physical-cause-signature’? Again, no – that would require that the non-physical have some sort of extension within the physical world (which, I think, is the ‘interface problem’ that you tried to raise earlier). Since this is problematic, you cannot require it. So, in short, there’s nothing in the physical world that must necessarily be present in order to conclusively prove a non-physical cause; and therefore, you cannot reasonably require physical proof of a non-physical cause.

The theists usually attempt to “cop out” by saying that God is non-physical, and therefore not subject to physical proof / evidence. (Of course they conveniently “forget” that God allegedly manifested himself in the physical world, many times.) As explained above, the interface is partially physical, and as such subject to observation. That is all.

That may be ‘all,’ but it’s certainly not ‘sufficient.’ As I’ve demonstrated, God’s manifestation in the world only necessarily implies that there are physical effects; it does not imply that these effects be discernible as supernatural effects. If you could demonstrate that it does imply precisely this, I’d be interested in hearing your argument…

 

[Gorgias]

For physical processes (and in physical part of the interface everything is physical) there is only one method which is usable: the scientific one. Therefore God can be tested via physical means - within the physical part of the interface.

Of course, a physical test requires that the observer either be able to completely control the test environment or be able to observe the entire test environment. In the context of our discussion, physical observers neither control nor observe God; therefore, the scientific method is not able to be applied. Any attempts to suggest that the scientific method has been applied and has failed to find evidence grossly misunderstand the strengths and limitations of the scientific method.

 

[Bagheera]

Gorgias:

Again, it all comes down to the definition of what counts as ‘evidence.’ Nero existed; we have physical evidence (writings, statues, etc). Jesus existed; we have similar physical evidence. There’s no problem there.

There are many problems there. First, you point to the past, and God is supposed to be alive today. Also there is absolutely no credible evidence that Jesus (if he existed at all) performed all those miracles. The only evidence is “hearsay”, and not even first hand “hearsay”.

Gorgias:

Yes! Exactly! Now, here’s the $64,000 question: how do you distinguish a physical effect with physical causes from a physical effect with non-physical causes?

Ah, so now we are talking about the practical details. Do we agree that God is not exempt from being hypothetically subject to physical substantiation?

Let’s look at a similar scenario. There is a stage magician, Uri Geller, who keeps asserting that his tricks are actually manifestations of some paranormal forces. He says that he has no idea how these forces work. Is it possible that there are some paranormal forces? Of course it is “possible”. However, as long as other stage magicians can perform the same tricks without any “paranormal” assistance, it is irrational to assume that Uri Geller actually used them.

Now, no one asserts that one can ask God, and he will perform some “trick” to manifest his existence. It would be very considerate of him, if he did. So most apologists try to point to some “miracles”, which are allegedly serve as evidence, like the “miraculous healings at Lourdes”. These would be very good, scientific starting points, if we would organize them into properly conducted, double blind experiments.

If there would be a positive correlation, it would not actually establish God’s existence, but at least it would an indication, that there is something strange going on**. But there are no properly conducted, double blind experiments. Only a few anecdotes that some Mr. Smith went to Lourdes, he became better, and the doctors are “baffled”. That is not sufficient. So, even this, much less demanding experiment has never been conducted in a sufficiently convincing manner.**

 

[tonyrey]

Yes! Exactly! Now, here’s the $64,000 question: how do you distinguish a physical effect with physical causes from a physical effect with non-physical causes? Can you require that no potential physical causes be present? That doesn’t seem reasonable: after all, for any physical effect, there are often a variety of possible physical causes that are reasonable. Well, then, can you require that there be some sort of ‘non-physical-cause-signature’? Again, no – that would require that the non-physical have some sort of extension within the physical world (which, I think, is the ‘interface problem’ that you tried to raise earlier). Since this is problematic, you cannot require it. So, in short, there’s nothing in the physical world that must necessarily be present in order to conclusively prove a non-physical cause; and therefore, you cannot reasonably require physical proof of a non-physical cause.

That may be ‘all,’ but it’s certainly not ‘sufficient.’ As I’ve demonstrated, God’s manifestation in the world only necessarily implies that there are physical effects; it does not imply that these effects be discernible as supernatural effects. If you could demonstrate that it does imply precisely this, I’d be interested in hearing your argument…

:thumbsup:The assumption that reasoning is a physical process is self-contradictory because it presupposes hindsight, insight and foresight - which do not exist in the scientific scheme of things.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Bagheera

Also there is absolutely no credible evidence that Jesus (if he existed at all) performed all those miracles. The only evidence is “hearsay”, and not even first hand “hearsay”. **

The evidence certainly isn’t credible to ye of little faith.

Suppose you became a time traveler and you were able to return to the ancient world. Suppose you told the ancients that space travel was possible; indeed, in two thousand years men would even travel to the moon and back. There would be many who would say you offer no “credible evidence,” and that you were not yourself on the moon so you offer only hearsay evidence that such a thing was even possible.

How would you answer them? Would you say:

**Oh, ye of little faith! **

 

[Gorgias]

There are many problems there. First, you point to the past, and God is supposed to be alive today.

I’m not certain that I understand what you’re getting at: yes, I’m pointing to the past, and yes, God is supposed to be alive today. What’s the problem?

Also there is absolutely no credible evidence that Jesus (if he existed at all) performed all those miracles. The only evidence is “hearsay”, and not even first hand “hearsay”.

Again, it comes down to the definition for ‘credible evidence’ – which, I might add, I’ve asked a couple of times that we might try to agree on, but which no one has attempted to address. If you cannot even state what your conception of ‘credible evidence’ is, how can we discuss whether any exists to demonstrate that Jesus existed?

By the way: did Julius Caesar exist? Did Nero exist? Is ‘hearsay’ the only evidence that we have? Your criterion seems to deny existence to anyone who predated the era of photography…

Ah, so now we are talking about the practical details. Do we agree that God is not exempt from being hypothetically subject to physical substantiation?

Let’s get some definition around the concept first. Can a non-physical being be substantiated physically? It seems that the answer should be ‘no’. But, can the physical effects that we posit as being produced by God be subject to physical substantiation? It seems that the answer is ‘yes’. However, we have to understand what it means to substantiate something that we cannot predict, don’t we?

Let’s look at a similar scenario. There is a stage magician, Uri Geller, who keeps asserting that his tricks are actually manifestations of some paranormal forces. He says that he has no idea how these forces work. Is it possible that there are some paranormal forces? Of course it is “possible”. However, as long as other stage magicians can perform the same tricks without any “paranormal” assistance, it is irrational to assume that Uri Geller actually used them.

It would be ‘unproven through the present’, I would assert. If one could prove that Geller wasn’t taking the same actions that stage magicians use, then we would be left with an undefined result, wouldn’t we? It might require us to take Geller at his word, of course…

So most apologists try to point to some “miracles”, which are allegedly serve as evidence, like the “miraculous healings at Lourdes”. These would be very good, scientific starting points, if we would organize them into properly conducted, double blind experiments.

If there would be a positive correlation, it would not actually establish God’s existence, but at least it would an indication, that there is something strange going on. But there are no properly conducted, double blind experiments. Only a few anecdotes that some Mr. Smith went to Lourdes, he became better, and the doctors are “baffled”. That is not sufficient. So, even this, much less demanding experiment has never been conducted in a sufficiently convincing manner.

Actually, that’s not the case. However, if you are sufficiently motivated, why not go and conduct the experiments? Then, you’d be able to draw reasonable and reasoned conclusions. Dr Lawrence Krauss tried to make arguments about this exact context and failed miserably (IMHO), but as far as I know, even he did not attempt a scientific study. How odd: it’s not only the believer who looks at miracles based on faith rather than science; it’s the non-believer, too, who looks at miracles based on disbelief rather than on science!

 

[aragonjohn1]

**aragon

The cool principle in science Is the more one knows the less one knows **

The coolest principle in science is that the more one knows, the more one knows how little one knows.

Ah, thank You that seems clearer written.

God bless

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**tonyrey

The assumption that reasoning is a physical process is self-contradictory because it presupposes hindsight, insight and foresight - which do not exist in the scientific scheme of things.**

Indeed. Precisely what atoms have the intelligence to see into the future, to predict that which does not yet exist, or to even imagine things that we cannot know just by our senses, such as multiverses … or even God!?

Did you ever know a scientist who could put Truth under a microscope?

Or Beauty?

Or Hope?

Or Logic?

Or Evil?

Or Love?

Science is hopelessly inadequate to address them all. That is why we have Philosophy and Religion.

 

[tonyrey]

**tonyrey

The assumption that reasoning is a physical process is self-contradictory because it presupposes hindsight, insight and foresight - which do not exist in the scientific scheme of things.**

Indeed. Precisely what atoms have the intelligence to see into the future, to predict that which does not yet exist, or to even imagine things that we cannot know just by our senses, such as multiverses … or even God!?

Did you ever know a scientist who could put Truth under a microscope?

Or Beauty?

Or Hope?

Or Logic?

Or Evil?

Or Love?

Science is hopelessly inadequate to address them all. That is why we have Philosophy and Religion.

Those who reject Philosophy and Religion have never justified their faith in Science as **the sole explanation **of reality - a hypothesis which is unverified, unverifiable and unintelligible.

 

[Bagheera]

Gorgias:

I’m not certain that I understand what you’re getting at: yes, I’m pointing to the past, and yes, God is supposed to be alive today. What’s the problem?

Since God is supposed to be alive today, it is not necessary to try to find evidence in the past.

Gorgias:

Again, it comes down to the definition for ‘credible evidence’ – which, I might add, I’ve asked a couple of times that we might try to agree on, but which no one has attempted to address. If you cannot even state what your conception of ‘credible evidence’ is, how can we discuss whether any exists to demonstrate that Jesus existed?

For events in the past it is much more difficult to get good, credible evidence. Usually it boils down to
a) having several eye-witnesses,
b) who have a different point of view (their own “agenda”, if you will), and
c) who have established their credibility by having described other events, which are also corroborated by other eye-witnesses.

So it is a complex interaction. But why bother? If God is alive today, none if that is necessary. Furthermore, such second-hand method can only establish crude generalities. Did Napoleon exist? Yes, according to the eye-witnesses and their writs. What did Napoleon eat for breakfast on the morning when Waterloo happened?

None of these are there when it comes to Jesus’s alleged miracles.

Gorgias:

Let’s get some definition around the concept first. Can a non-physical being be substantiated physically? It seems that the answer should be ‘no’. But, can the physical effects that we posit as being produced by God be subject to physical substantiation? It seems that the answer is ‘yes’.

Agreed.

Gorgias:

However, we have to understand what it means to substantiate something that we cannot predict, don’t we?

Ah, but there are assertions that we can predict. Ask, and you will be answered, knock and the door will be opened, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, tell that mountain to move and it will move… etc. These are categorical assertions. Try them, and nothing will happen. So, yes, the tests have been performed and the result was negative. Just peek over into the “prayer intentions” forum, and see all those “unanswered” prayers.

Gorgias:

It would be ‘unproven through the present’, I would assert. If one could prove that Geller wasn’t taking the same actions that stage magicians use, then we would be left with an undefined result, wouldn’t we? It might require us to take Geller at his word, of course…

That is not the point. If some action can be accomplished without referring to some supernatural and / or paranormal, then the null-hypothesis is that the assumption of the supernatural / paranormal is not necessary (Occam’s razor).

Gorgias:

Actually, that’s not the case. However, if you are sufficiently motivated, why not go and conduct the experiments?

For the same reason that one is disinclined to set up experiments that pyramidal structures do not have unexplained curative powers. It is incumbent upon the proponents of such ideas to set up the experiments and substantiate their claims. When the pharmaceutical factories wish to establish the efficacy of their new products, the skeptics are not supposed to accept those claims as a “default” stance, and try to “disprove” the claims.

 

[tonyrey]

**In 1952 the philosopher Bertrand Russell said this:

“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 fatal flaw in this argument is the unverified ******and unverifiable **assumption that all phenomena have a visible explanation.
**

**In 1958 Russell said this.

“I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.”

This, Russell wants us to believe, is a reasonable rationale for rejecting the existence of God.**

What say you?

Undoubtedly unreasonable! He assumes - without evidence - that all non-natural explanations are unlikely yet he advocated neutral monism!

If the universe cannot be explained by a natural cause there is either a natural or non-natural cause. The success of science demonstrates the power of the mind.