Hawking theory about something coming from nothing

[catholictiger]

You can prove for yourself that Aquinas’ proofs of God are valueless in either of two ways. The easiest is to reproduce them, by yourself, on paper or computer, from your mind at the moment, without first looking them up. I will bet you that you cannot even come close.

The reason for this is that they are complex, illogical, and incorrect, and the human mind has a difficult time recalling complex but illogical arguments. It does quite well recalling complex and logical, correct arguments.

I propose that like most religious people, you do not actually understand Aquinas’ arguments, Rather, you and they trust that others who claim to understand them actually do, You also trust the assurances of these unmet others that Tom’s arguments are valid.

Did you even take and ace high school geometry? How about algebra, trig, spherical trig and calculus? Those theorems are easier to comprehend than Aquinas’ stuff. Unlike Aquinas, they cannot be easily refuted.

how can you disprove that there is no motion (really is change) in the world

aka I move from one place to another, or developing as a human, or going from existing to not existing

how can you disprove the efficient cause are you saying there is no causation in the universe, the is nothing that explains our why?

are you saying that there are no contientgient beings or we are all necessary for some reason.

I don’t get the point of you bringing up all of these math theorems because they do not add to this discussion.

also I can reproduce them on paper atleast the majority of them

First argument from motion

there are things that have motion in the world, and we know that in order for something to move, something must force it to move. Things cannot move on themselves. If everything at one time didn’t have motion then nothing in the world can have motion. So there must be a first unmoved mover.

2nd argument from efficient causality. Evertying in the world is caused, or it has a reason why it exists. now if everything in the universe has to be caused in order to exist then there will be a time where nothing exists, this is absurd. There must be a uncaused first cause. this is what all men call God.

3rd argument from possibility. We see in the world that some beings have the possibility to exist and the possibility not to exist. If everything in the world had the possibility to exist or not to exist there would be a time where nothing existed. It is impossible for a being that is possible to exist, meaning it currently doesn’t exist, to make itself exist, so nothing would ever exist. This is absurd there must be a necessary being which makes possible beings exist. This is what all men Call God.

4th is from gradation of being. There are some things that are hot hotter hottest, or good better best. Things that are hot hotter hottest must derive its hotness from something that is hotter then itself, so there must be something that is the universally hottest thing. Same thing goes for goodness. This being is what all men call God.

5th is from governance of the world. We can see in the world that all things work towards an end. The Sun for example work to an end to keep us warm and bring us into existence, and these things seem to always be working towards that single end. But something that doesn’t have intelligence can’t work towards an end on its own. So there must be a designer behind it. This is what all men Call God.

btw when you think of these critically its very obvious that these things are true.

the only way you can doubt the truthfulness of these statements or validity, is if you doubt the way the world works around you. If you say what we see is just a way your brain makes sense of the world. If you do believe that you can’t really use logic to prove anything, because you can’t prove the truthfulness of any statement.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

To add to Catholictigers statement.

1. You can’t get something from nothing. You can’t get change from nothing.
2. If an object does not already posses the quality of change, it will not change, unless something else makes it change, because out of nothing change cannot come.
3. In general, there are two types of causes; intelligent causes, and non-intelligent causes. When it comes to non-intelligent events, you can’t get change out of something which is not already changing or something which does not already proceed from a series of changing things. If a thing is not moving at all, then the law of efficient causality dictates that it will never change of its own accord since it does not posses within its nature the quality of change.
4. If the universe causes something to change, it is only because the universe as a whole already has the quality of change and is therefore mediating that change to other things, and not because it is the efficient cause of change.
5. This means that the universe, as a natural non-intelligent object, cannot by itself move from a state of timelessness to a state change, since that would be the same as getting something out of nothing.
6. When it comes to asking what the cause of change is, we cannot say its the universe, because the universe itself is subject to the rule change.
7. An intelligent-will - on the other hand - is the only kind of cause that can be rationally conceived as being the efficient cause of its own change or the change of other beings, because the root of its motion can be attributed to its will. It would be fare to say that human intelligence is also subject to change like non-intelligent beings because we have physical parts. However; human Intelligence is different from other objects in the one vital respect that we can choose what we change into. Thus we can at least be described as the efficient causes of certain kinds of change, even though we - as products of the universe - are not the absolute cause of all change.
8. Thus efficient causality is present in the nature of intelligence in a way that it is not in non-intelligent things. Therefore some-kind of transcendent intelligence free of the limitations of space-time has more explanatory power for the existence of change in this instant than a non-intelligent-one, because the change of the universe can be attributed the absolute will of a non-physical being.
9. Thus in eliminating all metaphysical possibility of a non-intelligent cause; all we are left with is an intelligent cause.
10. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable from this point onwards to say that the existence of a perfectly actual, intelligent, non-physical, timeless will, is at the root of physical events and physical reality in its entirety; being that it is the only sufficient cause that can simultaneously and instantaneously move something from a state of potentiality to something which is actually changing and existing, without being in motion itself.
11. Despite any difficulty in understanding what that means, i can still say that given the impossibility of a non-intelligent cause being at the root of physical reality, we have to accept that some kind of intelligent cause transcending space and time is a necessary conclusion. This is because, in general, these are the only two possibilities, and therefore the absolute exclusion of one justifies the absolute inclusion of the other. The favor falls on intelligence because of the efficiency of will.

 

[Sair]

1. You can’t get something from nothing. You can’t get change from nothing.
2. If an object does not already posses the quality of change, it will not change, unless something else makes it change, because out of nothing change cannot come.

How is change a ‘quality’ something possesses, and not a manifestation?

1. In general, there are two types of causes; intelligent causes, and non-intelligent causes. When it comes to non-intelligent events, you can’t get change out of something which is not already changing or something which does not already proceed from a series of changing things. If a thing is not moving at all, then the law of efficient causality dictates that it will never change of its own accord since it does not posses within its nature the quality of change.

Obviously, then, this law of efficient causality doesn’t take into account the empirical observation of quantum randomness. What causes radioactive decay, for example? What causes particles to pop into and out of existence in a quantum vacuum?

1. If the universe causes something to change, it is only because the universe as a whole already has the quality of change and is therefore mediating that change to other things, and not because it is the efficient cause of change.

Again, change is something that happens, a physical manifestation, not a ‘quality’ possessed by any object. All it takes is one uncaused change at the quantum level to set in motion a progression of further changes.

1. This means that the universe, as a natural non-intelligent object, cannot by itself move from a state of timelessness to a state change, since that would be the same as getting something out of nothing.

But not out of a philosopher’s nothing - there’s no reason to suppose that the philosopher’s nothing has ever obtained, nor could ever obtain. It’s becoming increasingly clear that from the physicists’ nothing, however, random events do indeed occur, all by themselves.

1. Thus in eliminating all metaphysical possibility of a non-intelligent cause; all we are left with is an intelligent cause.

1. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable from this point onwards to say that the existence of a perfectly actual, intelligent, non-physical, timeless will, is at the root of physical events and physical reality in its entirety; being that it is the only sufficient cause that can simultaneously and instantaneously move something from a state of potentiality to something which is actually changing and existing, without being in motion itself.

But here you are still not getting something from nothing. You’re getting something from the interaction of your supposed intelligent will and some state of being that this will moved towards some other state of being. I think your attempt to disqualify the universe as its own efficient cause has failed, since it did not take into account certain empirically observed facts; furthermore, your attempt to set up intelligent will - which has only ever been observed as physically manifested - as something ‘nonphysical’ yet capable of physical interaction and causation is special pleading at best, and incoherent at worst.

 

[karebear92]

But not out of a philosopher’s nothing - there’s no reason to suppose that the philosopher’s nothing has ever obtained, nor could ever obtain. It’s becoming increasingly clear that from the physicists’ nothing, however, random events do indeed occur, all by themselves.

I don’t think either way is more valid than the other. That is like saying you would have believed that the world was flat simply because scientists hadn’t proven it was round yet. Or that air was nothingness because scientists hadn’t figure out that we have an atmosphere of gases.

 

[Sair]

I don’t think either way is more valid than the other. That is like saying you would have believed that the world was flat simply because scientists hadn’t proven it was round yet. Or that air was nothingness because scientists hadn’t figure out that we have an atmosphere of gases.

Actually, I think the two concepts are fundamentally different. The philosopher’s nothing is an absolute lack of existence, whilst the physicist’s nothing is a physical state of being. The fact that we now know, for example, that air consists of gases rather than empty space and that ‘empty’ space is inhabited by physical forces and quantum fluctuations would tend to require an updating of the philosophy that insists there once must have been a state of complete non-existence in which the Judeo-Christian God intervened to turn it into something. Philosophy is worthless if it cannot adapt to our changing understanding of reality.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

How is change a ‘quality’ something possesses, and not a manifestation?

Out of nothing comes nothing

Obviously, then, this law of efficient causality doesn’t take into account the empirical observation of quantum randomness. What causes radioactive decay, for example? What causes particles to pop into and out of existence in a quantum vacuum?

No scientist has ever truly observed ontological randomness, and no true scientist who understands the scientific method they employ would tell you that they had done. What they have observed is physical events which have no mechanistic-cause, and in the tautological context of methodological naturalism (assuming all is physical) they have labeled that event as random. This is not the same as saying that it is logically possible for an object to be truly random in the sense of having no efficient cause at all. It is random given the tautological assumption of universal naturalism. Science has nothing to say about whether or not universal naturalism is actually a rational concept; it is merely a tool. Physical randomness is not a logical inference. If you understood the scientific method you would know that a scientific statement is not a metaphysical inference; and science has nothing to say about any other possible causes that are not physical in nature.

All that you are showing us here is that you don’t understand science. Scientists make statements about what they observe in reference to other physical things. In other words, a thing is random in comparison to other physical events that have mechanistic type causes. Its a relative statement, it is not and never has been an absolute statement. They are not saying it has no ontological cause; for they are not in the business of metaphysics. They are saying it has no physical-mechanistic cause for its kind of change or motion. These statements are made in the context of methodological naturalism. In other-words the assumption of naturalism is a method that the scientist uses in order maximize a particular kind of knowledge. Thus when a scientists says that a thing is random, they are saying that only in reference to the empirical knowledge of physical events and not in reference to all things which could possibly exist. They are not making a metaphysical statement or an absolute logical inference. Scientific randomness is not the same thing as ontological randomness.

The idea that an object could change from a state of timelessness or change from nothing at all without an efficient cause, is a logical/metaphysical contradiction; and what science has to say about the matter is irrelevant.

Until you understand and accept the limited epistemological nature of the scientific method, there is not much more that can be said to you.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Obviously, then, this law of efficient causality doesn’t take into account the empirical observation of quantum randomness. What causes radioactive decay, for example? What causes particles to pop into and out of existence in a quantum vacuum?

The law of efficient causality always applies. also in science.

Are there ‘uncaused’ events in science? Let us look at science in practice. As far as I know, being a scientist myself, in the tens of thousands scientific laboratories around the world the principle of looking for natural causes to natural effects is still very much alive. In fact, science as it is currently practiced and will be in the foreseeable future, is firmly based on this central principle. It obviously includes the broader assumption that every effect has a cause.

There appears to be some confusion, however, as to whether the findings from quantum mechanics suggest a loosening of the bond between cause and effect. Such a loosening does not really take place. Yet what does happen in the realm of quantum processes, is that a cause does not have a deterministic effect anymore, but a probabilistic effect. That the bond between cause and effect is unbroken is proven by the fact that the statistical distribution of the effects can be represented by exact mathematical formulas.

This can be well illustrated by radioactive decay: The cause for radioactive decay is the instability of certain types of atom which triggers them to loose a particle, e.g. a beta-particle, and in the process to convert into another element. Yet radioactive decay is also a quantum process.

If you have an agglomeration of 32-Phosphorus (32-P) atoms, or an agglomeration of molecules containing 32-P atoms, it is impossible to tell which one of the 32-P atoms will decay next to give stable 32-Sulfur (32-S). However, it is known that the half-life of 32-P is 14.28 days, i.e. after this time half of the material has decayed to 32-S, regardless which precise molecules out of the agglomeration of atoms do the decaying. This holds for any quantity of 32-P that is more than unimaginably miniscule. Even a chemically barely detectable trace amount of 1 femtomol still has 600 million atoms 32-P atoms. Obviously, this is still such a huge number that, statistically, also this tiny trace amount will always decay with a half-life of precisely 14.28 days. The cause for the decay is the instability of the 32-P nucleus, and the effect is always this precisely determinable half-life. Thus, there is a clear correlation between cause and effect, a probabilistically determined correlation. Certainly, on the local level of the lowest imaginable quantities, statistics cease to work, but the correlation between cause and effect is still there. Let us assume, hypothetically, that we have an agglomerate of just three 32-P atoms. One may decay in, let’s say, the next two minutes, one in 4 weeks, and another one in 10 months. Obviously, a statistically determined half-life of 14.28 days will only work on a global level of many atoms, but not on the local level of these three atoms. The effect is random – who can predict when exactly these three atoms will decay? Nobody can. But is the cause for the decay different from that for a larger agglomeration of 32-P atoms, for which a half-life of precisely 14.28 days could be determined? No, of course not. The cause is still the exact same instability of the 32-P nucleus.

Thus, the effect of decay is still tied to that cause, even though the factor of precise statistical determinability falls away. The cause is the same, regardless if the effect is that the decay takes place within 2 minutes, or after 10 months.

---

It should be clear from this that the concepts of ‘random effect’ and ‘cause-less effect’ are two very different things. ‘Random’ in science means ‘by chance’, ‘unpredictable’, ‘indeterministic’ but not ‘uncaused’.

Therefore, an ‘uncaused’ event, much less an entire ‘uncaused’ universe, ‘spontaneously from nothing’, has no support from any observational findings in science.

 

[Sair]

Out of nothing comes nothing

Doesn’t address the question of how ‘change’ is a quality, rather than a description of physical manifestations.

No scientist has ever truly observed ontological randomness, and no true scientist who understands the scientific method they employ would tell you that they had done. What they have observed is physical events which have no mechanistic-cause, and in the tautological context of methodological naturalism (assuming all is physical) they have labeled that event as random.

So you assume there is an unobservable causal agent at work? Isn’t that an unjustified leap of supposition?

This is not the same as saying that it is logically possible for an object to be truly random in the sense of having no efficient cause at all. It is random given the tautological assumption of universal naturalism. Science has nothing to say about whether or not universal naturalism is actually a rational concept; it is merely a tool.

How do you know what is logically possible, given that logic itself is derived from observation of physical reality? Logic requires relationships of cause and effect - it has nothing to say about randomness, and is therefore inadequate to explain random phenomena.

Physical randomness is not a logical inference. If you understood the scientific method you would know that a scientific statement is not a metaphysical inference; and science has nothing to say about any other possible causes that are not physical in nature.

Science has nothing to say about such causes because they can never be other than imaginary - the minute a supposedly non-physical cause interacts with physical reality, its existence is open to observation and inference about its nature.

All that you are showing us here is that you don’t understand science.

Or, alternatively, you are showing us that you expect to have understanding beyond what real-world observation can demonstrate - that you assume transcendence on your own behalf.

Scientists make statements about what they observe in reference to other physical things. In other words, a thing is random in comparison to other physical events that have mechanistic type causes. Its a relative statement, it is not and never has been an absolute statement. They are not saying it has no ontological cause; for they are not in the business of metaphysics. They are saying it has no physical-mechanistic cause for its kind of change or motion. These statements are made in the context of methodological naturalism. In other-words the assumption of naturalism is a method that the scientist uses in order maximize a particular kind of knowledge.

But the entire point of science is to explain and understand that which is observable. If it isn’t observable, it is not the province of science; and if it doesn’t affect that which is observable, it is irrelevant. What you want, it appears, is a narrative that connects what you can observe with what you assume to be real. Science won’t provide you with that narrative, so you make it up as you see fit, regardless of whether it’s necessary to do so or not.

Thus when a scientists says that a thing is random, they are saying that only in reference to the empirical knowledge of physical events and not in reference to all things which could possibly exist. They are not making a metaphysical statement or an absolute logical inference. Scientific randomness is not the same thing as ontological randomness.

In other words, scientists are working with actual evidence, rather than unsupported philosophical conjecture.

The idea that an object could change from a state of timelessness or change from nothing at all without an efficient cause, is a logical/metaphysical contradiction; and what science has to say about the matter is irrelevant.

You assume logic is a universal prescriptive law when there is no evidence, no reason to suppose it is so. Our ability to understand phenomena does not dictate what such phenomena must be - but by the same token, assuming a non-physical cause of anything when we have not even a shred of evidence that non-physical phenomena actually exist is taking leap of faith beyond what would generally be considered rational (except by those who have already been schooled to believe in non-physical phenomena, of course).

Until you understand and accept the limited epistemological nature of the scientific method, there is not much more that can be said to you.

The supposedly limited nature of science reflects that which we can discern in the natural world. Beyond that, all is conjecture. Demonstrate any evidence at all for non-physical phenomena, and your argument for intelligent, wilful causation might carry some weight. Until you can show that there is reason to believe intelligence and intention can manifest without physical phenomena, and affect physical states of being, there is no reason to take your arguments seriously, no matter how much they conform to human logical constructions.

 

[nonanon]

…
The supposedly limited nature of science reflects that which we can discern in the natural world. Beyond that, all is conjecture. Demonstrate any evidence at all for non-physical phenomena, and your argument for intelligent, wilful causation might carry some weight. Until you can show that there is reason to believe intelligence and intention can manifest without physical phenomena, and affect physical states of being, there is no reason to take your arguments seriously, no matter how much they conform to human logical constructions.

Are you saying that we should anything not discernible by the scientific method is “conjecture”? What about “love” or “freedom”? Outside of science, and not uniquely discernible by the scientific method. Are they also “conjecture”?

Why do you think it’s necessary that “intelligence and intention can manifest without physical phenomenon”? Our knowledge of physical phenomona and their causes is necessarily incomplete–Heisenberg uncertainty principle, chaos theory, “random” events, etc. So there are clearly pathways for intelligence and intention outside the physical realm to manifest through physical phenomena.

 

[Sair]

Are you saying that we should anything not discernible by the scientific method is “conjecture”? What about “love” or “freedom”? Outside of science, and not uniquely discernible by the scientific method. Are they also “conjecture”?

They are physically manifest as states of the brain and patterns of behaviour.

Why do you think it’s necessary that “intelligence and intention can manifest without physical phenomenon”? Our knowledge of physical phenomona and their causes is necessarily incomplete–Heisenberg uncertainty principle, chaos theory, “random” events, etc. So there are clearly pathways for intelligence and intention outside the physical realm to manifest through physical phenomena.

Um…what? From what I can make out from this, you are basically advocating a god-of-the-gaps argument - firstly, I don’t think it’s at all necessary (nor apparently possible, for that matter) for intelligence and intention to manifest absent physical phenomena; secondly, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, chaos theory and random occurrences all refer to distinctly physical states of affairs and what we can potentially know about them. Why assume there is some necessarily undetectable third party involved, when it’s not necessary to do so in order to explain such things? How would you show that physical manifestations of intelligence and intention had their origins outside of the natural universe?

 

[nonanon]

They are physically manifest as states of the brain and patterns of behaviour.

So you’re saying science defines them? What are their scientific definitions, then? And let’s add a slightly more complicated one–what is the scientific / physical definition of “justice”?

Um…what? From what I can make out from this, you are basically advocating a god-of-the-gaps argument - firstly, I don’t think it’s at all necessary (nor apparently possible, for that matter) for intelligence and intention to manifest absent physical phenomena; secondly, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, chaos theory and random occurrences all refer to distinctly physical states of affairs and what we can potentially know about them. Why assume there is some necessarily undetectable third party involved, when it’s not necessary to do so in order to explain such things? How would you show that physical manifestations of intelligence and intention had their origins outside of the natural universe?

As I understand the argument, you’re saying that the only “things” that are not “conjecture” are those that are within the realm of “physical phenomena”, and that there’s no need to conjecture “God” if we have scientific explanations for all phenomena in the physical world.

I was making 2 points: first, that the existence of things outside the physical world aside from God is generally agreed upon (science can’t explain or define everything); and second that scientific knowledge of the physical world is necessarily limited–it can’t explain or predict all events even in the physical world.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, the existence of God–creator of the physical universe, it seems to me that it necessarily follows that He exists outside of the physical universe. Isn’t a search within the physical universe for evidence or proof of something necessarily outside the physical universe logically flawed? This doesn’t say such evidence can’t exist, only that lack of evidence or lack of agreement on evidence logically tells us nothing.

Finally, and back to the original topic, what does science say “caused” the Big Bang? Does science have anything to say about why (not how) the universe exists at all?

 

[JDaniel]

How is change a ‘quality’ something possesses, and not a manifestation?

Sair:

Ontological things, in general, possess the quality of changeableness. “Change,” per se, is a manifestation. In fact, it can be said that there are three manifestations in the ‘process’ of change. First, there is the ontological being lacking what it will possess at the end of the process. So that’s one. Then there is the process-in-process, some which we can actually view, or at least measure, as they proceed along. That’s two. And, three, is the end, or final effect, or the ontological being now possessing that which earlier it did not possess. E.G., the newly hatched baby bird is without feathers. Then, small spikes begin to appear on its skin. And, finally, voilà!, feathers. (I know there’s more to it than that, but describing the entire process is irrelevant.)

Obviously, then, this law of efficient causality doesn’t take into account the empirical observation of quantum randomness. What causes radioactive decay, for example?

We know that there are things in nature that are unstable. (Usually due to their chemical makeup.) Radioactive decay is a manifestation of just such instability. Certain acids are unstable. Rapid oxidation is a manifestation of instability.

What do you think “quantum randomness” is?

What causes particles to pop into and out of existence in a quantum vacuum?

Well, we really don’t know that they “pop in and out of existence,” do we? For all that we know, they may merely make their quantum effects known to us, then desist, then make them known to us again. They may be there the whole time (and probably are). But, it’s cool to think that “things ‘pop’ into and out of existence!”

Again, change is something that happens, a physical manifestation, not a ‘quality’ possessed by any object.

However, what is the per se ‘quality’ is the conspicuous absence of that quality (or, those qualities) possessed at the end, that are missing at the beginning of the process.

All it takes is one uncaused change at the quantum level to set in motion a progression of further changes.

Yes! That would be its falsification! Which, thank God, hasn’t happened yet.

But not out of a philosopher’s nothing - there’s no reason to suppose that the philosopher’s nothing has ever obtained, nor could ever obtain.

Whether or not one believes that it has or it hasn’t, is beside the point. That is still what is and, more importantly, what was, meant. It may be unprovable, today, but it is still a highly possible theory. Several thousand years ago, our forefathers could not have known that there was a sequential ‘before’ related to a beginning of the earth and the heavens (the big bang). Yet, in numerable instances, God’s Creation within the context of real nothingness, was asserted. So, we understand it, believe it, and have it on excellent authority.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that from the physicists’ nothing, however, random events do indeed occur, all by themselves.

No they do not: “random events” do not equal “chance events.” You (and so many others) conflate the two. ‘Randomness’ is homogeneity. Nothing more and nothing less. “Chance” is almost perfect improbability. It is the utter want of homogeneity.

But here you are still not getting something from nothing.

And we never will; ONLY God can.

You’re getting something from the interaction of your supposed intelligent will and some state of being that this will moved towards some other state of being.

An absolutely incorrect assessment.

I think your attempt to disqualify the universe as its own efficient cause has failed,

Well, I didn’t follow MoM’s discourse, but: an efficient cause must pre-exist - even if it nearly, or almost, simultaneously does so - its effect. Rossum proved that in these fora over a year ago. However then we would be left with a brand new, uncaused exigency without a creator. It must be uncaused because there was no material, no energy, and no frequencies in existence before they existed. God did not work on extant stuff to cause the universe. He thought the universe, and its process of becoming.

furthermore, your attempt to set up intelligent will - which has only ever been observed as physically manifested - as something ‘nonphysical’ yet capable of physical interaction and causation is special pleading at best, and incoherent at worst.

Wait a minute. In Eastern philosophy does the disembodied soul not have thoughts? Is it inert? Does its accidental (merely possible) adherence in matter give it some powers that it didn’t possess when it was disembodied? (I mean, besides the obvious.)

No doubt Creation, as an event, is a “special pleading.” And, no doubt it is obtuse. But, we have three important dynamical exigencies that serve to provide insistence for the notion of Creation. (1) That it is the ONLY conclusion from a dialectical analysis. (2) That it complies with parsimony far better than do any other theories, dialectics, or conclusions. And (3), that the world has 3,500 years of historical authority for it. These compelling forces cause our beliefs.

Why don’t you tell us what you believe?

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Doesn’t address the question of how ‘change’ is a quality, rather than a description of physical manifestations.

When describing a physical event you are not identifying the absolute efficient cause of change, you are merely describing the many mediums through which we experience change. Out of nothing comes nothing.

So you assume there is an unobservable causal agent at work? Isn’t that an unjustified leap of supposition?

You are making a straw-man of my argument. I suggest you re-read my original argument.

How do you know what is logically possible, given that logic itself is derived from observation of physical reality?

We experience the objectivity of metaphysical absolutes through the medium of our physical experiences. Logical truth is certainly observed but it is not derived from physical reality, accept as a medium.

Logic requires relationships of cause and effect

Logic requires the acknowledgement of rational distinctions.

Science has nothing to say about such causes because they can never be other than imaginary

No. science has nothing to say about such causes because they cannot be measured. It has nothing to say about what is imaginary and what is not. What ever additional interpretations you may have has nothing to do with the goal of science; but is instead to do with your philosophical world-view.

Or, alternatively, you are showing us that you expect to have understanding beyond what real-world observation can demonstrate - that you assume transcendence on your own behalf.

I never assumed anything. I made an argument; and you have failed to refute it, and instead you have resorted to circular misinformation.

But the entire point of science is to explain and understand that which is observable.

Science is an attempt to make rational sense of physical reality through observation and experiment. It describes the “natures” that are changing; it does not describe where change came from.

If it isn’t observable, it is not the province of science;

True. you cannot measure that which is not in time, therefore the efficient cause of change is not in the province of science.

and if it doesn’t affect that which is observable, it is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to the subject of science. But its very relevant in terms of understanding reality as a whole in respect of identifying the absolute efficient cause of change and potentiality.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What you want, it appears, is a narrative that connects what you can observe with what you assume to be real.

I never assumed anything. I have proved the existence of an intelligent cause using metaphysical principles. You treat science as a metaphysics and that’s why you fail to understand why you are wrong.

Science won’t provide you with that narrative,

I don’t expect it to, and neither did i say that it did.

so you make it up as you see fit, regardless of whether it’s necessary to do so or not.

You are making up science as you see fit. In reality its just pseudo science and has nothing to do with the real thing.

In other words, scientists are working with actual evidence, rather than unsupported philosophical conjecture.

No. Science is working within the bounds of its epistemological method. It has nothing directly to say about the truths or untruths of philosophy. Science states that you should not accept a hypothesis as scientific fact until there is evidence; which is true within the epistemological context of a scientific investigation. The goal of science is to describe the particular natures that comprise physical reality. That is not the goal of metaphysics. One of the goals of metaphysics is to find an efficient cause for the existence of potentiality and change, a subject which is beyond the goal and capacity of science, since science only deals with secondary causes.

A metaphysical investigation is something different.

You assume logic is a universal prescriptive law

Without which objective scientific truth is meaningless. Its not like i didn’t see this coming, because in the end the only way atheism can survive is to be anti-rational.

when there is no evidence, no reason to suppose it is so.

Logic is the basis of all interpretations. Science proceeds on the basis that reality is rational and can be discovered. Evidence has to be interpreted as evidence, and in order to do so we have to make a logical connection between various facts. Anything else is just meaningless babble; not evidence. Science makes rational inferences; otherwise it cannot function. You cannot do science with out recognizing rational distinctions; that an apple is not an orange; a square is not a triangle, and cannot ever be. Otherwise science is nothing but a meaningless tautology.

To say that you should not accept that which is not evident, is not itself a scientific theory; its a philosophical statement. The statement itself implicitly accepts the objectivity of logical truth in so far as it dictates a right way of thinking and a wrong way. In order for the concept to hold weight it has to make a logical connection between the statement and the acquisition of true knowledge; and you accept it precisely because you think you have made that logical connection.

Our ability to understand phenomena does not dictate what such phenomena must be -

And yet you are making unscientific claims such as saying that things can change without an efficient cause.

The supposedly limited nature of science

Its not a supposition its a fact.

Demonstrate any evidence at all for non-physical phenomena,

I do not require scientific evidence. I merely need to show that there is a necessary connection between an intelligent cause and the existence of a changing potential physical reality. That you refuse to accept any kind of evidence beyond the concept of scientific evidence, only shows how unwilling you are to face reality.

and your argument for intelligent, wilful causation might carry some weight.

It doesn’t just carry weight; its a proof that cannot rationally be refuted; which has been demonstrated by the fact that you have resorted to anti-rationality and will probably do so time and time again.

Until you can show that there is reason to believe intelligence and intention can manifest without physical phenomena, and affect physical states of being, there is no reason to take your arguments seriously, no matter how much they conform to human logical constructions.

Its irrelevant what the basis of human intelligence is. The point is an “intelligent will” is the only act that can be classed as a sufficient cause because the change of its effect can be attributed to its will. That fact stands by itself whether you like it or not.

In so far as human intelligence being the sum total of physical events, my experience of freewill doesn’t correspond with that idea. All you are saying to me is that you accept what you observe when it suits you, and rationalize when it suits you. Prove to me you that you have the freedom to think and reason and i will take your pseudo science seriously. In fact prove that other intelligent minds exist using the scientific method alone and i will salute you.

 

[Kismetji]

So… if nothing occurs at random, what happens to free will?

Isn’t your and my will spontaneous? Are we not free? It just looks to me as though freedom is being thrown out and replaced by an overweening necessity. Is everyone here a Spinozist?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So… if nothing occurs at random, what happens to free will?

Freewill is not random. An efficient cause does not have to be deterministic.

 

[tonyrey]

So… if nothing occurs at random, what happens to free will?

Isn’t your and my will spontaneous? Are we not free? It just looks to me as though freedom is being thrown out and replaced by an overweening necessity. Is everyone here a Spinozist?

You are leaving self-determinism out of the picture!

 

[tonyrey]

Explained in my book. No space here to discuss thermodynamics.

Then you are invulnerable and your argument is irrefutable!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You are leaving self-determinism out of the picture!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Therefore, an ‘uncaused’ event, much less an entire ‘uncaused’ universe, ‘spontaneously from nothing’, has no support from any observational findings in science.

I completely missed your post!!! I was hoping that you would say something. Your support is welcome, especially given the fact that you are scientist.

Thanks.