Ignorance of the gaps

[Aloysium]

There exists a holiness to things; something very important has been lost with a growing materialistic relationship with creation.

From time to time, one catches a glimmer of a deeper connection: the interest in Hubble images, Carl Sagan talking about billions and billions of stars and galaxies.
However, for the most part what tends to be portrayed is a sterile, lifeless corpse of a universe: a giant clockwork, meaningless, uncaring and unrelenting. But even the horror of such a place, is sucked out: “There probably is no god, So stop worrying and enjoy your life.” (Dawkins’ bus ad campaign) Human existence devolves into mindless self-absorption.

I just wanted to remind people of the holy mystery of the heavens:

Job 9:6-10

He shakes the earth, and moves it from its place, making all its pillars tremble. The sun, at his command, forbears to rise, and on the stars he sets a seal. He and no other has stretched out the heavens and trampled on the back of the Sea. He has made the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the Mansions of the South. The works he does are great and unfathomable, and his marvels cannot be counted.

Job 38:31-33

Can you fasten the harness of the Pleiades, or untie Orion’s bands? Can you guide the Crown season by season and show the Bear and its cubs which way to go? Have you grasped the celestial laws? Could you make their writ run on the earth?

Isaiah 40:26

Lift your eyes and look: he who created these things leads out their army in order, summoning each of them by name. So mighty is his power, so great his strength, that not one fails to answer.

Psalm 19:1-14

The heavens declare the glory of God, the vault of heaven proclaims his handiwork, day discourses of it to day, night to night hands on the knowledge. No utterance at all, no speech, not a sound to be heard, but from the entire earth the design stands out, this message reaches the whole world. High above, he pitched a tent for the sun, who comes forth from his pavilion like a bridegroom, delights like a champion in the course to be run. Rising on the one horizon he runs his circuit to the other, and nothing can escape his heat . . . May the words of my mouth always find favour, and the whispering of my heart, in your presence, Yahweh, my rock, my redeemer.

(check out the Star of Bethlehem video)

 

[polytropos]

Whether “qualia” even counts as information or not is in itself debatable.

But if we take qualia as a phenomenon that merits explanation, then surely the qualia that animals experience must also be explained?

As I said, “I regard just human intellectual operations as essentially immaterial (I think qualia have a material basis, though I am doubtful that methodological naturalism has sufficient conceptual tools to address qualia–but there is also not really a way to modify methodological naturalism, in any case).” I regard qualia as material phenomena. There are some qualifications to make, however. Qualia are intentional (like all thoughts), but the objects of their intention are physical (unlike formal thinking). I don’t see how the sciences could find a way to explain intentionality in general. In the case of qualia, I don’t necessarily regard it as impossible, though given methodological naturalism, I am doubtful (I will explain why a little more below).

Qualia are not my reason for thinking that the human soul is immaterial. To repeat, I just think formal thinking is immaterial.

Does it seem plausible that we may one day predict what one wishes to have for supper, or how one adds two numbers in their head, or which girl a teenage boy is daydreaming about?

I do not think these will be achieved. In cases where the object of thought are universal forms or non-present/abstract objects, I do not think we will be able to discover them. My reasons are based in arguments regarding indeterminacy of the physical.

I suppose the problem is that I don’t think there’s anything to “explain” about subjectivity. There’s no reason to suppose that my experience of a sound and your experience of the same sound differ simply because the former is mine and the latter yours. I don’t see how ownership changes the information involved. It may change the information received if our brains are different, but then that would be observable and subject to science.

I would not say that our experiences of sounds necessarily differ. (One of Dennett’s arguments against the coherence of the concept of qualia is that two people should not necessarily have the same qualia. I have no idea how that is supposed to undermine the concept.) The problem is that there is no explanation of the fact that somehow the physical “data” that enters the system is represented to someone, ie. why some neural firing pattern should amount to my experience of red, say.

And this is our fundamental disagreement, I think. Every generation of humans has believed that science would meet its match in their lifetime, and they were wrong. Frankly, there’s no telling what science is capable of. It may turn out that a materialistic view of thought proves more fruitful than the current conception.

This is an anthropological argument. I don’t think scientific development commits us to scientism.

That said, I have other reasons for my skepticism. The first is that modern science has traditionally defined itself as a process of uncovering “primary qualities.” “Secondary qualities” have been conceived as subjective and inscrutable; we can tell that light of 700 nanometers in wavelength corresponds to what we experience as red, but the experience is not susceptible to science. We can tell that temperature is the average kinetic energy of the particles constituting a substance, but the sensation of heat is altogether private. The mind has always been a presupposition of modern science. As such, I do not think that there is much presumption in favor of its reduction simply because of the success of science.

I do also find the arguments regarding indeterminacy rather compelling. It is rather hard to justify universally quantified statements in philosophy. Universally quantified negations however are not as difficult. And that is the issue: we know of no physical system that can generate determinate semantic content, whether it is the pocket calculator or the most robust supercomputer. What semantics they do have is “dependent” on our own. But our semantics cannot be dependent on anything else (without generating a vicious homunculus regress).

 

[tonyrey]

The notion that the other planets were divine and not subject to the physical laws that apply to Earth was not a scientific idea, but a metaphysical one–Aristotle’s, in fact. The scientific method had nothing to do with it.

You missed the point! Philosophical and theological errors don’t discredit philosophy and theology any more than scientific errors discredit science.

 

[Oreoracle]

You missed the point! Philosophical and theological errors don’t discredit philosophy and theology any more than scientific errors discredit science.

No, you have missed mine. I am not saying that philosophy’s mistakes discredit it. I am saying that you can’t claim to know what is physical or not before you have a complete theory of physics (which we lack). Again, for all we know, we may have to postulate something else to explain observable phenomena in the future–something that would have been deemed “non-physical” in the past. Perhaps we’ll need aether again. Who knows?

 

[tonyrey]

No, you have missed mine. I am not saying that philosophy’s mistakes discredit it. I am saying that you can’t claim to know what is physical or not before you have a complete theory of physics (which we lack). Again, for all we know, we may have to postulate something else to explain observable phenomena in the future–something that would have been deemed “non-physical” in the past. Perhaps we’ll need aether again. Who knows?

It is putting the cart before the horse to begin with what is physical. We have direct knowledge of ourselves whereas we only infer the existence of “observable phenomena” which are rapidly being reduced to an immaterial set of mathematical equations by intangible minds.

 

[wanstronian]

The overwhelming success of science is restricted to physical phenomena.

That’s true, but it’s also true that there is no evidence of any other sort of phenomena. So your statement begs the question

The assumption that science is the sole form of explanation is self-refuting because it implies that science is in principle capable of explaining itself.

Science is trusted because it has been shown to work, consistently. If it didn’t, we would be having this conversation in a mud hut while wearing animal skins.

You can repeat the “science can’t prove itself” trope as much as you like, but we all know that it’s just fluff, a way of diverting attention from the real debate.

It is not good practice to overlook the self-destructive implications of materialism.

Again, this seems like a rather diversionary statement. But I learned long ago how fond you are of rabbit holes! But also I find it a rather nebulous comment, can you clarify what you mean?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Actually, although the multiverse was first postulated decades ago, it just so happens that more recently it’s been discovered that it’s a natural progression of string theory. Despite the claims of disgruntled theists that it’s just put up to deflect the fine-tuning and cosmological arguments, it’s a credible scientific hypothesis.

It’s a credible scientific hypothesis for which there is no factual proof.

No one has ever seen or detected the existence of other universes. Moreover, the existence of a multiverse requires the deduction that this multiverse must be infinite in number, or else you are back to the question of Who or What created the multiverse.

At present the multiverse is science fiction and no more. There is not, and can never be, confirming evidence of an infinite number of universes.

The Big Bang is scientific fact.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[wanstronian]

It’s a credible scientific hypothesis for which there is no factual proof.

Agreed. The point is that the hypothesis is not just a fabrication to counter the fine tuning argument, as many people think it is.

No one has ever seen or detected the existence of other universes. Moreover, the existence of a multiverse requires the deduction that this multiverse must be infinite in number, or else you are back to the question of Who or What created the multiverse.

Indeed.

At present the multiverse is science fiction and no more.

No, it’s not science fiction. It’s derived from existing theories, not just made up for fun.

There is not, and can never be, confirming evidence of an infinite number of universes.

That’s a bold statement to make. How can you be sure that no evidence will ever be produced?

The Big Bang is scientific fact.

Agreed, it looks likely that, given we can model the universe billionths of a second after the Big Bang, we can have very high confidence that it happened. That doesn’t preclude the multiverse theories though

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

Well, Carl Sagan describing the science behind the big bang hardly lends credibility to biblical narrative.

What about the fact that the vast majority of Genesis, from the order in which God allegedly made all the parts of the universe to the existence of Adam and Eve, has been thoroughly and irretrievably refuted by the scientific evidence? One lucky statement amongst hundreds of palpably untrue ones is not a great hit rate. Given that light exists, and that the primitive authors of the bible believed that God made everything, it’s not a huge leap to presume that the first thing he would have done when starting work is to turn the lights on.

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Yes, it’s quite easy for theologians to look at the after-the-fact evidence and claim that their simplistic texts in some way predict the results of science. In fact it’s the main objective of theology - to cherry-pick and manipulate sections of sacred texts to make them fit what science has already proved; to try and endow those texts with some form of post-hoc validity. I think we all know that’s just a fallacy though. Where are the predictions of innoculation and germ theory, of thermodynamics, of nuclear fission, of string theory… of heliocentrism, even?? Of things that are even vaguely actually useful? Curiously absent.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Yes, it’s quite easy for theologians to look at the after-the-fact evidence and claim that their simplistic texts in some way predict the results of science. In fact it’s the main objective of theology - to cherry-pick and manipulate sections of sacred texts to make them fit what science has already proved; to try and endow those texts with some form of post-hoc validity. I think we all know that’s just a fallacy though. Where are the predictions of innoculation and germ theory, of thermodynamics, of nuclear fission, of string theory… of heliocentrism, even?? Of things that are even vaguely actually useful? Curiously absent.

Science has a theoretical and an applied aspect. Since it is a human activity, it is influenced primarily by politics and economics; this is different from the Church which is influenced primarily by the Holy Spirit, although affected by the mundane, being composed of people. The reason why theoretical science is funded is because there is the hope that the results will increase the influence and the wealth of those supplying the money. If it were otherwise, there would be as much public funding of science as there is towards art. The practical findings of science are what society is primarily interested in. They are circumstantial sorts of truth and not the ultimate truth theology attempts to address.

What intellectually interests people is what science reveals about the truth, the complexity, the enormity of this universe. The seeking of truth is a yearning within all of us. That Truth, we can know, and theology better than science points us to it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, it’s not science fiction. It’s derived from existing theories, not just made up for fun.
That’s a bold statement to make. How can you be sure that no evidence will ever be produced?

Well, Carl Sagan describing the science behind the big bang hardly lends credibility to biblical narrative.

What about the fact that the vast majority of Genesis, from the order in which God allegedly made all the parts of the universe to the existence of Adam and Eve, has been thoroughly and irretrievably refuted by the scientific evidence? One lucky statement amongst hundreds of palpably untrue ones is not a great hit rate. Given that light exists, and that the primitive authors of the bible believed that God made everything, it’s not a huge leap to presume that the first thing he would have done when starting work is to turn the lights on.

Yes, it’s quite easy for theologians to look at the after-the-fact evidence and claim that their simplistic texts in some way predict the results of science. In fact it’s the main objective of theology - to cherry-pick and manipulate sections of sacred texts to make them fit what science has already proved; to try and endow those texts with some form of post-hoc validity. I think we all know that’s just a fallacy though. Where are the predictions of innoculation and germ theory, of thermodynamics, of nuclear fission, of string theory… of heliocentrism, even?? Of things that are even vaguely actually useful? Curiously absent.

The Bible is not primarily a science textbook. It is a historical allegory of the Creation written for a people with no scientific background to speak of. The “Let there be light” text is 3,000 years before the Big Bang discovery, not cherry picked after the Big Bang was discovered to give the Bible some credibility. As a matter of fact, Einstein thought the universe was uncreated before the Big Bang discovery. So actually Genesis got the point before Einstein did.

As to the rest of Genesis, you would be advised to read THE SCIENCE OF GOD by Gerald Schroeder, in which he talks about the convergence of scientific thought and biblical wisdom. Schoeder is not some off-the-wall fundamentalist. He got his PhD in physics from M.I.T. From this book you ought to be able to see that intelligent people can rationally disagree with atheistic assumptions.

I make the bold prediction for the same reason you make the bold prediction science will never be able to prove the existence of God. God is infinite. The finite cannot grasp the infinite. No one in this finite universe will ever be able to view an infinity of universes (the multiverse, as you call it) to prove they exist.

 

[tonyrey]

The overwhelming success of science is restricted to physical phenomena.

Is there evidence that our minds, beliefs, emotions, values, ideals, preferences, choices and decisions consist solely of atomic activity?

The assumption that science is the sole form of explanation is self-refuting because it implies that science is in principle capable of explaining itself.

Science is trusted because it has been shown to work, consistently.

You can repeat the “science can’t prove itself”…

To evade the **fact **that science is incapable of explaining itself simply weakens the case for materialism.

It is not good practice to overlook the self-destructive implications of materialism.

…Can you clarify what you mean?

Physical objects cannot reason because they lack insight, understanding and the power to choose the best explanation.

NB Irrelevant, discourteous personal comments have been removed.

 

[wanstronian]

Science has a theoretical and an applied aspect. Since it is a human activity, it is influenced primarily by politics and economics;

As a process, it is indifferent to politics and economics. Water is made up of one part oxygen and 2 parts hydrogen, no matter what your political affiliation or depth of pocket.

As a funded activity however, you are correct. Sadly, a lot of science is performed in pursuit of political agenda, and in some cases (big pharma for example) its results are manipulated or withheld to suit that agenda.

this is different from the Church which is influenced primarily by the Holy Spirit, although affected by the mundane, being composed of people. The reason why theoretical science is funded is because there is the hope that the results will increase the influence and the wealth of those supplying the money.

Agreed. A sad sad situation, as Elton John might say

If it were otherwise, there would be as much public funding of science as there is towards art. The practical findings of science are what society is primarily interested in. They are circumstantial sorts of truth and not the ultimate truth theology attempts to address.

The problem with theology’s attempt to address the “ultimate” truth is that it does not have the toolset to arrive at an objectively true answer. All it does, really, is attempt to fit the practical findings of scientific discovery into an archaic and immutable worldview.

One upon a time, God lived in the clouds. Then science proved that isn’t true, so now he doesn’t even inhabit the universe. Theology’s role is to put its dogma beyond testability, so that it can comport with reality without being subject to proper verification.

What intellectually interests people is what science reveals about the truth, the complexity, the enormity of this universe. The seeking of truth is a yearning within all of us. That Truth, we can know, and theology better than science points us to it.

I disagree. Theology can made declarations about reality, but it cannot show any of those declarations to be true. This is not a “better” way to understand something, it’s a hopelessly unreliable way. Theology has never once vouchsafed us a single new verifiable fact about the universe.

 

[wanstronian]

The Bible is not primarily a science textbook.

You’re telling me!

It is a historical allegory of the Creation written for a people with no scientific background to speak of. The “Let there be light” text is 3,000 years before the Big Bang discovery, not cherry picked after the Big Bang was discovered to give the Bible some credibility.

I understand that the bible is older than Big Bang theory. What is cherry picked are sections of the bible that are compatible with the findings of science. “Let there be light” is not a priori evidence that the Big Bang is true. And most of the rest of Genesis is demonstrably wrong.

As a matter of fact, Einstein thought the universe was uncreated before the Big Bang discovery. So actually Genesis got the point before Einstein did.

Two things. “Let there be light” is not a scientific statement. It is in no way a prediction of Big Bang theory. You must realise this.

Secondly, Einstein was a clever bloke. That doesn’t mean he got everything right. The appeal to authority or appeal to intellect is not a robust defence of any argument.

As to the rest of Genesis, you would be advised to read THE SCIENCE OF GOD by Gerald Schroeder, in which he talks about the convergence of scientific thought and biblical wisdom. Schoeder is not some off-the-wall fundamentalist. He got his PhD in physics from M.I.T. From this book you ought to be able to see that intelligent people can rationally disagree with atheistic assumptions.

Okay - will you buy and read the books I recommend then? Come on, I’m not going to read every book that happens to correlate with your belief system, any more than you’re going to read every book that correlates with mine.

I don’t dispute that people can disagree with atheistic assumptions. However, you fail to define which assumptions you mean. And also, rational doesn’t equate to “right.” You can rationally argue against atheism, but I doubt you can do so without resorting to false or unproven premises.

I make the bold prediction for the same reason you make the bold prediction science will never be able to prove the existence of God.

Not quite, because the complete lack of evidence supports my prediction. For the same reason, I boldly predict that science will never be able to prove the existence of unicorns. Science will not be able to provide the existence of something that doesn’t exist.

And by theologising God beyond the reaches of objective investigation, you also add weight to that prediction, albeit with a different agenda.

God is infinite.

You know this how? It’s not in the bible (not that that’s a paragon of truth). Where do you get your information?

The finite cannot grasp the infinite. No one in this finite universe will ever be able to view an infinity of universes (the multiverse, as you call it) to prove they exist.

I think that’s probably true. However neither you nor I know whether, one day, science might be able to demonstrate the existence of one other universe, or twelve other universes - either of which evidence would lend credibility to the multiverse hypothesis.

Incidentally, nobody can **view **gravity either, but we can all view the effects. To claim that we will never be able to do the equivalent with other universes demonstrates a closed, dogmatic mind.

 

[wanstronian]

Is there evidence that our minds, beliefs, emotions, values, ideals, preferences, choices and decisions consist solely of atomic activity?

No, but you know as well as I do that the lack of evidence for non-physical phenomena is not a good reason to just blindly believe in those phenomena. What was it you said in the other thread…

Our ignorance doesn’t prove anything!

It’s a wise statement, why do you not apply it consistently?

To evade the **fact **that science is incapable of explaining itself simply weakens the case for materialism.

Perhaps, but given that the case for materialism is infinitely stronger than the case for non-materialism, I think we’re still good.

Physical objects cannot reason because they lack insight, understanding and the power to choose the best explanation.

Oh I see, your “purposeless particles” dogma. Even leaving aside your deliberate failure to acknowledge the demonstrable existence of emergent properties, it’s your assertion that this is a self-destructive view, not an objective fact.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think that’s probably true. However neither you nor I know whether, one day, science might be able to demonstrate the existence of one other universe, or twelve other universes - either of which evidence would lend credibility to the multiverse hypothesis.

I didn’t say there is no multiverse. I said there is no proof of a multiverse. You said yourself it is a hypothesis, not a proven fact, that other universes exist. You are driven to this hypothesis by the fact that by it alone can you explain the existence of this universe rather than by the hypothesis of a Creator God. But all you’ve done is pushed the question further back. It makes no difference wehether there are three or twelve other universes. You would have to explain where they all came from. So the only way to get around that is to hypothesize that there is an infinity of universes, and that because there is an infinity of universes we do not have to go outside that infinity to find a cause of any one of those universes.

Then you asked me how I know that God is infinite. I know this by the same logic you would have to use to assert that the multiverse is infinite. If the multiverse is composed of an infinity of universes, I say again you will never be able to prove it any more than I can prove to you that God is infinite. I cannot see the infinity of God any more than you can see the infinity of the multiverse.

Come now, admit that the multiverse must be infinite for atheism to be the least bit logical. Then admit that you can prove no such thing as an infinite multiverse (infinite series of universes).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is certainly true that some of the details in the Genesis account of Creation do not jibe with what we have from modern science. But some of them do indeed jibe in their broader outline, as Schoeder has demonstrated in THE SCIENCE OF GOD. Taking all of Genesis into account, we see a progression of creation through seven days (epochs of time) that roughlky parallel what science tells us. The Creation of the human race is reserved for last, as well it should be according to the theory of evolution. Also, in Genesis life begins in the ocean, as it does according to the theory of evolution, then moves to the air and the land. How would a scientifically illiterate and nomadic people know this if it had not been miraculously revealed to them? And most of all how would a scientifically and nomadic people have any notion that the universe at first was filled with light, not the light from the sun and the moon and the stars, but rather a universal light that permeated the universe?

All this is told to us in allegorical form three thousand years before Darwin and Evolution and the Big Bang were discovered.

Go figure. Just a collection of shots in the dark? I don’t think so.

And no other major world religion has a Creation account remotely on target as the one we get from Genesis. If it does, produce it here. Thank you.

 

[yppop]

Incidentally, nobody can **view **gravity either, but we can all view the effects. To claim that we will never be able to do the equivalent with other universes demonstrates a closed, dogmatic mind.

Science generally proceeds according to certain philosophical principles (derived from logical positivism) that are without dissent among the majority of scientists and all materialists, Namely, science:

1. rejects the idea that reality has some purpose;
2. rejects any attempt to explain natural phenomena by attributing to it an essence or a secret cause of things;
3. rejects as meaningless any explanation not verifiable through the senses;
4. advocates the study of constant relationships among things without delving into the underlying causes.

Because scientific principles preclude a belief in an “essence or a secret cause of things” and a vast majority of those that believe in God do not preclude science, it seems to me that it is the materialist that demonstrates the closed , dogmatic mind.

Yppop

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Incidentally, nobody can **view **gravity either, but we can all view the effects. To claim that we will never be able to do the equivalent with other universes demonstrates a closed, dogmatic mind.

Well, I’m wondering how you would respond to the following question that Chesterton once asked.

“Can you jump down your own throat?”

You see, there are some things that dogmatically seem impossible. That doesn’t mean one has a closed mind. What it means is that you simply accept the limitations of science and the limits of the possible.

 

[wanstronian]

I didn’t say there is no multiverse. I said there is no proof of a multiverse. You said yourself it is a hypothesis, not a proven fact, that other universes exist. You are driven to this hypothesis by the fact that by it alone can you explain the existence of this universe rather than by the hypothesis of a Creator God.

Is that where you think I’m coming from? The multiverse is the only thing that explains the universe, other than a creator god? Where did you get that from? Certainly not from anything I’ve said.

I weighed into this thread merely to point out that the Multiverse hypothesis has its groundings in string theory, not in a blustering attempt to refute the theistic “fine tuning” argument, as many theists have claimed.

I don’t for one minute think that the existence of a multiverse is the only alternative to a creator god.

The fact is, we don’t know what caused the universe. The laws of causality we observe within the universe may not even apply prior to the universe. A chain of causality may seem instinctive, but even if it’s true, one can’t simply stop at an arbitrary uncaused cause and then ascribe it all the anthropomorphic properties that are commonly ascribed to Yahweh. That’s a horrible leap of logic, and only those who are already convinced that such a god exists, would ever by convinced by it.

But all you’ve done is pushed the question further back. It makes no difference wehether there are three or twelve other universes. You would have to explain where they all came from. So the only way to get around that is to hypothesize that there is an infinity of universes, and that because there is an infinity of universes we do not have to go outside that infinity to find a cause of any one of those universes.

Exactly - positing a multiverse doesn’t magically explain anything, just as positing a creator god doesn’t magically explain anything. The most rational, parsimonious and honest thing to do is admit we don’t know, and try to find out. Not to just dream up some magical omnipotent sentience.

Then you asked me how I know that God is infinite. I know this by the same logic you would have to use to assert that the multiverse is infinite. If the multiverse is composed of an infinity of universes, I say again you will never be able to prove it any more than I can prove to you that God is infinite.

I haven’t even asserted the existence of a multiverse. But you have asserted the existence of a god; and furthermore you have asserted a property about it that you cannot possibly know.

The idea of an infinite god is incoherent. Is it infinite in a physical or non-physical sense? If the latter, it can’t be infinite because it doesn’t impinge upon the physical. If it does impinge upon the physical, how come I can’t see it?

I cannot see the infinity of God any more than you can see the infinity of the multiverse.

No, but you’ve made the error of assuming I’m committed to the notion of a multiverse. I’m committed only to the honesty of admitting I don’t know, and to the rationality of not pretending that I do.

Come now, admit that the multiverse must be infinite for atheism to be the least bit logical.

Why would I admit that - the logic would be as crude as that used to posit the attributes of a non-existent god!

Atheism, in its most basic sense, is the failure to believe in the existence of gods. In no sense does that mandate the existence of a multiverse. So its hypothetical infiniteness, or otherwise, is quite irrelevant.

Then admit that you can prove no such thing as an infinite multiverse (infinite series of universes).

I’m happy to admit that, why would I not be?

Why don’t YOU admit that an infinite god should be easy to spot, that it would leave plenty of evidence lying around? Then admit that there is none? If a phenomenon should leave evidence, but none is available, that’s a pretty good way to prove the negative existence of the phenomenon.

 

[wanstronian]

Science generally proceeds according to certain philosophical principles (derived from logical positivism) that are without dissent among the majority of scientists and all materialists, Namely, science:

1. rejects the idea that reality has some purpose;
2. rejects any attempt to explain natural phenomena by attributing to it an essence or a secret cause of things;
3. rejects as meaningless any explanation not verifiable through the senses;
4. advocates the study of constant relationships among things without delving into the underlying causes.

Because scientific principles preclude a belief in an “essence or a secret cause of things” and a vast majority of those that believe in God do not preclude science, it seems to me that it is the materialist that demonstrates the closed , dogmatic mind.

Yppop

I disagree - every item in your list implies an active rejection. Science doesn’t reject them, it just has no need of them. They can’t be tested, they’re not required, so they’re ignored. This is not a “philosophical” principle, it’s a practical approach to reliable modelling.

Your fourth item again presuppose the existence of something that cannot be demonstrated to exist - there is no evidence of an “underlying cause,” and so it is disregarded. This is most definitely the remit of philosophy - to assume something like an underlying cause and then fabricate some rationale. But science does not actively reject “underlying cause” - it just ignores it because it doesn’t add any value. Again, this is not a “philosophical principle,” other than in that it ignores “philosophical principles.”

Science “rejects” these principles the way that I “reject” the amount of rainfall in Japan when I mow the lawn here in the UK.