Is The Big Bang Really Proof Of Gods Existence?

[Cecilianus]

In fact, many believe that eternal physical matter is all there is (materialism).

Only if they hold to the existence of “prior” universes - whatever “prior” means before time started, and whatever you mean by “universe” before the singularity that did the Big Banging. I don’t know how many atheists actually hold that cyclical view of the universe, but it doesn’t seem to me to be very scientific. Whatever was “before” the Big Bang (whatever we mean by “before”) is in principle unobservable and unknowable.

 

[Cecilianus]

The Big Bang argument is not established on a solid ground.

Yes, it is. (1) It is a consequence that follows if we want to avoid having to insert the cosmological constant in the field equations for general relativity, (2) It is the only tenable explanation for Hubble’s redshift, and (3) it predicts the microwave radiation background which was later discovered. It is quite well proven.

Due to the limited time of observations of our universe, imaginations of the origin of the world can be observed in our universe today.
The origin of the universe are much far from now.
This is a common conceptual mistake of scientists.

Scientists are imagining of space migration without minimal understanding of the planet we situated in.

The nature of the Earth has explained the non-existence of lives in other planets nearby.

Not sure what you’re trying to say.

The Earth is full of living organisms (including bacteria) because it is a conscious living object.

It doesn’t have DNA, a mode of reproduction, or any way of interacting with its environment, or really any property that we associate with biological life, and it doesn’t have a brain to be conscious with. The Earth is full of living organisms because it has a lot of water and organic matter (and iron!) and an oxygen-rich atmosphere and the right temperature for life to flourish, for example. I don’t know what kind of nonsense about the Earth being a “conscious living object” you’ve been reading. It’s certainly not “established on solid ground”. Stick with science.

When the live of a planet has come to an end, all living objects inside will be extinct.

I fail to understand the cause/effect relationship there.

Why pushing the post of old thought back and fro without accepting the reality that the Earth is a conscious living object?

Because there’s no reason to believe it, plenty of reason not to, and it doesn’t really mean anything.

We do not have much time left if our civilizations continue to grow in the current speed.

How do you know? Are you a prophet, and if so, who sent you? You’re just an ordinary guy like me.

 

[kk23wong]

Yes, it is. (1) It is a consequence that follows if we want to avoid having to insert the cosmological constant in the field equations for general relativity, (2) It is the only tenable explanation for Hubble’s redshift, and (3) it predicts the microwave radiation background which was later discovered. It is quite well proven.

Obviously, we are on the same side.

Not sure what you’re trying to say.

The Earth is full of living organisms (including bacteria) because it is a conscious living object.

It doesn’t have DNA, a mode of reproduction, or any way of interacting with its environment, or really any property that we associate with biological life, and it doesn’t have a brain to be conscious with. The Earth is full of living organisms because it has a lot of water and organic matter (and iron!) and an oxygen-rich atmosphere and the right temperature for life to flourish, for example. I don’t know what kind of nonsense about the Earth being a “conscious living object” you’ve been reading. It’s certainly not “established on solid ground”. Stick with science.

Not at all.

The general beliefs that orbits and distances from the Sun are only predictions made by scientists to satisfy the circumstances of other planets nearby.

Please stick with the facts.

Planets are living object with a unity way of thinking. In which, I call it “consciousness”. Although the definitions of “consciousness” vary and it is a hot topic for philosophers, it can be explained by science. A biological structure of “brain” is the criteria for every living thing.

The definitions of living things in the old days are WRONG. The existence of the brain-like structure is the only way to define animals.

The differences in-between plants and animals is that the first one are the living tissues of the Earth.

Our lack of understanding of the nature of the planets (without my hypothesis) is leading our scientists to the wrong way.

Dominant because of the truth, not my personality.

I fail to understand the cause/effect relationship there.

Because there’s no reason to believe it, plenty of reason not to, and it doesn’t really mean anything.

How do you know? Are you a prophet, and if so, who sent you? You’re just an ordinary guy like me.

I am the same.

Do you think humankind is a higher level of lives?

The truth is we are not, but with a higher level of intelligence.

The planets are a higher level of lives.

The life cycles of the planet contributed by both the offspring (reproduction of the planets) and the natural process of aging. I have to specify here that the regeneration of a planet is not infinite. The cycles of life will eventually come to an end. The process of aging of the planets cannot be recovered, but to slow down. The exploitations of natural resources by our civilizations resulted in the extinction of our planet. The planets nearby are dead. Their life cycles already come to an end! What do you expected in a planet without resources while the planets nearby are in similar circumstances?

The establishment of our space station gives our scientists too many imaginations. The concept of space colonies whatever is NEVER work. They are only coffins if they have no supplies of resources.

Don’t you guys understand how serious the situation is?

Teru Wong

 

[Cecilianus]

The general beliefs that orbits and distances from the Sun are only predictions made by scientists to satisfy the circumstances of other planets nearby.

The orbital distances from the sun are known facts, and yes, they are determined from the positions of the planets in the sky, and they do make accurate predictions.

Please stick with the facts.

I am. But since when has “the planet is conscious” been a fact?

Planets are living object with a unity way of thinking. In which, I call it “consciousness”. Although the definitions of “consciousness” vary and it is a hot topic for philosophers, it can be explained by science. A biological structure of “brain” is the criteria for every living thing.

What is the brain of the planet?

Our lack of understanding of the nature of the planets (without my hypothesis) is leading our scientists to the wrong way.

That seems kind of arrogant of you. On whose authority are you right and the consensus of scientists wrong - your superior intelligence??? How do you know that you’re right?

The truth is we are not, but with a higher level of intelligence.

The planets are a higher level of lives.

The planets are higher living species than humans? Come on, it’s only a BIG HUNK OF ROCK!

 

[itinerant1]

Would you mind defining the difference? Scientists aren’t sitting around trying hard to be non-philosophical; science studies matter and its nature, regardless of whether that becomes “philosophy” or not. The difference between “philosophy” and “science” is a linguistic difference referring to the method, not to the object of study. And science does reach the level of causality, insofar as there is any causality at the quantum level. (I would say that causality is what happens when you add up all the sum total of quantum events - but there ISN’T any causality in nature at the most basic level, in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Nature is statistical and random, and it isn’t there in reality you can’t insert it there with any “philosophy”, so I don’t really understand how a philosophical reflection on the created world is going to help much.)

Beginning with your last point first, I will quote Einstein’s objection to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics: “God does not play dice with the universe.” Members of the Copenhagen school were immersed in the psuedo-epistemology of Kantian idealism, through which they interpreted quantum events. The principle of indeterminancy claims that what cannot be measured exactly does not occur exactly. This is a crass failure in elementary logic. The Copenhagen school turned an operational principle into an ontological principle. The fallacy is so glaring, a number of modern physicists are beginning to think Einstein was right. In short, in addition to being self-contradictory, irreducible uncaused randomness is a metaphysical impossibility.

You said “I don’t really understand how a philosophical reflection on the created world is going to help much.” But you fail to realize the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum events is a philosophically driven interpretation of the created world–an interpretation based, though, on a flawed philosophy of idealism.

Science studies phenomenal reality, matter as quantifiable and its relations. While science studies the causes of observable events, it does not study causality in itself.
Metaphysics, or first philosophy studies *being itself *in its ultimates causes. While the natural sciences have an overlapping material object, i.e. subject matter, they differ in their *formal object, *i.e. the aspect under which the material object is studied. The formal object of philosophy are the highest or ultimate causes of natural things. The formal object of the particular sciences are the secondary causes of natural things.

To claim that the difference between philosophy and science is merely linguistic is confuse and conflate two very different, but complementary ways of knowing reality.

 

[Cecilianus]

Beginning with your last point first, I will quote Einstein’s objection to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics: “God does not play dice with the universe.” Members of the Copenhagen school were immersed in the psuedo-epistemology of Kantian idealism, through which they interpreted quantum events. The principle of indeterminancy claims that what cannot be measured exactly does not occur exactly. This is a crass failure in elementary logic. The Copenhagen school turned an operational principle into an ontological principle. The fallacy is so glaring, a number of modern physicists are beginning to think Einstein was right. In short, in addition to being self-contradictory, irreducible uncaused randomness is a metaphysical impossibility.

You said “I don’t really understand how a philosophical reflection on the created world is going to help much.” But you fail to realize the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum events is a philosophically driven interpretation of the created world–an interpretation based, though, on a flawed philosophy of idealism.

Science studies phenomenal reality, matter as quantifiable and its relations. While science studies the causes of observable events, it does not study causality in itself.
Metaphysics, or first philosophy studies *being itself *in its ultimates causes. While the natural sciences have an overlapping material object, i.e. subject matter, they differ in their *formal object, *i.e. the aspect under which the material object is studied. The formal object of philosophy are the highest or ultimate causes of natural things. The formal object of the particular sciences are the secondary causes of natural things.

To claim that the difference between philosophy and science is merely linguistic is confuse and conflate two very different, but complementary ways of knowing reality.

Most scientists today have accepted the Copenhagen interpretation after experimental confirmation was found for Bell’s Theorem, the proof for which has never been refuted anyway, and it is not physically possible for a hidden parameter to exist while preserving special relativity. Other interpretations - such as David Bohm’s - have both compromised relativity and pushed physics into a New Age direction, neither of which physicists as a whole are comfortable with.

You are correct that the Copenhagen interpretation is not a formal epistemological proof; that is, is an “interpretation” and not a theorem. (By the way, it’s based on the materialist school of logical positivism, by the way, not idealism or even Kantian conceptualism, which is an entirely different thing than idealism - Kant was quite vocal in his objections to Fichte’s idealist misinterpretation of his philosophy.) Most physics doesn’t proceed through theorems and the sort of rigorous proofs the way philosophers want. We aim for a whole lot less than absolute certainty right away, and our patience pays off - look at the wealth of knowledge we’ve gained working through this method. There isn’t any “crass failure in elementary logic” because no proof was intended, until we got to Bell’s Theorem (which has a different line of reasoning entirely). It just so happens that our probably opinion turned out to be right, and the fact that things do not exist “exactly” (in your words) is the cause for their not being able to be measured exactly.

And now I will take issue with your statement that the Copenhagen interpretation claims that things do not exist exactly. That is false. The integral of any normalized wavefunction is always 1. To phrase that less mathematically, if you sum up the probability of finding a particle at each point in space over the whole universe, the probability of finding the particle is 1 - you are certain to find the particle somewhere. It therefore certainly exists exactly, though where it exists or what its momentum is remain unknown.

When we speak of particles being “waves”, we mean that they behave as if they were waves described by the wavefunction of a particle. The wavefunction squared is the probability of finding the particle, the area of which over all of space is going to be 1. (More precisely, the wavefunction times its complex conjugate is the probability, which amounts to the same thing for real functions - though most wavefunctions are complex.)

We know from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) that it is impossible to measure both the momentum (which is like the speed or like the energy) and the position of a particle at the same time with a certainty greater than a specific value. The Copenhagen interpretation asserts that this is because both properties are not in fact ontologically well-defined at the same time. If you know the momentum of a particle, you cannot predict the path that it is going to take because there is no causal reason for the place where it happens to be next. Hence its position can only be described through a probabilistic wavefunction - but the integral of a normalized wavefunction is always 1, so it does exist “exactly”.

Perhaps the confusion lies in the pronoun, when you say that “it” does not exist exactly. It properties (mass-energy and position) cannot be measured exactly because they do not coincide exactly; the particle itself does exist exactly in the Copenhagen interpretation. The probability of finding the particle is always going to be either 1 or 0 - it either exists or it doesn’t.

 

[itinerant1]

If you know the momentum of a particle, you cannot predict the path that it is going to take because there is no causal reason for the place where it happens to be next.

“No causal reason for the place where it happens to be next”. Methinks you have refuted your own defense. “No causal reason” is like being sort of pregnant.

 

[itinerant1]

You are correct that the Copenhagen interpretation is not a formal epistemological proof; that is, is an “interpretation” and not a theorem. (By the way, it’s based on the materialist school of logical positivism, by the way, not idealism or even Kantian conceptualism, which is an entirely different thing than idealism - Kant was quite vocal in his objections to Fichte’s idealist misinterpretation of his philosophy.) Most physics doesn’t proceed through theorems and the sort of rigorous proofs the way philosophers want. We aim for a whole lot less than absolute certainty right away, and our patience pays off - look at the wealth of knowledge we’ve gained working through this method. There isn’t any “crass failure in elementary logic” because no proof was intended, until we got to Bell’s Theorem (which has a different line of reasoning entirely). It just so happens that our probably opinion turned out to be right, and the fact that things do not exist “exactly” (in your words) is the cause for their not being able to be measured exactly.

The philosophical climate surrounding the Copenhagen school and subsequent efforts to rescue causality involved much more than logical positivism. The philosophical climate was one of turning external reality into a function of one’s thinking. This was a development of philosophy from Kant through Fichte and Schelling to Hegel. The Hegelian Left opposed the trend for real matter to be transposed into mere concepts. Unfortunately, the Hegelian Left merely succeeded in rescuing the mechanistic properties of matter.

The Hegelian Right preferred disembodied ideas. The Neo-Kantians, in reaction called for a return to Kant, but that involved an endorsement of Kant’s hopelessly flawed epistemology. When we come to Heisenberg, he endorsed the Lebensphilosophie, which avidly rejected mechanistic causality. The crucial point here is that Heisenberg explicitly denied the reality of causality long before he published his famous paper.

Heisenberg did not merely offer an interpretation of quantum mechanics, as you implied. He believed that he conclusively disproved the reality of causality. Heisenberg stated, “The invalidity of the law of causality is definitely disproved by quantum mechanics.” Your assertion that “no proof was intended” finds no support in historical fact.

The alleged proof of HUP, since it leads to solipsism, generated a reaction to rescue ontological causality. Unfortunately, the issue could not even be clearly defined by Planck, since for him as a professed neo-Kantian, causality was a category of the mind which was independent of external reality.

Enough said for now on the influence of Kantian epistemology. Now, the logical fallacy involved in the HUP is most evident. Simply put, Heisenberg’s principle states only the inevitable imprecision of measurements on the atomic level. From that principle one can disregard elementary logic and make the inference that *an interaction that cannot be measured exactly, cannot take place exactly. *The fallacy involves an equivocation–two different meanings given to the word exactly. The first use is strictly operational. The second use is radically ontological. This is a simple non-sequitur.

Heisenberg believed that he had conclusively overthrown the notion of causality. Again, without going into details of the theory, Heisenberg asserted that the interaction itself is inexact in the sense that the effect can contain more than what is contained in the cause. This can mean that the effect is not caused fully, or it may not be caused at all.

Heisenberg never proved what he claimed and neither has anyone done so subsequently. That an effect can contain more than what is contained in a cause is unprovable because it remains an ontological impossibility, and a violation of a fundamental axiom of metaphysics.

The HUP is what happens when bad philosophy and poor logic infect science.

 

[Cecilianus]

“No causal reason for the place where it happens to be next”. Methinks you have refuted your own defense. “No causal reason” is like being sort of pregnant.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. First of all, what is the reason why there cannot be randomness, and secondly, how is pregnancy even remotely analogous? Quantum indeterminacy collapses at the macroscopic scale. You can’t try to impose quantum behavior onto your imagination of macroscopic objects because it doesn’t work; you end up trying to imagine things that are absurd.

Secondly, this isn’t a matter for rational, philosophical debate. We know that science is true, and its conclusions aren’t up for discussion. Science differs from philosophy in that it actually gives us knowledge and has certainty to it.

 

[Cecilianus]

The philosophical climate surrounding the Copenhagen school and subsequent efforts to rescue causality involved much more than logical positivism. The philosophical climate was one of turning external reality into a function of one’s thinking. This was a development of philosophy from Kant through Fichte and Schelling to Hegel. The Hegelian Left opposed the trend for real matter to be transposed into mere concepts. Unfortunately, the Hegelian Left merely succeeded in rescuing the mechanistic properties of matter.

Your history is bad. The philosophical climate in which most physicists were immersed in was that of logical positivism, which is closely related to the analytic philosophy and utilitarianism, not Hegelianism (Left or Right). The Hegelian Left is best represented by Marx, not by Heisenberg.

The Hegelian Right preferred disembodied ideas. The Neo-Kantians, in reaction called for a return to Kant, but that involved an endorsement of Kant’s hopelessly flawed epistemology. When we come to Heisenberg, he endorsed the Lebensphilosophie, which avidly rejected mechanistic causality. The crucial point here is that Heisenberg explicitly denied the reality of causality long before he published his famous paper.

Can you give me a reference for this? I read through Heisenberg two years ago and interpreted him as a logical positivist, an interpretation shared by other physicists and historians. When I read “lebensphilosophie” I think Schelling, not Heisenberg - they’re worlds apart.

Heisenberg did not merely offer an interpretation of quantum mechanics, as you implied. He believed that he conclusively disproved the reality of causality. Heisenberg stated, “The invalidity of the law of causality is definitely disproved by quantum mechanics.” Your assertion that “no proof was intended” finds no support in historical fact.

We’re using two different meanings of the word “proof”. Science does give certainty, and for this reason I speak of science as having “proved” something. (HUP is just as certain as other well-known facts such as the earth being [more or less] round and the sun being [closer to] the center of the solar system.) But you will often hear that science “does not prove anything”, and this is true too - taking “proof” in a philosophical sense. Science doesn’t operate through syllogisms; scientific conclusions do not follow rigorously from premises the way philosophers think their conclusions do. This is why progress is possible in science - it’s always possible to get a more precise model, an equation with fewer approximations, and a more general theory. But we almost never simply overthrow what we knew before (an epistemological principle called the Heisenberg principle of complementarity, if I am remembering this correctly from a long time ago - it may be Planck’s principle; Geremia might know).

The alleged proof of HUP, since it leads to solipsism, generated a reaction to rescue ontological causality. Unfortunately, the issue could not even be clearly defined by Planck, since for him as a professed neo-Kantian, causality was a category of the mind which was independent of external reality.

Enough said for now on the influence of Kantian epistemology. Now, the logical fallacy involved in the HUP is most evident. Simply put, Heisenberg’s principle states only the inevitable imprecision of measurements on the atomic level. From that principle one can disregard elementary logic and make the inference that *an interaction that cannot be measured exactly, cannot take place exactly. *The fallacy involves an equivocation–two different meanings given to the word exactly. The first use is strictly operational. The second use is radically ontological. This is a simple non-sequitur.

Please actually read my last post where I explain what HUP actually says. And secondly, are you seriously claiming that HUP is false? Who in the world are you to simply dismiss scientific principles? Unless you’re a scientist or someone seriously training to become one, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. And if you are a scientist, then how do you justify your position over and above the prevailing consensus, in the face of facts like Bell’s Theorem (something I’m still waiting for you to address, by the way)?

I simply cannot wrap my mind around the arrogance of people who don’t believe in science. Are you going to reject heliocentrism and the round earth theory as well? Where do you draw the line? If physics is subject to your philosophical judgment, then how did we get men on the moon, or for that matter, make the computer you are using to type your posts on?

Heisenberg believed that he had conclusively overthrown the notion of causality. Again, without going into details of the theory, Heisenberg asserted that the interaction itself is inexact in the sense that the effect can contain more than what is contained in the cause. This can mean that the effect is not caused fully, or it may not be caused at all.

Same difference. We’re dealing with probabilities, remember, so there is a greater probability of finding a particle in one place rather than another. How tightly packed the wavefunction packet is depends on how much you know about the momentum. It’s all a matter of degree.

Heisenberg never proved what he claimed and neither has anyone done so subsequently.

BELL’S THEOREM

That an effect can contain more than what is contained in a cause is unprovable because it remains an ontological impossibility, and a violation of a fundamental axiom of metaphysics.

Just because you’ve never seen it before, you a priori deny its possibility when we SEE IT IN THE LABORATORY? You thought it was impossible before; well, now we know that it is possible. You are acting like Giulio Libri refusing to look through Galileo’s telescope because what he would see would contradict what Aristotle thought.

It may be better to stop thinking of one of the principles (momentum or position) as an “effect”. Frankly, that’s just playing around with words. The reason why I dropped my philosophy major last year was because I’m more interested in reality than with wordplay.

The HUP is what happens when bad philosophy and poor logic infect science.

Science has nothing to do with either philosophy or scholastic logic.

 

[Geremia]

The existence of God remains beyond the scope and competence of any natural science. In other words, physics has nothing to say about God since God is beyond and above phenomenal reality.

This sounds exactly like St. Thomas’s objection Iª q. 2 a. 2 arg. 3:

Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.

To which he responds (Iª q. 2 a. 2 ad 3)

From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.

If a physicists speaks about God’s existence he is not speaking as a physicist, he is speaking as a philosopher, or as a man with philosophical or religious beliefs. The distinctions are of critical importance for understanding the scope and competence of natural science.

Why do you say physics cannot make an a priori demonstration? It does it all the time. It says, for example, “light exists;” yet it shows its existence only through light’s effects on the eye or on an instrument. The same goes for God. Physics can show God exists by God’s effects through His creation on our telescopes, etc., that have helped devise the Big Bang theory.

Also, what do you think of Rom. 1:20?

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity

 

[itinerant1]

Science has nothing to do with either philosophy or scholastic logic.

(I will respond to your comments in several posts instead of in one or two because of time constraints and the fact anything other than brief posts are appropriate for effective discussion in a forum.)

First, I take exception to your statement about science and philosophy. You seem to deny that science and philosophy are two different ways of knowing reality. However, to claim that science and philosophy have nothing to do with each other is to make a statement that is beyond the scope and competence of science and so must be proved or disproved by philosophy. By the way, are you familiar with the classic work The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science by E.A. Burtt?

Catholics believe that the truths of Revelation and the truths of science cannot contradict. This observation also holds for the truths of philosophy. The truths of philosophy do not contradict scientific truths or the truths of Revelation. This observation takes into account and is not contradicted the provisional nature of scientific statements. Since the truths of each science, whether those of sacra doctrina, philosophy, or the natural sciences do not contradict, they have an integral relation to each other.

Since philosophy, understood strictly as the philosophia perennis, which alone deserves the name philosophy, is a higher discipline than positive science, acts as regulative guide to its conclusions. The guidance is purely external and negative. To deny this relationship implies either a denial of the different ways of knowing reality or an artificial fracturing of human knowledge into unrelated categories in which the human mind becomes schizophrenic (according to the etymological sense of the term).

Heisenberg clearly believed that he had disproved the philosophical notion of causality. His claim is a matter of historical record and easily verified. You have yet to come to terms with Heisenberg’s claim. A number of philosophers and a few scientists in Heisenberg’s day correctly realized the problematic nature of Heisenberg’s claim, i.e. the claim leads to solipsism, insofar as human knowledge is concerned. One need not be very reflective to realize the fatal implications this has for the reliability of science.

The fatal implications of Heisenberg’s claim to have conclusively disproved the ontological notion of causality is a classic illustration of Aristotle’s observation that a little error in the beginning amounts to a colossal one in the end.

 

[itinerant1]

Physics can show God exists by God’s effects through His creation on our telescopes, etc., that have helped devise the Big Bang theory.

Also, what do you think of Rom. 1:20?

Aquinas is arguing on the level of ontological causality itself, not from a scientific knowledge of nature. Since you have not grasped the proper distinction between the different ways of knowing you conflate science and philosophy in your interpretation of the Summa.

In his letter to the Church at Rome, St. Paul is not speaking of a scientific way of knowing God’s existence.

Issues get garbled when a scientist does not recognize the scope and limit of his discipline. He should be observing a methodological naturalism. I know that adherents of “creation science” and Intelligent Design theory want to redefine science to include theology and philosophy. I suspect, also, there are a number of scientists who are partially reconstructed fundamentalists and so lean in that same direction. It is an undisciplined way of thinking that cannot supply what is wanting unless an apple or something large enough to get his attention happens to drop on his head.

 

[itinerant1]

Just because you’ve never seen it before, you a priori deny its possibility when we SEE IT IN THE LABORATORY? You thought it was impossible before; well, now we know that it is possible. You are acting like Giulio Libri refusing to look through Galileo’s telescope because what he would see would contradict what Aristotle thought.

I have yet to read any scientific description of an observation that demonstrates an effect that is greater than its cause. The very greatest effect in time is the Creation of the universe itself, yet it was not greater than its Cause.

It would be utterly miraculous if a material cause could generate an effect greater than itself. However, not even God can do what is inherently contradictory. For example, God cannot create a square circle, despite what some people seem to think. An effect greater than its cause is in the same category as square circles.

 

[itinerant1]

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. First of all, what is the reason why there cannot be randomness, and secondly, how is pregnancy even remotely analogous? Quantum indeterminacy collapses at the macroscopic scale. You can’t try to impose quantum behavior onto your imagination of macroscopic objects because it doesn’t work; you end up trying to imagine things that are absurd.

Secondly, this isn’t a matter for rational, philosophical debate. We know that science is true, and its conclusions aren’t up for discussion. Science differs from philosophy in that it actually gives us knowledge and has certainty to it.

Despite what you have implied in another post, I am actually reading your posts. The problem is that there is hardly a point I can agree with, and to present my argument against every single item would get quite tedious. The point about pregnancy pertains to causality and fact, a point you have missed. A woman is never sort of pregnant. It’s an all or none situation, in contradistinction to quantum indeterminacy as an ontological principle, which I hold to be based on fallacious reasoning.

There are implications for quantum indeterminacy at the macro level, at least according to a number of physicists or cosmologists who speculate about entire universes popping into existence out of nothing. Surely, you must know about this. And Planck, as well as others were concerned about solipsism as a consequence of quantum indeterminacy. So, the things that are absurd are in fact believed to be so by a number of physicists as a consequence of quantum indeterminacy. Check out Hawking’s cosmology. He uses the further logical implications quantum indeterminacy to dispose of God.

I must take exception to your absolutely bizarre and post-modern characterization of philosophy. Clearly, you do not know what philosophy is. Philosophy is not something one can learn at a modern American university or college, except in a very few cases. You said “Science differs from philosophy in that it actually gives us knowledge and has certainty to it.” To prove that statement you would have to argue philosophically. Once you begin to argue philosophically, you have refuted your own thesis.

There are truths of philosophy that are known more certainly than scientific truths. That is one of many reasons why philosophy, philo + sophia is the love of wisdom. To the contrary, modern science claims to supplant philosophy. Beware hubris!

 

[itinerant1]

Your history is bad. The philosophical climate in which most physicists were immersed in was that of logical positivism, which is closely related to the analytic philosophy and utilitarianism, not Hegelianism (Left or Right). The Hegelian Left is best represented by Marx, not by Heisenberg.

Can you give me a reference for this? I read through Heisenberg two years ago and interpreted him as a logical positivist, an interpretation shared by other physicists and historians. When I read “lebensphilosophie” I think Schelling, not Heisenberg - they’re worlds apart.

I am not unaware of the role of reductionism represented by positivism in the history of modern science. And Marxism was mired in mechanistic causality in its attempts to becomes a realist philosophy.

My point centers on Germany. Early in his university education, Heisenberg was torn between specializing in physics or Lebenphilosophie. The version of Lebenphilosophie that attracted him explicitly denounced mechanistic causality as a threat to culture, a threat to human initiative and creativity. So, when Heisenberg later announced that he had conclusively disproved the notion of causality, there was already a history with him rejecting causality on “philosophical” grounds. Other German physicists were of like mind in regard to an anti-ontological rejection of causality. “Typically, they asserted that through wrestling with the problems of atomic physics, their science would find the way to free itself from this odious axiom. Thus we should not be surprised that once a non-deterministic theory of atomic processes was at hand, German physicists were disposed to view it and represent it in public as providing that liberation from causality so generally desired.” (Society and Knowledge).

Since Heisenberg claimed that he conclusively disproved the notion of causality, it is clear that in his view, as well as in the view of like-minded German physicists, the claim extended to the macro world. Heisenberg did not claim to have disproved causality at the quantum level only, he claimed to have disposed of causality itself. This is clearly an anti-ontological position speciously supported by an illegitimate inference from quantum events. It is the advocacy of an anti-causality view he endorsed since his early days as a university student.

 

[kk23wong]

The orbital distances from the sun are known facts, and yes, they are determined from the positions of the planets in the sky, and they do make accurate predictions.

I am. But since when has “the planet is conscious” been a fact?

What is the brain of the planet?

That seems kind of arrogant of you. On whose authority are you right and the consensus of scientists wrong - your superior intelligence??? How do you know that you’re right?

The planets are higher living species than humans? Come on, it’s only a BIG HUNK OF ROCK!

It is nothing personal.

The Earth is a conscious living object.

The God is a conscious Earth. She is in a higher form of lives and our mother-in-common biologically.

The rigidity of our technology stopped us from exploring our planet. The lack of understanding of the Earth blinded us.

The God is an imaginary image built by both the God and us. She would like to be glorified and her arrogant make us suffer.

The legends in our history are the manipulations of her power gifted by birth.

She is not the one we expected because she made many of us suffer.

Her concepts enforced on our world resulted in our arrogant and led us to the blink of extinctions. The regenerations of the Earth is not infinite. The situation will be similar to those planets nearby.

I am turning against her because our civilizations will be going too far because of the ingorance of the truth.

We are suffering by her manipulations of power. She is enforcing her will on her children.

I feel depressed and sorry to tell all of you the truth behind the world.

The God is actually a conscious Earth.
Lives have no secrets.
Souls are comfort. Lies must kill. Truth may save.

Unconditional love can only be granted by the God, but she is going too far.
She is lost in her lust for power. Thus, she makes her children suffer.

History will tell. Science can do.

Teru Wong

 

[Geremia]

Aquinas is arguing on the level of ontological causality itself, not from a scientific knowledge of nature. Since you have not grasped the proper distinction between the different ways of knowing you conflate science and philosophy in your interpretation of the Summa.

I am not sure how you define “science” here. Do you mean “natural science”? It, too, is a division of the speculative sciences which in turn are a part of philosophy. Also, how do you define “ontological causality?”

In his letter to the Church at Rome, St. Paul is not speaking of a scientific way of knowing God’s existence.

Then of what is he speaking?

Issues get garbled when a scientist does not recognize the scope and limit of his discipline. He should be observing a methodological naturalism.

“He should” according to whom?

 

[Geremia]

But we almost never simply overthrow what we knew before (an epistemological principle called the Heisenberg principle of complementarity, if I am remembering this correctly from a long time ago - it may be Planck’s principle; Geremia might know).

Do you mean Bohr’s correspondence principle, i.e., that in the limit of macro-scale objects, quantum mechanics should approach Newtonian (classical) mechanics?

 

[Shlomo]

I do not think all atheists believe the universe had to be created. In fact, many believe that eternal physical matter is all there is (materialism). Also, that “We cannot research God scientifically and thus verify His existence” is not true. We may not be able to “research God” but we can definitely “verify His existence” (cf. “Physics can demonstrate God’s existence.”).

Jeremiah,

1. Claiming physical matter eternal means declaring it God. However, physics shows that everything has it’s age, including the Universe, which necessitates explanations like Big Bang. One could remain faithful to materialism to the end and claim it “self-creation”, but it is still a creation.
2. By writing “we cannot scientifically research God” I meant exactly that. Of course physics proves *existence *of God. Moreover, a simple honest look around us proves it even without physics. However, ardent atheists demand not less than “catching” God Himself in a lab experiment.