On the Necessity of Proving Things

[itinerant1]

Think of the Father of Genetics, the monk Gregor Mendel. He studied the transmission of selected characteristics of pea plants. He cultivated and tested some 29,000 plants. The results of hybridization in each generation were all mathematically recorded. Copious statistics were kept. The results were expressed as percentages. Without the math, Mendel would not have had a scientific experiment and measurable results that could be repeated or duplicated.

 

[ManOnFire]

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity postulates that time stands still when an object, or “everything in the entire universe” (when arguing the beginning of time), is moving EQUAL to the speed of light, which is 186,000 miles per second. Time theoretically is REVERSED and moves backwards when an object or “everything in the entire universe” travels FASTER than the speed of light. If the object or “everything in the entire universe” can travel faster than the speed of light and therefore time is reversed, then, if we wait long enough, we can reach the theoretical “beginning of time” according to godless theory. What happens if we reach it? There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue right on past “the beginning of time” since we traveled there. There can’t be a wall or some other existence to stop us from reaching it unless that entity exists infinitesimally, which necessitates a choice between God and actual infinity. But, reaching the beginning ot time would negate the very definition of it, and make it a falsehood.

Any travel faster than the speed of light that takes us right past “the beginning of time” would negate it’s definition. This also negates a definition of a godless “end of time” since we are simply bouncing around along a linear continuum of forward or reverse according to our speed relative to the speed of light.

Of course, one could argue that Einstein is wrong. Otherwise, the only 2 choices are God created the universe, or an actual infinity exists where it’s mystery is permanently unknowable by definition, and science is inherently flawed. Why do people have such passionate beliefs in something that is unknowable??? They must abandon their belief that they are academically superior to the religious since no logical person could believe that something so inherently flawed (science) could be superior unless they are selectively closing their minds to arguments like mine and THEY HAVE BLIND FAITH IN SCIENCE WHICH IS PERMANENTLY AND INHERENTLY FLAWED.

Hmmm. Blind Faith. Sounds familiar. Where’s the moral superiority over us religious people now? Perhaps they should ask for a tuition refund.

The university profs are threatening students with low grades. They have been quite effective at recruiting minions. We need education, not propaganda.

 

[anthony022071]

That would be physics. Physics taken for the ideal or exemplary science is highly mathematical. Physics actually involves the quantification of quantities. The various sciences approach the ideal more or less.

To describe a phenomenal cause involves quantification. We measure the energy expended, its duration, pattern or signature, force, etc.

The Book of Wisdom says “You, however, ordered all things by measure, number and weight”. This is a perfect description of nature as science studies it, discerning things in their measure, weight, and number.

As a matter of history, Galileo’s insistence that the “Book of Nature” was written in the language of mathematics changed natural philosophy from a “qualitative” account to a mathematical or “quantitative” one in which experimentation became a recognized method for discovering the facts of nature.

It’s true that describing a phenomenal cause involves quantification,but explaining what causes a phenomena involves the question of necessary power. Life,order and the coming into existence of matter entail power over nature.

Galileo dealt with questions that do not require the acknowledgement of super-natural power: the meaurement of the effects of gravity and the measurement of movement of celestial bodies. But the questions of what causes life,order and the origination of things do require the acknowledgement of super-natural power,if the explanations are to make sense.

 

[itinerant1]

It’s true that describing a phenomenal cause involves quantification,but explaining what causes a phenomena involves the question of necessary power. Life,order and the coming into existence of matter entail power over nature.

Galileo dealt with questions that do not require the acknowledgement of super-natural power: the meaurement of the effects of gravity and the measurement of movement of celestial bodies. But the questions of what causes life,order and the origination of things do require the acknowledgement of super-natural power,if the explanations are to make sense.

Well, of course, but ultimate explanations are beyond the province and scope of the natural sciences, which treat only of proximate causes. That is the limited job of the natural sciences. On the other hand, philosophy and theology deal with ultimate causes, and thereby compliment scientific knowledge. But philosophic and theological knowledge is a different kind of knowledge, a different way of knowing, than what the sciences give us. So, we have gone in a full circle and arrived back at my original position about the different provinces and competencies of natural science, philosophy, and theology.

Order in the universe is presupposed by science. Order is what makes science possible. However, an ultimate explanation of that order which is presupposed by science remains outside the scope, competence, and limitation of scientific method and the specifically scientific way of knowing the universe. .

 

[anthony022071]

Well, of course, but ultimate explanations are beyond the province and scope of the natural sciences, which treat only of proximate causes. That is the limited job of the natural sciences. On the other hand, philosophy and theology deal with ultimate causes, and thereby compliment scientific knowledge. But philosophic and theological knowledge is a different kind of knowledge, a different way of knowing, than what the sciences give us. So, we have gone in a full circle and arrived back at my original position about the different provinces and competencies of natural science, philosophy, and theology.

Order in the universe is presupposed by science. Order is what makes science possible. However, an ultimate explanation of that order which is presupposed by science remains outside the scope, competence, and limitation of scientific method and the specifically scientific way of knowing the universe. .

Science does attempt to explain the ultimate causes behind phenomena,but for science that means natural causes,“mechanisms”,and process. Science does not just describe how nature works and leave ultimate causation an open question,it attemps to explain everything about the physical world with natural causes alone,in a reductionist and mechanistic manner. That is what MN is about.

The physical world is a province of philosophy and theology,not just natural science.

 

[anthony022071]

Well, of course, but ultimate explanations are beyond the province and scope of the natural sciences, which treat only of proximate causes. That is the limited job of the natural sciences. On the other hand, philosophy and theology deal with ultimate causes, and thereby compliment scientific knowledge. But philosophic and theological knowledge is a different kind of knowledge, a different way of knowing, than what the sciences give us. So, we have gone in a full circle and arrived back at my original position about the different provinces and competencies of natural science, philosophy, and theology.

Order in the universe is presupposed by science. Order is what makes science possible. However, an ultimate explanation of that order which is presupposed by science remains outside the scope, competence, and limitation of scientific method and the specifically scientific way of knowing the universe. .

Continued from previous post.

Philosophical and theological knowledge involves the natural world. Ultimate causation,or necessary power over nature,cannot be rightly separated from the study and explanation of how nature works. So when science offers accounts of how nature works,as it pertains to coming into existence,order and life,it is already upon philosophical and theological territory. And when science attributes to natural things what only a power over nature can do,it is contradicting Catholic doctrine and reason.

 

[anthony022071]

As to what science is competent to do,science is concerned to discover what causes phenomena. And that involves the question of necessary power,which for science is a chain of mechanisms and process. For example,abiogenesis theory would have us believe that proteins and amino acids have the ability to form themselves into living cells through a series of chemical reactions or mechanisms (some of which are hypothetical). When cells are studied under a microscope,that’s how it looks. But is it reasonable to think that proteins and amino acids have the power to self-organize into a functioning and growing entity? Isn’t it reasonable to think that only an intelligent power over nature could move natural elements to form a functioning and growing entity? Scientists are competent to
acknowledge that certain things about nature can only be done by a power over nature.

 

[itinerant1]

As to what science is competent to do,science is concerned to discover what causes phenomena. And that involves the question of necessary power,which for science is a chain of mechanisms and process.

You are going round and round in circles with an argument that merely begs the question.

Science studies only the observable causes of phenomena, but you engage in an ambiguity on “causes” by failing to distinguish exactly what kind of causes are proper to scientific study. One cannot ignore the distinction between primary and secondary causes and expect to make sense.

Furthermore, you make make an unwarranted leap from science studying the causes of phenomena to what you call “necessary power.” You even failed to define what you mean by “necessary power”. Would that be necessary power on the physical level or the metaphysical level? Without the proper distinctions your argument will remain garbled.

And that involves the question of necessary power,which for science is a chain of mechanisms and process.

Here again you commit a logical (and ontological) fallacy by failing to designate the kind of chain of causality science studies, and the kind it is limited to. Science does not even ask the ultimate questions, contrary to what you imagine science to be. What ultimate metaphysical cause for chemical reactions will you find in a chemistry book? None. Any true scientist would think you fell off your horse if you were to look for ultimate physical causes in a chemistry or physics text. Neither does one does find an ultimate explanation for the universe in an astronomy text.

For example,abiogenesis theory would have us believe that proteins and amino acids have the ability to form themselves into living cells through a series of chemical reactions or mechanisms (some of which are hypothetical). When cells are studied under a microscope,that’s how it looks. But is it reasonable to think that proteins and amino acids have the power to self-organize into a functioning and growing entity? Isn’t it reasonable to think that only an intelligent power over nature could move natural elements to form a functioning and growing entity? Scientists are competent to acknowledge that certain things about nature can only be done by a power over nature.

Here again you commit the same errors. You equivocate on “competent”. A scientist “as a person”, or, “as a philosopher”, is competent to acknowledge and speculate or theorize about an ultimate power over nature, but not so “as a scientist”. “As a scientist”, he asks no such ultimate questions. Hence your point begs the question again.

If science deals with intelligent power over nature then it should be able to observe and measure that intelligence. Obviously, it is an impossibility to submit infinite intelligence and power to the scientific method. Any claim to the contrary borders on pantheism or some other dangerous personification of the powers in nature.

Your argument is fatally flawed in another respect. Whether you realize it or not, you are denying to created things their own efficacy with which they have been created.

Your argument regarding “abiogenesis” is also flawed from multiple perspectives. To say that matter cannot organize into life is not a scientific statement. It is a philosophical assumption that may or may not be true.

Matter is already very specific. To brazenly claim that God did not create matter with all the potentialities it needs to carry out His plan for the universe is an argument that a Christian should be careful to avoid. Such an argument demeans and calls into question God’s infinite wisdom and power.

Furthermore, there is nothing in science, philosophy, or theology that says non-rational life contains anything more than its chemico-physico organization. Hence, abiogenesis is certainly a possibility in a soundly conceived philosophy or nature or metaphysics.

In sum, your argument against abiogenesis is totally without merit.

You cannot make reasonable arguments when you continue to avoid making and acknowledging the necessary distinctions and differences that the subject requires.

 

[anthony022071]

You are going round and round in circles with an argument that merely begs the question.

Science studies only the observable causes of phenomena, but you engage in an ambiguity on “causes” by failing to distinguish exactly what kind of causes are proper to scientific study. One cannot ignore the distinction between primary and secondary causes and expect to make sense.

I know that natural causes are proper to scientific study,but if it not reasonable to think that a phenomenon is caused by natural factors alone (because they cannot possibly have the power necessary to make it happen),then scientists should not propose a naturalistic explanation. I’m not ignoring the distinction between primary and secondary causes,I’m acknowledging the fact that God exercizes power over secondary causes,and this is essential for understanding how nature works. Otherwise,we attribute to natural things the ability to do what they cannot do,like create functioning order and life.

Furthermore, you make make an unwarranted leap from science studying the causes of phenomena to what you call “necessary power.” You even failed to define what you mean by “necessary power”. Would that be necessary power on the physical level or the metaphysical level? Without the proper distinctions your argument will remain garbled.

What I mean by necessary power is whatever power would be necessary to cause a given phenomenon. It could be purely natural (as with the effects of gravity or light) or it could be supernatural power working on natural things (as with acts of conception).

Here again you commit a logical (and ontological) fallacy by failing to designate the kind of chain of causality science studies, and the kind it is limited to. Science does not even ask the ultimate questions, contrary to what you imagine science to be. What ultimate metaphysical cause for chemical reactions will you find in a chemistry book? None. Any true scientist would think you fell off your horse if you were to look for ultimate physical causes in a chemistry or physics text. Neither does one does find an ultimate explanation for the universe in an astronomy text.

I addressed your claim that science does not deal with “ultimate causation” in posts 718 and 719. Since science does not acknowledge anything other than natural causation,this leaves,as far as science is concerned,natural causes as the ultimate causes for all phenomena.

 

[ManOnFire]

Science is impotent to know all. For those atheists who loudly and vehemently disparage religion and hold the belief that “I only believe that which can be measured” as their ideology and life’s compass, I want them to occasionally think and to know that there is no ideology when the beginnings and ends of time and space cannot ever be scientifically proven since they go on forever. They can’t be measured, for those who “only believe in that which can be measured.” Any real scientist must be troubled by the notion of it. I’m not disparaging science or technology. Just please don’t disrespect me and tell me my ideology is crazy when there’s no possible ideology to the atheist scientist’s.

 

[itinerant1]

I addressed your claim that science does not deal with “ultimate causation” in posts 718 and 719. Since science does not acknowledge anything other than natural causation,this leaves,as far as science is concerned,natural causes as the ultimate causes for all phenomena.

You argument is
P1: Science does not deal with ultimate causes.
P2: Science deals only with natural causes.
C: Therefore, for science, natural causes are ultimate causes.

This argument is logically fallacious in that it takes “ultimate cause” in P1 and C to have the same meaning. However, they do not have the same meaning: “Ultimate cause” in P1 means “first causes”, and “ultimate cause” in C can only mean for science, “secondary causes”.

If, on the other hand, one takes “ultimate causes” in both instances to have the same meaning, in its obvious sense, then we are no longer talking about the natural sciences. We are talking about metaphysical materialism, an ideological assumption that takes methodological naturalism to necessarily imply a philosophical naturalism. However, this is the epistemological and ontological fallacy committed by philosophical materialists.

Until you see the epistemological and ontological fallacy in the materialist’s argument about scientific knowledge, you may not see the logical fallacy in your own argument…

 

[ManOnFire]

THIS will totally blow your mind:

The best anyone can do to explain the beginning of the space of the universe is to quote “Singularity,” which claims that the universe came from a single timespace event of infinite mass and zero volume. It sounds completely implausible and illogical that the universe would have infinite mass, zero volume, and spontaneously started with no other infinitely-existing help, yet this is apparently where the mathematical formulae took cosmologists. God might be laughing at how all the mathematical formulae lead to it. Too many people can’t get past it, won’t get past it, and refuse to acknowledge it to protect the ego from this enlightened knowledge which might make the ego uncomfortable.

Think about how ironic this is: Science answers the questions of WHY by believing there must be some, any, many, one, REASON for something. If there is a reason why, then there can be an answer. Many atheist scientists exist in the world. Yet, ironically, for those who believe there is no God, they “magically” claim THERE IS NO REASON, or “the reason isn’t important” for the beginning and end of time and space! An admission of actual infinity negates the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago and negates the theory of Singularity. If time and space are infinite and have always been infinite, then THERE IS NO REASON for our existence, and a REASON CAN NOT EVER be assigned to answer the basic question: “WHY do we exist?” because the answer would not by truly knowable. The best that can be done is a theory, which, if you read the definition of Singularity, sounds silly, despite all the maths.

Or, they claim that “we just haven’t learned it yet,” which we know is false, because if time and space had a beginning, then a Supreme Being outside the realms of time and space must be the REASON that time and space had a beginning.

 

[anthony022071]

You argument is
P1: Science does not deal with ultimate causes.
P2: Science deals only with natural causes.
C: Therefore, for science, natural causes are ultimate causes.

Yes,and that is the effect of MN. You and I may know that natural causes is not the only kind of causation that makes phenomena happen,but the policy of MN disallows scientists from considering power over nature when they are trying to figure out how nature works. That makes natural causation to be ultimate,as far as scientific theories are concerned.

This argument is logically fallacious in that it takes “ultimate cause” in P1 and C to have the same meaning. However, they do not have the same meaning: “Ultimate cause” in P1 means “first causes”, and “ultimate cause” in C can only mean for science, “secondary causes”.

Well,again,you and I know that natural causes are secondary,but science does not ackowledge the power over nature that makes certain things happen,or what you call the ultimate cause. It isn’t a fallacy to point out the implications of the naturalistic point of view of science.

If, on the other hand, one takes “ultimate causes” in both instances to have the same meaning, in its obvious sense, then we are no longer talking about the natural sciences. We are talking about metaphysical materialism, an ideological assumption that takes methodological naturalism to necessarily imply a philosophical naturalism. However, this is the epistemological and ontological fallacy committed by philosophical materialists.

MN is simply applied naturalism. Naturalism doesn’t cease to be naturalism when the word methodoligical is put before it. It’s the same point of view,whether it is taken up by philosophers or scientists.

 

[itinerant1]

MN is simply applied naturalism. Naturalism doesn’t cease to be naturalism when the word methodoligical is put before it. It’s the same point of view,whether it is taken up by philosophers or scientists.

The word “methodological” is not just an empty placeholder with no intended meaning. Your position is based on your unwarranted denial of what people actually mean by “methodological naturalism”. I don’t see how you can justify your arbitrariness. The definition of the expression in question is very specific, so why continue to pretend that it does not mean what it is intended to mean?

The meaning entails the critical distinction between “ignoring” something and “denying” it. To merely ignore something for a specific reason is very a different kind of situation than is denying something. Your argument wreaks havoc with this most important distinction.

Philosophers and scientists understand the distinction even if you don’t or don’t want to understand it. Ultimate causes cannot be brought into the natural sciences because there is no scientific method by which they can be verified.

Scientific knowledge is strictly “perinoetic”, whereas philosophic knowledge is “dianoetic”. To use Kantian terms, there is a critical difference between “phenomenal” and “noumenal” being. The particular sciences can make no statement about noumenal being since noumenal reality lies beyond the limited scope and competence of the emperiological methods of science.

I don’t know where you get your misinformation from, but you ought to consider the competence of your sources. Also, you are merely restating the same flawed argument without any additional supporting argument or authority. You cannot advance your argument because it is based on fallacious assumptions about scientific methods and knowledge.

Unfortunately, I don’t think you have the necessary background in the methods and epistemology of the particular science to be able to discuss this topic in an informed manner.

 

[greylorn]

…
Otherwise, the only 2 choices are God created the universe, or an actual infinity exists …

That is only a single choice.

 

[Leela]

Or, they claim that “we just haven’t learned it yet,” which we know is false, because if time and space had a beginning, then a Supreme Being outside the realms of time and space must be the REASON that time and space had a beginning.

But we DON’T know that time had a beginning or even whether asking about the beginning of time is coherent given that the notion of “beginning” presupposes the existence of time.

Also, your claim that the universe had a supreme beng as a creator still tells us nothing about why the universe was created.

And I DO know why I exist. What happened was, back in 1964, a young man was introduced to a woman through a friend…one summer evening in 1971 my parents were feeling amorous…[censored]… That’s part of it anyway. You see, there are lots of reasons why we exist. There is no ONE SINGLE REASON that things are the way they are. We are not at a loss for explanations for why everything is the way it is. There are a seemingly inexhaustible number of reasons. The more we inquire, the more reasons we find.

It sounds to me like you are looking for the Answer to the Ultimate Question as though there can only be One, and to boot you are not really saying what the question is and why it is being asked.

 

[tonyrey]

It sounds to me like you are looking for the Answer to the Ultimate Question as though there can only be One, and to boot you are not really saying what the question is and why it is being asked.

The question is:

“Why does everything exist?”

Not to ask that question is to assume that existence is ultimately purposeless…

Only one Answer is required unless it can be shown why more than one is necessary.
(Occam’s Razor)

 

[Leela]

The question is:

“Why does everything exist?”

EVERYTHING???

I don’t think anyone has ever suggested an interesting answer to that question. Maybe it isn’t such a good question.

Note that the previous suggestion of that a Supreme Being exists also does not answer this question. Isn’t the Supreme Being part of “everything”? All that has been done is the addition of a hypothesis of one more thing that is said to exist. We will then need to likewise ask about this one more thing that exists. We’ve come no closer to an answer to the original question. This is where your Occam’s Razor comes in. You’ve just made things more complicated without better explaining anything.

Not to ask that question is to assume that existence is ultimately purposeless…

I’m not convinced that this is the same question, but anyway, as for the purposes of various things, we already know lots of things have lots of purposes and that different things have different purposes. For example, hammers are good for hammering in nails and also for taking them out, so we should agree that there is a least one thing that has more than one purpose. We should also agree that the purpose of a hammer is not the same as that of a screwdriver.

Only one Answer is required unless it can be shown why more than one is necessary.
(Occam’s Razor)

Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Albert Einstein

 

[tonyrey]

“Why does everything exist?”
EVERYTHING???
I don’t think anyone has ever suggested an interesting answer to that question. Maybe it isn’t such a good question.

The vast majority have believed that there is a fascinating, awe-inspiring answer in the “Mysterium tremendum et fascinans”. Try reading “The Idea of the Holy” by Rudolf Otto.
books.google.co.uk/books?id=70DNx6VNS74C&pg=PR9&dq=online+text+The+Idea+of+the+Holy+by+Rudolf+Otto.&hl=en&ei=BE34S92KPMqnOK767ZQM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Note that the previous suggestion of that a Supreme Being exists also does not answer this question. Isn’t the Supreme Being part of “everything”?

No! It is absurd to put the infinite Creator in the same category as finite, contingent beings.

All that has been done is the addition of a hypothesis of one more thing that is said to exist. We will then need to likewise ask about this one more thing that exists.

The Supreme Being is not a “thing”. “In Him we live, move and have our being.”

We’ve come no closer to an answer to the original question. This is where your Occam’s Razor comes in.

On the contrary the existence of the Supreme Being explains the most important aspects of reality: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love. The existence of inanimate matter explains nothing. This is where your Occam’s Razor goes out!

You’ve just made things more complicated without better explaining anything.

It is far more complicated to believe valuable, purposeful persons come from valueless, purposeless particles!

Not to ask that question is to assume that existence is ultimately purposeless…

I’m not convinced that this is the same question…

Then please explain how existence can otherwise be ultimately purposeful.

… but anyway, as for the purposes of various things, we already know lots of things have lots of purposes and that different things have different purposes. For example, hammers are good for hammering in nails and also for taking them out, so we should agree that there is a least one thing that has more than one purpose. We should also agree that the purpose of a hammer is not the same as that of a screwdriver.

The problem is how purpose originated in the universe…

Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Albert Einstein

You are assuming the universe requires no explanation - which is by no means self-evident. Or else an infinite regress of physical causes…

 

[Leela]

You are assuming the universe requires no explanation - which is by no means self-evident. Or else an infinite regress of physical causes…

I’m not assuming that the existence of everything that exists can have no possible explanation. What I am saying is an argument that the sum total of everything that exists can’t have an explanation.

Why? Because claiming that God exists just adds something else that needs to be explained. We are left to wonder, why does God exist? Anyone curious about why the universe exists ought to be curious about why God exists. The same problem will come up for any answer that anyone ever gives to the question of why all that exists actually does exist.

The only out I can see is for someone to claim that something that exists, say God, doesn’t need a cause. But isn’t the dissatisfaction with claim that something doesn’t need a cause the whole reason that God was posited in this argument to begin with?

Why would anyone who is satisfied with the claim that there is no reason why God exists find it so unsatisfactory for someone else to be content with not knowing why the universe exists?

At some point in this line of questioning, we are all comfortable with our ignorance and are perhaps not even sure we are asking good questions. Asking why existence exists may be incoherent since existence must exist before questions and reasons and anything else can exist.