On the Necessity of Proving Things

[ManOnFire]

You wrote, “Let’s assume, hypothetically, that God does not exist and has never existed.” I decline that assumption, unless you insist that the Christian-modern definition of God is the only possible correct description. But I’m hoping that you could replace “God” in the above statement with “Creator.” Let’s call it Creator. Whom do you theorize created the universe? When? How? Can you prove it?

You also wrote, “Do we exist here in time and space? Yes. Since “nothing” created time and space, then the only other possibility is that time and space have ALWAYS existed,”

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Do you know anything about time or space? Have you taken a serious physics course? If not, at least start watching the documentary channels, which have an occasional insight. Stephen Hawking wrote a book, The Brief History of Time, which you could probably borrow from someone’s coffee table. Theories, theories, theories, with no proof. The media has made him famous because it gives people the excuse to be selfish by not answering to anyone or anything else.

Nothing I can say will help, but simply acquiring a modicum of education may give you the insights essential to a more clear level of misunderstanding. Ah, yes, the pompous windbag strategy. Too bad it proves nothing, just like the cosmology theories.

It’s equally possible that the needle they’re searching for in the haystack may not exist, which means they’ll be searching forever, no closer to Truth.

 

[tonyrey]

If you regard physical energy as the source of everything it must be the supreme power in your scheme of things…

You are the one who is making stuff up. I did not say you said or believe any one thing is the source of everything. I said “If…”

The Supreme Being is not a “thing” like other things; otherwise the term “Supreme Being” is nonsensical. Whether you believe or not it is an intelligible concept but beyond the comprehension of our finite intelligences. We cannot comprehend infinity but there is evidence that it exists.
Your continued use of “thing” reveals your inability or unwillingness to accept the concept of uniqueness and supremacy. We do not know but believe… just as you disbelieve…

You keep getting hung up on the word “thing.” Thing can mean an object or a being or entity of any sort. A thing can mean anything.

Indeed but “anything” is the very antithesis of the concept of the Supreme Being. You are putting the infinite Creator in the class of created finite things oblivious of the fact that to do so renders the term “Supreme Being” meaningless. You are redefining it to eliminate the need to look further than the physical universe, thereby giving it an absoluteness it does not possess.

What is your alternative? A Universe that Made The Things For Which There Is No Known Maker And Doesn’t Itself Need A Maker And Is Also Infinite And Necessary?

I keep saying that you are asking a bad question, which means you will be disappointed with the answer which I already gave you. The universe, which I equate to “all that exists” is necessary. Where else would I keep all my stuff?

You are implying that you and all your stuff are necessary! How would you prove that?
As I pointed out you to define it arbitrarily and unscientifically as a bad question because you don’t want to seek any further and blinker yourself against reality. How on earth do you know “all that exists” is necessary? And since you believe it is a valid question I could ask you “Necessary for whom?”! How would you answer that?

The history of science is replete, not with the multiplication of causes, but with their reduction to the bare minimum. Occam’s Razor…

You must be reading different books than what I read. From what I gather, the more we inquire, the more questions we have, and there seem to be an inexhaustible number of hypotheses to explain every result.

Have you ever heard of the Big Bang? A singularity…

If you are devoid of wonder you are in the wrong forum…

I wonder about a lot of things, but as I keep telling you, this one is a bad question.

Repetition does not establish a fact. It is just a way of trying to convince oneself…

You obviously have no idea of the distinction between necessity and contingency - which is based on the principle of causality. Do you ask “Caused for whom?” or “Caused for what”? I don’t think you do because you believe that the question “Why does anything exist?” is unnecessary and superfluous.
Right. I would never say “caused for whom?”

In other words you dismiss “Why?” as an insignificant question, thereby implying that the universe is purposeless - an assumption for which there is no evidence.

I would say “caused by what?”…

Why limit causality to material objects. Don’t persons cause things to happen? Or do you classify persons as material objects and nothing more?

.

…and if you say “is it necessary?” I’ll ask “necessary for who?”

“necessary for whom?” is a valid question but so is “necessary for what?”. If you disagree you must think philosophers of science are benighted and wasting their time when they discuss whether the laws of nature are necessary, i.e. whether they could be different. You also imply - without any justification - that Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod’s book “Chance and Necessity” is gibberish…

Do you admit existence is necessary for us to experience enjoyment and fulfilment? If so it must be valuable in itself and a fact that should not be taken for granted. To accept it without further investigation leads nowhere and is a sterile procedure. Even if we cannot attain certainty probability is the very guide of life. (Butler)

 

[tonyrey]

You are putting the infinite Creator in the class of created finite things oblivious of the fact that to do so renders the term “Supreme Being” meaningless. You are redefining it to eliminate the need to look further than the physical universe, thereby giving it an absoluteness it does not possess.

My last statement is ambiguous. It means:

You are redefining the term “Supreme Being” to eliminate the need to look further than the physical universe, thereby giving the physical universe an absoluteness it does not possess.

 

[Leela]

Hi itinerant1,

I said:
Is your Aristotelian way of talking the language in which the universe demands to be spoken of? Are you saying all those things that the universe demands be said about it? I don’t recognize any such demands made by “the world.” The only duty I have is to my fellow sentient beings. I read your criticism of “sloppy thinking” and your stipulation of a definition of “universe” in this thread as a demand for others to speak YOUR language rather than some language that gets to The Way Things Really Are that is independent of all human needs and interests.

You miss the point. I explained above (previous posts) what is inadequate with your definition of the universe and I proposed one that has less problems and more consistent with how people noramlly think about universe. The point is that one must first make sure they are using terms that are suitable in their meanings in order to discuss any topic. And the interlocutors must agree on the meanings if they hope to accomplish anything more than talking past one another.

You are missing MY point. I’m saying that no defiition of “the universe” is handed to us by reality. I don’t think that there is a Way Things Really Are for you to appeal to in settling the matter of which definition of a given word ought to be used. The Way Things Really Are is not about to step in and decide things like this for us. We’ll just have to muddle along as best we can.

All descriptions, interpretations, and defiitions are created for certain particular purposes, and I will always see your insistence that I use your definition of the universe as relating to your purposes rather than being the one that is actually “suitable to its meaning.” I don’t accept your notion of “suitability” and “inadequacy.” I will always wonder, “suitable for whom? adequate to what achieving purposes?” while you seems to be be thinking "suitable to the Way Things Really Are that is independent of questions like “for whom? for what?” Words are tools for coordinating behavior. As I see things, “what does this word mean?” amounts to asking “how is this tool used?”

You got that last part right…your questions and answers were not the least bit satisfying…

I’ve tried to make it clear that they are not my questions and that the answers will be dissapointing until you start asking better ones that better serve your needs.

History is filled with the quests of individuals who have a genuine need to know, and they endeavored, as much as the human reason can, to discover the answers to the really interesting questions about reality. Not everyone is capable of, or has the time, or is willing to expend the intellecual effort necessary in pursuit of the truth.

True philosophers know well that the unexamined life is not worth living.

It is very easy to come up with more interesting question about reality that the “true philosopher” will ask herself such as…“How can I become a more loving person?”

Is your question somehow more fundamental adequate to the intrinsic nature of reality than mine is?

Here again, you seem to think that there are “really interesting questions” that float around somewhere “out there” waiting for “true philosphers” to wonder about. A question is only interesting if it interests, and despite being interested in lots and lots of other questions, I remain unconvinced that “is the universe necessary?” is an interesting question that I need to keep asking once I say, “of course it is necessary for me and everyone else I know. If the universe did not exist, how would we do all the things we want to do?”

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

You are implying that you and all your stuff are necessary! How would you prove that?

My stuff is necessary to me because I need it.

Why limit causality to material objects. Don’t persons cause things to happen? Or do you classify persons as material objects and nothing more?

.
“necessary for whom?” is a valid question but so is “necessary for what?”.

It is not a matter of who or what. I was emphasizing with italics that necessary is always necessary-for and caused is always caused-by.

Do you admit existence is necessary for us to experience enjoyment and fulfilment?

Of course.

 

[anthony022071]

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?

You haven’t given the definition of MN. It is simply the policy of acting as if only nature exists when it comes to scientifically explaining phenomena. And that is just as unjustifiable as to say outright that only nature exists. It leads to the same false view of nature and how it works.

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.

To ignore is a form of denial. When science ignores essential knowledge about the natural world as a matter of policy,it is tantamount to a denial of it. It’s like if you studiously ignore a person you don’t want to deal with,you are denying him acknowledgement.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

I understand the distinction,but the result is the same:a naturalistic view of all phenomena.
Since divine power is not acknowledged where it is necessary to do so,this leaves natural causes as the ultimate causes,as far as science is concerned.

It is not even necessary to verify divine power over nature in order to acknowledge it in science,because it is a question of what is reasonable to believe about phenomena. Science must be logical as well as experimental. And why is it that science does not have a problem with the fact that its naturalisism cannot be verified to be true? Why adopt a professional point of view that is unjustifiable?

 

[itinerant1]

I understand the distinction,but the result is the same:a naturalistic view of all phenomena.
Since divine power is not acknowledged where it is necessary to do so,this leaves natural causes as the ultimate causes,as far as science is concerned.

It is not even necessary to verify divine power over nature in order to acknowledge it in science,because it is a question of what is reasonable to believe about phenomena. Science must be logical as well as experimental. And why is it that science does not have a problem with the fact that its naturalisism cannot be verified to be true? Why adopt a professional point of view that is unjustifiable?

Do you understand the difference between natural science and philosophy? If so, provide your explanation.

 

[itinerant1]

Hi itinerant1,

I said:
Is your Aristotelian way of talking the language in which the universe demands to be spoken of? Are you saying all those things that the universe demands be said about it? I don’t recognize any such demands made by “the world.” The only duty I have is to my fellow sentient beings. I read your criticism of “sloppy thinking” and your stipulation of a definition of “universe” in this thread as a demand for others to speak YOUR language rather than some language that gets to The Way Things Really Are that is independent of all human needs and interests.

You have crassly misreprersented what I said. Try again! I will allow for do-overs.

 

[tonyrey]

My stuff is necessary to me because I need it.

Do you need it because it brings you pleasure and happiness?

Do you admit existence is necessary for us to experience enjoyment and fulfilment?

Of course.

Would the universe be less valuable if life didn’t exist?

 

[Leela]

You have crassly misreprersented what I said. Try again! I will allow for do-overs.

Considering I wasn’t trying to “represent” what you said at all I can’t see how I could have done any misrepresenting. I was explaining a way of thinking. I take it that you simply aren’t interested in trying to understand my perspective and will continue to insist that your set of interpretations, descriptions, and definitions is just The Way Things Really Are.

 

[Leela]

Do you need it because it brings you pleasure and happiness?

Would the universe be less valuable if life didn’t exist?

If we did not exist nothing would be valuable to anyone.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you need your stuff because it brings you pleasure and happiness?

You have not answered my questions. How you answer them is significant…

 

[anthony022071]

Do you understand the difference between natural science and philosophy? If so, provide your explanation.

Natural science tests for the facts of nature and its workings by experimentation. Philosophy seeks truth (including truth about nature and its workings) by common observation and logical reasoning. But natural scientists do not just verify by experimentation and let the results of research speak for itself,they make judgements and interpretations which cannot be justified by mere research (like the assumption that similarities between different species must mean common ancestry). They begin with a false judgement,which is that all phenomena can be adequately explained using natural causes alone,and this leads to false interpretations of how nature works.

 

[anthony022071]

Your arguments for atheists do not apply, since I believe that our universe is created.

However, I find the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient entity to be a logically impossible proposition, and so do not believe the universe was created by the same entity who you have been taught is the Creator.

 

[greylorn]

The existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God is not only logically possible,it is absolutely necessary for the existence of the created world. Nothing could be more powerful than the ability to cause phyical matter to exist. Only an intelligent,absolute power,could do that. Nothingness could not have done it,because by definition it has no power.

 

[greylorn]

What allegedly makes the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient entity to be a logically impossible proposition?

I’ve addressed this issue in previous threads. If genuinely curious, you can look them up in less time than I can repeat the arguments. Or, wait for my book.

 

[itinerant1]

Philosophy seeks truth (including truth about nature and its workings) by common observation and logical reasoning.

This is too vague to suffice for a definition of philosophy. There needs to be an explanation of the formal and material objects of philosophic knowledge, and adequate enough to distinguish philosophy from both theology and the natural sciences. As it stands, I don’t see that you know what philosophy is. How then can you understand what natural science is and how it compares to philosophy?

But natural scientists do not just verify by experimentation and let the results of research speak for itself,they make judgements and interpretations which cannot be justified by mere research (like the assumption that similarities between different species must mean common ancestry). They begin with a false judgement,which is that all phenomena can be adequately explained using natural causes alone,and this leads to false interpretations of how nature works.

You are merely arguing your opinion. Argument is not the same as defining the terms one is using. You need to define the natural sciences also by formal and material object.

Despite the inadequacies of your attempt to provide definitions, I agree with what you said in your next post, I believe it was #768, about God and creation.

 

[itinerant1]

I have not and will never propose that the universe came from nothing, or nothingness, or the void, or whatever. That is an absurd concept, with all due respect to the nits who believe in it. I am delighted that you are not one of them.

However, there are certain aspects of the omnipotent God concept which make it logically untenable. For example, if God knows all, then God cannot have a creative thought. That would mean that God is essentially a mindless computer, doing now what He always knew that He was going to do, from the beginning of time— and in process, observing the detailed circumstances of the demise of every ant and the position and momentum of every electron.

Your conclusion does not logically follow. That “God cannot have a creative thought” is highly ambiguous. You have assumed a limited and anthropocentric concept of God and can’t seem to think beyond that, even for the sake of argument.

God does not think as humans do, eg. discursively. Furthermore, his thoughts are not modificatioins of his intellect, as is the case with human beings. God’s “thoughts”, rather, are identical with his essence. God does not think discursively as if he has new thoughts that he did not have before. If God acquired new knowledge, even if it be a creative thought, then he is not omnicient. But since God is omnicient he always possesses the infinite fullness of knowledge. He can neither lose nor gain knowledge as do humans.

Those ideas worked well in medieval times, for people whom, if educated to the level of a modern day 8th grade student, would be seen as geniuses. They do not work for a belief system competing with honest (non-Darwinian) science.

Obviously, you know nothing of the Middle Ages, from whence modern science originated, i.e. the medieval universities with Buridan, etc. and the anticipation of Newton’s laws of motion.

Darwinian science, insofar as it is science does not compete with traditional philosophical and theological doctrines. You have made a category error. It is, rather, for the sake of clarification, Darwinian ideology that competes with traditional philosophy and theology. Darwinian ideology is not science, it is an ideology grafted onto the science, though you might not have the background in Darwinism to distinguish the two. Darwinian science can only compete with other scientific theories.

Furthermore, the newest is not always the greatest. Darwin considered Aristotle to have been the greatest biologist of all time. Apparently, you don’t know much about Darwin either, who said in his Notebooks, “Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in very different ways, but they were mere schoolboys to old Aristotle.”

God does not need to be omnipotent to create the universe. He only needs to be capable of creating the universe. .

To say God or anything or anyone else only needs to be capable of doing what he or it does is circular and non-informative.

In the mind of someone who has no idea how to create matter from energy (like you and I both) the ability to do so is impressive. I studied physics and tried to figure these things out, and I remain impressed. Then I studied some biology. Cowabunga! Creation is an awesome, mind-bending piece of work.

Creating matter from energy is not creating, it is fashioning or making from what pre-exists, like Plato’s Demiurgos. Matter and energy are different manifestations of the same thing, so your statement is irrelevant to the idea of true creation.

Whence comes the physical energy?

In sum, your arguments have merely gone in a circle and do not address the problem of the universe and its existence.

 

[itinerant1]

I’ve addressed this issue in previous threads. If genuinely curious, you can look them up in less time than I can repeat the arguments. Or, wait for my book.

Thanks, but no thanks on both counts.