The ontological foundation of existence and the North Pole

[Spock]

The basic question of metaphysics is: “what exist?” This is the “ultimate” question, which cannot be reduced to something even more basic.

The atheist answer is: “the physical universe”. It is everything there is, it needs no “cause”, no “explanation”, it simply exists. Space, time, matter, energy, causation, motion, concepts, ideas all reside within the universe. None of these categories are applicable to the universe itself. For the atheist it is not a valid question to ask: “what caused the universe?”. It is not a valid question to ask: “what was before the universe?”. Etc.

All these questions are the logical equivalent of asking “what resides to the north of the North Pole?”. Unanswearable question, just like the other ones. Just because on every point on Earth, the direction of “north” is well-defined, the direrection cannot be meaningfully defined at the North pole. Just because causation (or time) can be defined within the universe, causation cannot be defined for the universe. All the supposed arguments for the existence of the “non-physical being” are based upon the assumption that these questions are meaningful.

The deist answer is: “a non-physical being”. This non-physical being is the ultimate foundation of all existence, it requires no cause, it requires no explanation. It simply exists.

So, the two worldviews are symmetrical. Both are grounded on something that is final, that requires no cause, no explanation, there is nothing before them or outside them.

Which one is correct?

This question cannot be decided on the level of metaphysics. In and by themselves, both could be correct, and without reaching further, we have an impasse.

There is one thing where the deist asnwer becomes problematic, and that is the “how”? How does the assumed non-physical being effect causation? How did this non-physical being create the physical existence? There is no answer. Since the non-physical being is (by definition) undetecable by physical means, these types of questions can never be answered.

The atheist worldview renders these questions irrelevant, the deist view renders them relevant, but unanswerable.

Based upon Occam’s razor, the deist view is more complicated, and also posits the theoretically unanswerable question of “how”. Therefore the atheist view is “better”. It does not assume anything over the necessary minimum (the physical existence of the universe). Of course Occam’s razor is not a tool to decide which version is correct. It merely says that the simpler version should be the working hypothesis.

To decide which view is correct we must go further than the metaphysical base. Both of these views have consequeces, and we can examine which set of consequences is compatible with the state of affairs, as we know them. Besides, most believers are not simply deists, the concept of God is much more complicated. But that is a different issue.

Your comments are welcome.

\//

 

[Eucharisted]

The atheist view that the Universe simply exists is shot down by science. Science teaches that the moment something exists, it begins to die. Everything is temporal. Logically, the Universe must be temoral. So where did the Universe come from? Science teaches that the Universe comes from something infinite and inconceivable.

We Christians also believe the Universe comes from something infinite and inconceivable, because it has revealed itself to man: God. Anyone can use philosophy and reason to find out God exists, too. The real trick, however, is to get past one’s own preconceived notions and embrace the truth, even if it hurts.

 

[Spock]

The atheist view that the Universe simply exists is shot down by science. Science teaches that the moment something exists, it begins to die.

What “science” teaches that?

Everything is temporal. Logically, the Universe must be temoral. So where did the Universe come from? Science teaches that the Universe comes from something infinite and inconceivable.

Which branch of “science” teches that the universe comes from something that is “infinte and inconceivable”?

 

[Detales]

Actually, the metaphysicians I have met generally say that their concern is “What is Real?,” “what exists” being a sub catagory of that. The word itself does come from the Greek for “beyond” + “physics” and is thus about considerations outside the province of ordinary science.

The symetry proposition has to be based on the structure of the English language and is a likely an artifical duality made necessary by the inability of English as generaly spoken to account for wholeness. Same holds for such as the five ways of St. Thomas, admirable as they might be. This fragmentation isssue inherent in English is less of a difficulty in other langauges which do not rely on an artificial over-emphasis on the noun aspect of the fragmentary subject-verb-object construction. It is also consistent with the modalities and linguistic structure of the forms of teaching (parables) used at the time and place of Jesus, those having a minimum of three levels of intended meaning. This is particularly pertinent to the referent of the word “I” used in such teachings, and a mode of intent likely used in many scriptural presentations.

The argumentations on these fora based on theist/atheist viewpoints seem mostly to fall back on to some kind of logic. Neither “side” bears more accuracy than is afforded by the incomplete tools of logics and claimed historicity. Ignoring the historicity issue, logic is a proceedure within languages and certain maths both of which require the support of the thought function of awareness.

In most humans this thought function is similar to watching a kalidascope and is rarely suseptible to actual intelligence, and is thus mostly rote. It is also the least examined area of human experience, despite the reflexive property of human awareness being a stellar difference between humans and animals, at least to a very large extent. This is associated with the two forms of awareness capability available to humans, one of which is traditionally ignored and yet may be the root basis for much of what we take for religion. And since you mentioned Occam’s razor, at least one system is based on that mode of awareness and is the closest to a Unified Field explanation than anything else I’ve seen, as it accounts as well for the observer in a manner not covered by christianist and other religions.

The area of investigation proper to metaphysics in your line of questioning might then more usefully be the nature of awareness and of Consciousness itself. Though it is rare, there is a mode available to us that is before intellectual process and which is not of a subject-object nature. Intellectual argumentation generally excludes material drawn from that realm, which is a field known sometimes as Knowledge by Identity. English grammar ignores it.

Intellect may yet be very useful in organizind and explicating knowledge from that field once it is had, but reason by itself cannot arrive at it any more than water can arrive at being the vessel in which it is held, though it can point to the shape of that vessel to some degree. That particularly distinctive and much ignored field as has been sketched may have information far more pertinent to the question at hand than logics which assume fragmentation.

 

[Spock]

Actually, the metaphysicians I have met generally say that their concern is “What is Real?,” “what exists” being a sub catagory of that. The word itself does come from the Greek for “beyond” + “physics” and is thus about considerations outside the province of ordinary science.

Well, when I went to college, the three branches of philosophy were:

1. metaphysics: what exists? (or what is real?)
2. epistemology: how do we know it? (or what are the ways and means of acquiring knowledge?)
3. ethics: so what now? (or how should we behave?)

Of these the most important one is the second (in my opinion). The first one, which can be viewed from naturalistic or non-naturalistic points of view is a matter of “taste”. (I don’t like to call it super-naturalistic, since it would also assume something sub-naturalistic.)

The rest of your post I read a couple of times, but I have no idea what your points are. We are “stuck” with the English language. All languages have some limitations, and also the forum rules (if I am not mistaken) require us to use English.

 

[Detales]

I agree about the second being first. And that is why I introduced the topic of English.
As to not understanding the point of the rest, it is tied up with the second being first and how that is. Scroll down and note the elements of the signature. We’re not on the same page, but that is ok. Once agin, I recommend *Wholeness and the Implicate Order *by David Bohm as a clarification of this matter and at least a way out for individuals, if not the whole poulation of English speakers. The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object would also be of great use as well, that introducing another aspect of what my post pointed to. I submit that your lack of understanding is a small proof of the cultural exclusion of what is likely a very imporatant and largely ignored mode of knowledge, especially on here.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The basic question of metaphysics is: “what exist?” This is the “ultimate” question, which cannot be reduced to something even more basic.

The atheist answer is: “the physical universe”. It is everything there is, it needs no “cause”, no “explanation”, it simply exists.

if the universe were a static system there may be a way to argue that, but as science observes that the universe did have a beginning in the big bang, that naturally brings the question of cause, as nothing that begins to exist can cause itself

physicists are continually working on the problem, obviously the the question is meaning ful, as science continues to address it.

Space, time, matter, energy, causation, motion, concepts, ideas all reside within the universe. None of these categories are applicable to the universe itself. For the atheist it is not a valid question to ask: “what caused the universe?”. It is not a valid question to ask: “what was before the universe?”. Etc.

yet the universe has an observable beginning in the big bang, what caused the big bang is a legitimate question, the oddity would be to assume that the big bang needed no cause.

and anything with a beginning, had a ‘before’ whether we address that by reference to precedence or of time. the big bang was not always beginning, that violates SLOT, entropy would be maximised, therefore, ‘before’ and ''cause are perfectly legitimate questions. even science continues to address them.

All these questions are the logical equivalent of asking “what resides to the north of the North Pole?”. Unanswearable question, just like the other ones All the supposed arguments for the existence of the “non-physical being” are based upon the assumption that these questions are meaningful.

it seems there is an assumption that causality is dependent on the universal constants, but as the big bang happened observably prior to the formation of those physical laws, it is pobvious that cause and effect are seperate from them, otherwise the big bang could not have happened.

cuasality, is therefore not dependent on time, or physical laws

and science holds the same view, in at least as it continues research into the ‘cause’ of the big bang.

The deist answer is: “a non-physical being”. This non-physical being is the ultimate foundation of all existence, it requires no cause, it requires no explanation. It simply exists.

there is an explanation, the non-physical first cause is in no way possessing of physical qualities, by which i mean that the non-physical first cause is independent of time, and physical laws and therefore requires no cause, as it had no ‘beginning’

So, the two worldviews are symmetrical. Both are grounded on something that is final, that requires no cause, no explanation, there is nothing before them or outside them.

Which one is correct?

This question cannot be decided on the level of metaphysics. In and by themselves, both could be correct, and without reaching further, we have an impasse.

actually, an eternal universe violates the second law of thermodynamics, it also violates ‘infinite’ time, and its exposed as a false idea, in that we can observe the beginning of the universe in the big bang.

thats just 3 immediate reasons as to why the universe cannot be eternal.

There is one thing where the deist asnwer becomes problematic, and that is the “how”? How does the assumed non-physical being effect causation? How did this non-physical being create the physical existence? There is no answer. Since the non-physical being is (by definition) undetecable by physical means, these types of questions can never be answered.

as we cant directly observe the non-physical, we may never know, but that is not the same thing as there not being an answer.

logic dictates that an electron exists, can we see it, no. yet we know it from its effects. we were right all along, there was a discrete charged particle called an electron

The atheist worldview renders these questions irrelevant, the deist view renders them relevant, but unanswerable.

thats not supported by science, or logic.

the universe cannot simply exist, without violating some basic physical laws, a non-physical first causes mechanism cant be observed by physical means, that doesnt mean it has no mechanism.

Based upon Occam’s razor, the deist view is more complicated, and also posits the theoretically unanswerable question of “how”. Therefore the atheist view is “better”. It does not assume anything over the necessary minimum (the physical existence of the universe). Of course Occam’s razor is not a tool to decide which version is correct. It merely says that the simpler version should be the working hypothesis

.

the problem is that the atheists position violates SLOT, infinite time, and the observed big bang

To decide which view is correct we must go further than the metaphysical base. Both of these views have consequeces, and we can examine which set of consequences is compatible with the state of affairs, as we know them. Besides, most believers are not simply deists, the concept of God is much more complicated. But that is a different issue.

Your comments are welcome.

\//

i know it would greatly simplify the atheist position if cause was unnecessary, because that is the specific dagger to the heart of that position, but we need rational reasons for that. which dont violate what we know of science.

further, not currently knowing the mechanism of creation would ultimatley seem the least important of the questions as, we are already here. it happened,

 

[Spock]

if the universe were a static system there may be a way to argue that, but as science observes that the universe did have a beginning in the big bang, that naturally brings the question of cause, as nothing that begins to exist can cause itself

So you wish to use science to invalidate atheism. Just like Eucharisted above who said that “science” teaches that the universe comes from something that is “infinte and inconceivable”?

If you wish to do that, you should use real science, not some incorrect representation of what science actually says. For the record, science does NOT say that the BB is the beginning of the universe, no matter how many times you (and others) try to say it. It merely says that the current, observed form of the universe - if “rewound” in time - seems to have emanated from a singularity.

The nature of the singularity is unknown. The laws of nature within the singularity are unknown. We can say NOTHING about the singularity, except that it is unknown, as of yet. Let me say again: science says nothing about the singularity itself.

and anything with a beginning, had a ‘before’ whether we address that by reference to precedence or of time. the big bang was not always beginning, that violates SLOT, entropy would be maximised, therefore, ‘before’ and ''cause are perfectly legitimate questions. even science continues to address them.

Poor, old second law. It has been misrepresented too many times. The second law is a statistical or stochastic law, which says nothing about the universe.

It only says that in a closed, finite system the distribution of energy tends to get into an equilibrium. It says nothing about local fluctuation of entropy. It is almost funny, that theists try to “prove” God’s existence based upon the “local violation” of entropy (the emergence of life), and then try to “prove” God’s existence based upon the “normal” behavior of a closed, finite system.

It reminds me of the usage of miracles. Theists say: “look, a miracle! Surely that is the sign of God’s existence!”. Then they point at something completely normal, and say: “look, NO miracle! Surely that is the sign of God’s existence!”. It will not fly.

If you wish to employ science, please do not misrepresent what science says.

thats just 3 immediate reasons as to why the universe cannot be eternal.

Eternal? As in meaning: “lasted infinitely into the past?”. That is another bogus assumption. It would necessitate the existence of an “absolute” time, independent from the physical universe. That view was held by the Newtonian concept of a “clockwork” universe, which resides in an absolute space, with an absolute time. That view is obsolete.

One more time, please use science, but some bogus misrepresentation of it.

as we cant directly observe the non-physical, we may never know, but that is not the same thing as there not being an answer.

Not “may” never know it, it is **impossible **to know by definition. And what use is such an answer?

logic dictates that an electron exists, can we see it, no. yet we know it from its effects. we were right all along, there was a discrete charged particle called an electron

No one said that the electron must be visible to the naked eye. Its properties can be predicted, the predictions can be verified. That method does not apply to the non-physical entity you posit.

 

[JDaniel]

Based upon Occam’s razor, the deist view is more complicated, and also posits the theoretically unanswerable question of “how”. Therefore the atheist view is “better”. It does not assume anything over the necessary minimum (the physical existence of the universe). Of course Occam’s razor is not a tool to decide which version is correct. It merely says that the simpler version should be the working hypothesis.

Your comments are welcome.

\//

Here is what you have failed to understand, either for convenience purposes, or, lack of knowledge:

From Wikipedia:
“Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it [the Law of Parsimony] is more often taken today as an heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories. Here the same caveat applies to confounding topicality with mere simplicity. (A superficially simple phenomenon may have a complex mechanism behind it. A simple explanation would be simplistic if it failed to capture all the essential and relevant parts.)”

IOW, if you get too close to a critical vein with an Occam’s razor, you could cut yourself and bleed to death.

Regards,
jd

 

[Spock]

Here is what you have failed to understand, either for convenience purposes, or, lack of knowledge:

I understand the Law of Parsimony perfectly, thank you. In my post I stipulated that the “razor” is not a tool to decide which hypothesis is to be granted higher status. It is presumed that both hypotheses explain the phenomena equally well. The “razor” simply advises that the one few fewer presuppositions should be the working hypothesis, ceteris paribus.

Since I am tired to belabor the obvious, I will not answer any more posts which do not address the points of the OP. This also pertains to bogus scientific “claims”, like incorrect quotes of the second law of thermodynamics, or dragging up some obsolete “absolute” time.

Naturally, anyone may post whatever they desire. I simply will not answer those which try to derail the thread, or attempt to drag in invalid arguments, which have been refuted ad nauseam.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So you wish to use science to invalidate atheism. Just like Eucharisted above who said that “science” teaches that the universe comes from something that is “infinte and inconceivable”?

science does tend to invalidate atheism, and i will show you how

If you wish to do that, you should use real science, not some incorrect representation of what science actually says. For the record, science does NOT say that the BB is the beginning of the universe, no matter how many times you (and others) try to say it. It merely says that the current, observed form of the universe - if “rewound” in time - seems to have emanated from a singularity.

an eternal universe violates SLOT the second law of thermodynamics, thats a real law, cyclical universes are also a violations of that same law, and the current evidence of an open boundary universe.

it stands then to reason that the big bang was the act of creation, as a cyclic, or eternal static universe are eliminated, there seems to be no other choice.

The nature of the singularity is unknown. The laws of nature within the singularity are unknown. We can say NOTHING about the singularity, except that it is unknown, as of yet. Let me say again: science says nothing about the singularity itself.

i dont know where you get that, because we know, it was a physical object, that began to exist,

anything that begins to exist requires a cause, and physical things cannot cause themselves.

so science does say something about the singularity, it was physical. from that we make other deductions.

Poor, old second law. It has been misrepresented too many times. The second law is a statistical or stochastic law, which says nothing about the universe.

It only says that in a closed, finite system the distribution of energy tends to get into an equilibrium. It says nothing about local fluctuation of entropy. It is almost funny, that theists try to “prove” God’s existence based upon the “local violation” of entropy (the emergence of life), and then try to “prove” God’s existence based upon the “normal” behavior of a closed, finite system.

It reminds me of the usage of miracles. Theists say: “look, a miracle! Surely that is the sign of God’s existence!”. Then they point at something completely normal, and say: “look, NO miracle! Surely that is the sign of God’s existence!”. It will not fly.

If you wish to employ science, please do not misrepresent what science says.

please hold down the rhetoric, your mixing theists, and generally being insulting, please act rationally.

SLOT applies to the universe because it is a closed, finite system.
and, as you can see with your own eyes, it is no where near equilibrium.

Eternal? As in meaning: “lasted infinitely into the past?”. That is another bogus assumption. It would necessitate the existence of an “absolute” time, independent from the physical universe. That view was held by the Newtonian concept of a “clockwork” universe, which resides in an absolute space, with an absolute time. That view is obsolete.

One more time, please use science, but some bogus misrepresentation of it.

im not sure where your getting that, but the eternal as in static, universe wouldnt allow the change from static to dynamic, as in the big bang.

i think your talking about something else.

Not “may” never know it, it is **impossible **to know by definition. And what use is such an answer?

knowing the mechanism by which first cause operates is unimportant, you may not know how an atom bomb works, but i assure you it does

thats the use of such an answer. as opposed to the other view. which contradicts physics.

No one said that the electron must be visible to the naked eye. Its properties can be predicted, the predictions can be verified. That method does not apply to the non-physical entity you posit.

actually, thats because it is, as far as we know, a one time event, not because there is a difference in the logical constructtion of the argument from effect.

now youve accued me a few times now of misstating science, but you didn’t even know the universe is a closed system. i think your idea of free will with no cause is out there, but i debate it on evidence, arguments and merit, i dont just come out say what i think of it. please pay me the same courtesy.

 

[Spock]

science does tend to invalidate atheism, and i will show you how

Answered in detail before.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Since I am tired to belabor the obvious, I will not answer any more posts which do not address the points of the OP

.

yopu chose to write the op as opposed to answering our questions in the thread this morning.

This also pertains to bogus scientific “claims”, like incorrect quotes of the second law of thermodynamics, or dragging up some obsolete “absolute” time.

no one brought up absolute time, you simply assumed it, where it wasnt meant. maybe it was the way i said something. i dont know, but as to the ‘bogus’ science claims,

SLOT is hardly bogus, and as you said it applies to a closed finite system, which the universe is, and obviously not in equilibrium.

Naturally, anyone may post whatever they desire. I simply will not answer those which try to derail the thread, or attempt to drag in invalid arguments, which have been refuted ad nauseam.

as the topic of the thread is in reply to my previous question, or at least that is what you said, and it seems to be specifically for the refutations of my Aquinan formulation. i assume im not derailing it

as to invalid arguments, i have yet to see you offer refutations in line with scientific observation, re: SLOT, which you said only applied to closed, finite systems. of which the universe is one.

if you simply wish not to have your arguments questioned, examined and discussed then the appropriate place is hardly on the forums.

 

[cpayne]

Just because on every point on Earth, the direction of “north” is well-defined, the direrection cannot be meaningfully defined at the North pole. Just because causation (or time) can be defined within the universe, causation cannot be defined for the universe. All the supposed arguments for the existence of the “non-physical being” are based upon the assumption that these questions are meaningful.

Hi, Spock. I think these three sentences are the hinge of your argument. However, I do not think you’ve adequately supported them. For example, you argue that “causation cannot be defined for the universe.” However, I would simply ask, Why not? despite your “North Pole” analogy.

Here’s a different analogy: If all parts of a system are made of titanium, let’s say, the system itself has the characteristic of being made of titanium. If the components of the universe are contingent in nature and require causation, the universe itself does, too.

You might object that this is the “composition” fallacy—for example, if all parts of a system are six feet long, the system itself is six feet long. However, I would respond that the composition fallacy is not a logical fallacy, but specifically a material fallacy. As a material fallacy, it can sometimes produce accurate results, as in my titanium example.

If my analogy relates to the universe as I’ve described it, then the universe does require causation, and the question “What causes the contingent universe to exist?” is a meaningful question requiring a metaphysical answer.

 

[Spock]

Hi, Spock. I think these three sentences are the hinge of your argument. However, I do not think you’ve adequately supported them. For example, you argue that “causation cannot be defined for the universe.” However, I would simply ask, Why not? despite your “North Pole” analogy.

Very well. Let’s dig into it.

Here’s a different analogy: If all parts of a system are made of titanium, let’s say, the system itself has the characteristic of being made of titanium. If the components of the universe are contingent in nature and require causation, the universe itself does, too.

You might object that this is the “composition” fallacy—for example, if all parts of a system are six feet long, the system itself is six feet long. However, I would respond that the composition fallacy is not a logical fallacy, but specifically a material fallacy. As a material fallacy, it can sometimes produce accurate results, as in my titanium example.

Right on. Both of these could be the correct analogy. Why should we assume that the “titanium analogy” is correct, and the “six foot long analogy” is incorrect? How do you choose between them?

If my analogy relates to the universe as I’ve described it, then the universe does require causation, and the question “What causes the contingent universe to exist?” is a meaningful question requiring a metaphysical answer.

Yes, IF the “titanium analogy” is correct, THEN to ask for a causative factor for the universe IS a meaningful question.

I will present some arguments for my side (one of which will be incorrect, on purpose).

Incorrect argument: According to some interpretations of QM, we do observe uncaused events (like virtual particles). You would correctly point out that this is just one interpretation, and you would rightfully ask me how do I know that it is the proper one? Bringing up physical arguments for a metaphysical question is not applicable, since science is always subject to change - no matter how well established it seems to be at the moment. Warpspeedpetey repeatedly tried this track.

Next, we have never seen an “active” non-physical entity. All the non-physical entites we are familiar with, are inert, conceptual ones. Naturally, this is not a valid argument against the existence of such beings. I just wonder why posit a hypothesis which is purely speculative, which has no reasonable foundation in the observed reality?

Argument from free will: IF there is free will, then causation is not universal. To say that a decision was both “free” and “caused” is a logical contradiction. I am not presenting a physical argument here. We don’t even know IF we have true, libertarian free will. BUT, if we do, then causation is not universal.

Finally, just what kind of mechanism would be involved if a non-physical entity would be the causative factor and the caused entity would be physical? The non-physical entity is undetectable - by definition. Its effectors are unimaginable. Suppose, that the deist stance is correct, and the universe does need an “external” causative factor (and the meaning of “external” is in question here!). What is the result? The answer: “an undetectable non-physical being, using unimaginable tools made it somehow happen”. How does that help as an “explanation”? Does it have any predictive value? Does it allow us to emulate this supposed “causation”? The answer is actually the opposite. It would close down any further inquiry into the subject. It is much worse, than a simple “we don’t know this yet”. It would state that this is an unknowable phenomenon once and for all.

I want to point out: these arguments do not prove that the atheistic stance is correct. These are meant to taken as arguments why the atheists do not consider the non-physical effectors as a valid question.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Bringing up physical arguments for a metaphysical question is not applicable, since science is always subject to change - no matter how well established it seems to be at the moment. Warpspeedpetey repeatedly tried this track.

if your arguments violate well established physical laws, then there is more likely a problem with your argument than the physics.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/metaphysics
met·a·phys·ics (mt-fzks) KEY

NOUN:

(used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Metaphysics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the album by Duncan Avoid, see Metaphysics (album).

Plato (left) and Aristotle (right), by Raphael (Stanza della Segnatura, Rome)Metaphysics investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world.[1] Someone who studies metaphysics can be called either a “metaphysician” or a “metaphysicist”.[2]

it would seem that physics is an integral part of metaphysics.

simply because science can change, does not eliminate its value, as a tool in th metaphysicists kit, yes, it may turn out to be wrong, as may absolutley any theory on any subject.

frankly i am beggining to believe that you wish to exclude science from the discussion as it doesn’t seem supportive of your positions.

Next, we have never seen an “active” non-physical entity. All the non-physical entites we are familiar with, are inert, conceptual ones. Naturally, this is not a valid argument against the existence of such beings. I just wonder why posit a hypothesis which is purely speculative, which has no reasonable foundation in the observed reality?

and you never will see any non-physical entity, as by its verynature it would be unobservable by physical means.

in the same way that we infer the existence of unobservable partices, electrons, etc, are inferred from their effects

yes, i know you want testability, but as it is a one time event, im not sure how to accomplish that.

Argument from free will: IF there is free will, then causation is not universal. To say that a decision was both “free” and “caused” is a logical contradiction. I am not presenting a physical argument here. We don’t even know IF we have true, libertarian free will. BUT, if we do, then causation is not universal.

as we live in an entirely mathematically determinative universe, we cant have free will, by any physical means.

are you implying non-physical means to violate the determinative nature of the universe? because that happens to be my argument for the way in which we live in a determinitive universe, with apparent free will.

Finally, just what kind of mechanism would be involved if a non-physical entity would be the causative factor and the caused entity would be physical?

who knows for sure? yet we have physical exzample of similar effects, i.e. 2 inert chemicals can be combined for to create an active chemical. say amfo, or other binaries

The non-physical entity is undetectable - by definition. Its effectors are unimaginable. Suppose, that the deist stance is correct, and the universe does need an “external” causative factor (and the meaning of “external” is in question here!). What is the result? The answer: “an undetectable non-physical being, using unimaginable tools made it somehow happen”. How does that help as an “explanation”?

the same as any other explanation, how does a car work? or an airplane fly? if you understand the mechanism you can make choices maxising you benefit from this knowledge, say buying a more effecient car, or choosing to charter a particular plane for its comfort.

in the same way knowledge of a non-physical first cause, allows one to maximise the benefits of ones life, to choose a philosophical path based on that knowledge.

i.e. one can find a value to life more than simply existing for no reason.

Does it have any predictive value? Does it allow us to emulate this supposed “causation”?

none, because it is a one time event, thereis no more to predict that we know of.

The answer is actually the opposite. It would close down any further inquiry into the subject. It is much worse, than a simple “we don’t know this yet”. It would state that this is an unknowable phenomenon once and for all.

all intellectual inquiry is meant to acheive an answer to some question or questions. acheiving an amnswer is hardly a legitiate reason to exclude an argument

 

[cpayne]

.

Both of these could be the correct analogy. Why should we assume that the “titanium analogy” is correct, and the “six foot long analogy” is incorrect? How do you choose between them?

Next, we have never seen an “active” non-physical entity. All the non-physical entites we are familiar with, are inert, conceptual ones. Naturally, this is not a valid argument against the existence of such beings. I just wonder why posit a hypothesis which is purely speculative, which has no reasonable foundation in the observed reality?

Argument from free will: IF there is free will, then causation is not universal. To say that a decision was both “free” and “caused” is a logical contradiction. I am not presenting a physical argument here. We don’t even know IF we have true, libertarian free will. BUT, if we do, then causation is not universal.

Finally, just what kind of mechanism would be involved if a non-physical entity would be the causative factor and the caused entity would be physical? The non-physical entity is undetectable - by definition. Its effectors are unimaginable. Suppose, that the deist stance is correct, and the universe does need an “external” causative factor (and the meaning of “external” is in question here!). What is the result? The answer: “an undetectable non-physical being, using unimaginable tools made it somehow happen”. How does that help as an “explanation”? Does it have any predictive value? Does it allow us to emulate this supposed “causation”? The answer is actually the opposite. It would close down any further inquiry into the subject. It is much worse, than a simple “we don’t know this yet”. It would state that this is an unknowable phenomenon once and for all.

I want to point out: these arguments do not prove that the atheistic stance is correct. These are meant to taken as arguments why the atheists do not consider the non-physical effectors as a valid question.

Hi again. There’s a lot in your response, so I just want to mention some specific things. This is based on both laziness and busyness.

Okay, why choose the “titanium” example over the “six-foot-long” example? Because the universe does, in fact, seem to be contingent, or at least it has many of the qualities of contingency—it is variable, changeable, could have been different from what it is, and so on. So it appears contingent, as does everything within it. If so, it requires a causal explanation.

So do acts of the free will. I don’t think freedom and causation exclude each other; it’s just that in some cases, the cause of the event is the decision of the agent. If one asks, Well, what caused the decision? the answer would have to be “the agent is the cause”—which, by the way, leads us to another non-material cause. This would rankle a materialist, but as a Christian I have no problem with it.

Regarding your last objection: I agree that this line of argument seems to lead to an “unknowable” phenomenon (a singularity, one might almost say ); however, God is not completely unknowable, just as human-agent causation is not completely unknowable. It is, however, mysterious.

Why does the cause of the material universe have to be non-material? Well, if it weren’t, it would have to be part of the material universe itself, right? and as such (given that I am arguing that the universe itself is contingent) it couldn’t be self-caused. I agree that this raises problems as to how a non-material cause can result in a material universe, but again, we see the analogy all the time when we see non-material agents making choices which lead to material actions.

Well there you have it. Hope to hear from you again.

 

[JDaniel]

I will present some arguments for my side (one of which will be incorrect, on purpose).

Incorrect argument: According to some interpretations of QM, we do observe uncaused events (like virtual particles). You would correctly point out that this is just one interpretation, and you would rightfully ask me how do I know that it is the proper one? Bringing up physical arguments for a metaphysical question is not applicable, since science is always subject to change - no matter how well established it seems to be at the moment . . .

What is a virtual particle? I know this may sound stupid, but, if it’s “virtual” is it ****?

Next, we have never seen an “active” non-physical entity. All the non-physical entites we are familiar with, are inert, conceptual ones. Naturally, this is not a valid argument against the existence of such beings. I just wonder why posit a hypothesis which is purely speculative, which has no reasonable foundation in the observed reality?

Perhaps for the same reasons scientists construct speculative hypotheses in order to arrive at some sort of understanding about the nature of something.

Argument from free will: IF there is free will, then causation is not universal. To say that a decision was both “free” and “caused” is a logical contradiction. I am not presenting a physical argument here. We don’t even know IF we have true, libertarian free will. BUT, if we do, then causation is not universal.

This makes me just a tiny bit furious. I have given you the real definition of free will and you continue to use your own definition, blurred by your ulterior motives. The “cause” you are inserting into the definition is of a different usage. “Cause,” as used in regards to free will, is not cause from efficient causality. Circumstances abound that produce two or more possible choices for us, e.g., if I am driving from Florida to Cleveland, OH, and I come to a fork in the road, I have full freedom to choose the left or the right fork. Also, I have the full freedom to turn around and go home. Only in the sense that the choices are limited, is free will said to be caused. My will is simply motivated by the presence of the choices and the perceived end in view.

Efficient causes are quite different. Examples of them are, the physiological mechanism for producing thoughts, e.g., the impetus for the flow of neurons across synapses. Or, it could be a gun pointed at our head, which effectively removes choices for us. It could be a quantum particle turning energy into matter. It could be the creation of a quantum particle. It could be the action of soil and moisture on a seed to start it growing.

Finally, just what kind of mechanism would be involved if a non-physical entity would be the causative factor and the caused entity would be physical? The non-physical entity is undetectable - by definition. Its effectors are unimaginable. Suppose, that the deist stance is correct, and the universe does need an “external” causative factor (and the meaning of “external” is in question here!). What is the result? The answer: “an undetectable non-physical being, using unimaginable tools made it somehow happen”. How does that help as an “explanation”?

Yes, it at least helps one debunk the scientistic view that says it didn’t happen that way, it happened the way we are going to tell you it did, despite any real proof for our claim. Nevertheless, we tie it in with the verisimilitudes of biblical history and prophecy. This whole picture then provides grounding for Hope and Faith, as well as Morality and continued scientific investigation.

How important is this you ask? Well, let’s just look at a real biggie, in the news as we speak. There are a number of scientists, and their companies, that are pushing embryonic stem cell research despite the fact that there has never been one single case of embryonic stem cells producing any kind of beneficial result for mankind, or for the animals they test them on. Not a single one. However, with adult stem cells we have at least 73 successes. Zero to 73. Do you not think that if we were follow the money, we would find a vile, greedy, nasty individual at the end of the trail wringing his hands in glee over the prospect of this windfall? Too bad some scientists have to be bad.

Does it have any predictive value?

Yes. It predicts that, unless the earth is hit by a huge meteor or a gigantic sun spot, tomorrow will be as stable as today. You won’t have to take that poison in your warm milk before you go to bed.

Does it allow us to emulate this supposed “causation”?

That is really the most nonsensical question. The causation is specific to the agent and the agent’s abilities. One cannot expect a one year old to explain the Special Theory of Relativity to a scientist. Yet, an adult scientist could. That question is a smoke screen.

continued…

 

[JDaniel]

Part two.

The answer is actually the opposite. It would close down any further inquiry into the subject. It is much worse, than a simple “we don’t know this yet”. It would state that this is an unknowable phenomenon once and for all.

True, if the question wasn’t nonsense to begin with and required no answer that would have any real effect on any investigation. In fact, this question is the best example yet of your absurd North of North Pole analogy.

The successful replication from experiments is simply not the only way human beings can arrive at knowledge and/or Truth. The “logic” of mathematics helps us arrive at how much change I am to receive if I pay such and such for a certain article. The logic of calculus helps us arrive at the precise interior angles of a multi-sided closed figure. Answers from these kind of questions help many of us to live less pompous lives, possibly improving our personalities, among other things.

I want to point out: these arguments do not prove that the atheistic stance is correct. These are meant to taken as arguments why the atheists do not consider the non-physical effectors as a valid question.

But, we have found, from your arguments, deception, spin, accusations, veiled name calling, arrogant non-sufficient assertions, and condescension - and not one single provocative rebuttal.

Best regards,
jd

 

[crowonsnow]

Perhaps for the same reasons scientists construct speculative hypotheses in order to arrive at some sort of understanding about the nature of something.

How do you test for angels?