There is no God

[EnterTheBowser]

Gilbert Keith:

BOWSER

Which claim is bolder?

It doesn’t matter which claim is bolder. Any bold and certain claim that pretends to be based upon logic must be proven.

The atheist must establish that God does not exist with proof of the same type that he demands from the theist or he is playing foul. Where is the empirical proof that God does not exist?

The theist does not have to offer the same proof because he believes that God is a supra-rational Being. Being the Creator of human reason, he is beyond it, and therefore reason alone cannot prove or disprove His existence according to the empirical method.

God is not a dinosaur, or Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, or any other caricature of himself that atheists wish to offer when they say they can no more believe in God than they can believe in any of these other fictions.

And with regards to the fairy known as Tom, who makes everything happen as if everything happens without his actions - should we reserve judgment regarding Tom’s existence? Or are there rational reasons for supposing that Tom does not, in fact, exist? (namely parsimony). In the absence of evidence, it is reasonable to believe that a thing does not exist - particularly when the thing is extraordinarily extraordinary.

And I will ask again: why shouldn’t we believe in the supra-rational FSM?

I ask again also: do you intend to assert that there are no rational reasons for believing in God, and furthermore that as a matter of course there can be no such reasons?

Incidentally, I will agree with you that God is not a dinosaur, nor is God Santa Claus, nor the Easter Bunny; I don’t believe I claimed such a thing.

 

[hurst]

Alois:

A monotheistic God, which is a God as decribed in the scriptures. Judaism spawned the first monotheistic God, and their beliefs are shown in the scripture, as well as the Christian’s, and as well as the Islamic’s. (their issues in the Bible come from the NT)

I am not addressing “a monotheistic God as described in the scriptures”. I am addressing existence, and the manner in which the recognition of existence leads logically to “a God”.

Alois:

I now say, to make it explicit, that the “perfect somethingness” in the 4-step demonstration (post #735) should be called “God”.

No, it should not. You have shown existence in that post, and still not a God.

More specifically, I have shown intrinsic existence in that post. I followed up with post #791 to show that “intrinsic existence” is the source and cause of “extrinsic existence”. I showed this clearly and logically. This is indeed God as knowable by us through inference in our nature.

What more can I show you?. For you to reject this is to reject logic and natural sense. I pointed out the difference between intrinsic existence and extrinsic existence, even citing natural analogous examples, and you reject even those. You merely repeat your assertion that “existence is not a God”. I have shown how it is, and why it must be, but what have you shown?

Others besides Alois: do you follow the logic and reason in posts #735 and #791?

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

You made the claim that the number system was the “source” of all numbers in it, and that therefore, existence is the “source” or “Creator” of all that is contains. I have shown this to be false, as a number system is made up of all the object contained within it, it is not a source of the numbers.

The “set of Integers” is indeed the source of all integers. You just don’t accept that.

But as for saying “therefore existence is the source”, as if my understanding of number sets had to be accurate in order for my point to be valid, I did no such thing! You are knocking down a strawman.

I was not saying that the infinite set of numbers is the same as God. I was saying that it shows that people already accept the notion of accessing something from an infinite source, without questioning where that source came from or when it started. So the notion of an infinite source providing everything is logical; that was my point.

Alois:

And this discrepancy was in the base of your logic.

No it wasn’t. My logic was that people already accept the notion of infinite sources without questioning, so therefore they should not suddenly question it in regards to existence. This point is not dependent on a precise understanding of an INS regarding semantics, because if I were wrong (and I don’t think I was), then it would only mean I used a poor example. But there are other examples I could use to show the reasonableness of accepting an infinite God.

Alois:

You then went on to ignore this while building on top of your broken base of logic.

I was not building on, because it was not dependent upon it.
If you didn’t follow my analogy, then you should be willing to accept a different one. But you won’t. You seem to be saying that since I made an analogy unacceptable to you, that I have not only not proven my point, but that I can never prove my point, as though it had been disproven by that analogy.

Alois:

Like I’ve said, a number system does not create the numbers within it, it is made up of the infinite amount of numbers in it. You stated that the number system was the “source”, that is false.

It is not false. I did not say “number system” anyway. I referred to the set of Integers, which has no beginning or end. It conceptually provides numbers that become manifested, before they were ever manifested. It is not a false analogy, but you refuse to accept it. That is ok by me, since I have other analogies. But for you to say this disproves my point is simply false.

Alois:

You have not shown it to be logical yet.

Yes I have. You simply refuse to accept it. I am not here to coerce your will. You ought to let the evidence and reason direct you, but you must put forth some effort to follow it.

hurst

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Bowser

Before we go any farther, do you agree that “suprarational” might be in the dictionary even though you can’t find it?

Or will you go so far as to say you believe me when I say “suprarational” is in the Random House Dictionary?

 

[hurst]

Alois:

The “essence” of existence is a product of your mind. What do you mean by essence? How is it a product of existence? Is there an essence of cowboys?

It is not a product of your mind. By essence I mean the “constituent substance”.

Essence is not a product of existence. I have been saying that the p.s. is the essence of existence. But “essence” is not a property, as if I were saying the “color of existence”, no. I mean it in this way: the p.s. is essential to existence, it is what existence consists of, it is the very nature of existing, to “be”. This follows logically from the fact that we know that there was never “total nothingness” because there isn’t right now, and nothing can come from total nothingness. The p.s. (perfect somethingness) is like the inverse of total nothingness. It always existed, by itself, in itself. Its existence is what makes it exist. The fact it is there is why it exists. This must be, for nothing can come from total nothingness. Everything we encounter is from the p.s., whether visible or invisible, whether physical or logical, etc. The p.s. is the essence of its own existence, and it is also the essence of created existences. This causes a fork in the road for the meaning of “existence”, for now we must distinguish between the intrinsic existence and the extrinsic existences.

Alois:

Things that are supernatural are beyond logic. If we observe something that is supernatural and logical, it then becomes natural.

Not quite. It is more that they are beyond the “reach” of logic, for natural logic only deals with natural extrinsic existences. But logic still can apply in the supernatural, only more things are taken into account.

We even see this in the natural world. Recall that Newton’s laws of physics were revamped by GR in such a way that it did not destroy them, but took into account new observations at certain velocities etc. So at low velocities the new components of the formula have a negligible effect, and it simplifies to the Newtonian ones.

In a similar way, the supernatural does not destroy anything of the natural, but rather enhances it to account for the new observations, and it will be seen that they were always there in waiting.

Alois:

If we observe something supernatural and illogical, it still remains supernatural and illogical.

It would not be illogical with the new knowledge.

Alois:

I feel like I’m trying to talk to you at a concert. You have only shown existence, you have yet to show a God.

I am showing the first knowable aspect of existence, which is the p.s. from post #735. In post #791 I go on to give the p.s. a name, “God”, because all existence subsists in it: “God” subsists in Himself, and all creation also subsists in “God”. “God” exists intrinsically, creation exists extrinsically. I started elaborating on the other attributes of this intrinsic existence, but you are still stuck on whether existence is God. I have shown you how it is so, but you are going to have to stop clinging to your presumed definitions in order to see what I am showing you. This is not faith, this is understanding a concept. Are you deliberately refusing because you predicted the outcome? But at least I give you a new understanding of “existence”. It is not just the sum of all manifested and possibly manifested things.

It would seem that you know it is illogical to believe that “existence” does not exist, which is why you reject the classification of “existence” as God. But again, I have shown you that the p.s. is not the “existence” you are thinking of. It is intrinsic, and the manifested universe is clearly extrinsic. We can know this as surely as you say you can know there is not a square circle.

hurst

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Gilbert Keith:

Bowser

Before we go any farther, do you agree that “suprarational” might be in the dictionary even though you can’t find it?

Or will you go so far as to say you believe me when I say “suprarational” is in the Random House Dictionary?

Agreed on both counts.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BOWSER

*I ask again also: do you intend to assert that there are no rational reasons for believing in God, and furthermore that as a matter of course there can be no such reasons?
*
It depends on what you mean by “rational.”

Once the atheist admits he cannot prove that God does not exist, he must begin to assert that it is possible that some type of God may exist. Admit this and God become possible, as opposed to impossible. What is possible may not exist: then again, it may.

Is it rational to believe that God exists? Yes, if on balance the world makes more sense with a God than without a God. Yes, if on balance the world is a better place because God exists than if God is argued not to exist. Yes, if on balance the world is a much happier and more meaningful place to live in than would be a godless universe.

The word “rational” cannot be limited to the function of the brain, but to the whole person … to the interests of the whole person. To cut the brain off from the rest of the person and to judge the worth of every “truth” by whether it stands up to a criteria applied by sovereign intellect is arrogant and self destructive in the end.

This does not mean that imagination or instinct must take the place of intellect. This does not mean that intellect has no vital role to play in the development of spiritual values. This does not mean that every spiritual value is to rule over intellect and veto our sense of the true and the false. What it means is that instinct, imagination, reason … all play a harmonious part in revealing to us the ultimate truths that are in the realm of the “supra-rational” as opposed to the merely rational.

This is why the Bible not only contains so much literal truth, but also offers much to our imagination and appeals to our instincts in a profoundly moving way.

But this only happens when the person opens his head and his heart simultaneously to the supra-rational God.

Again, if we merely demand that God be rational as we are rational, we have closed both our heads and our hearts to God. This is the reason why, in a certain sense, it is quite right to say that we can only learn the truth of Christianity by being a Christian.

Outsiders can yawn or smirk their rational and superior smiles. Even so, they do not understand. They have not wisdom because they have refused or have not bothered to connect with their suprarational self. Most of the atheists I have known became atheists before they were 18. Clearly the suprarational self was done-in at a tender age.

Any real Christian will admit it takes a lifetime, if then, to find the fullness of Christ. And that is as it hould be. Not truth, nor happiness, nor prosperity, nor salvation should come to us as a free lunch.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Gilbert Keith:

BOWSER

*I ask again also: do you intend to assert that there are no rational reasons for believing in God, and furthermore that as a matter of course there can be no such reasons?
*
It depends on what you mean by “rational.”

…

Is it rational to believe that God exists? Yes, if on balance the world makes more sense with a God than without a God. Yes, if on balance the world is a better place because God exists than if God is argued not to exist. Yes, if on balance the world is a much happier and more meaningful place to live in than would be a godless universe.

Those second two conditions are definitely false. Would the world be, on balance, a better, happier place if I had another teddy bear? Yes, it probably would - I happen to like teddy bears, and it would hardly hurt anyone else for me to have a teddy bear. Does this mean that I do, in fact, have another teddy bear? No, it does not, and I would be just a little strange if I thought it meant that I did in fact have a teddy bear.

I think the claim you made seems to entail that the world is perfect, actually. Let’s imagine some thing X, which if it existed, would make the world a better place. Now, we can then conclude that X does in fact exist - or at least that it’s reasonable to believe that X exists, since it would make the world a better place. So there’s no change which could make the world better/happier/more meaningful and which it is reasonable to believe does not obtain. So the world is perfect (or at least it’s rational to believe that it is), since there is no change that could improve it. Did you mean that?

The word “rational” cannot be limited to the function of the brain, but to the whole person … to the interests of the whole person. To cut the brain off from the rest of the person and to judge the worth of every “truth” by whether it stands up to a criteria applied by sovereign intellect is arrogant and self destructive in the end.

I’m sorry, I can’t help but say: so it is through my pancreas that I know I that God exists? Or perhaps my gallbladder? Or perhaps through my gluteus maximus? It seems fairly likely that the important bits of a person - their mind - is rather tied to the activity of the brain, and not other parts of their body.

This does not mean that imagination or instinct must take the place of intellect. This does not mean that intellect has no vital role to play in the development of spiritual values. This does not mean that every spiritual value is to rule over intellect and veto our sense of the true and the false. What it means is that instinct, imagination, reason … all play a harmonious part in revealing to us the ultimate truths that are in the realm of the “supra-rational” as opposed to the merely rational.

I will admit that the imagination is a great tool for understanding the world - but it generates hypotheses only, just as reason only judges hypotheses. And so if some particular hypothesis I should develop is rejected by reason - if it is unreasonable - well, it is back to the drawing board.

This is why the Bible not only contains so much literal truth, but also offers much to our imagination and appeals to our instincts in a profoundly moving way.

But this only happens when the person opens his head and his heart simultaneously to the supra-rational God.

Again, if we merely demand that God be rational as we are rational, we have closed both our heads and our hearts to God. This is the reason why, in a certain sense, it is quite right to say that we can only learn the truth of Christianity by being a Christian.

Outsiders can yawn or smirk their rational and superior smiles. Even so, they do not understand. They have not wisdom because they have refused or have not bothered to connect with their suprarational self. Most of the atheists I have known became atheists before they were 18. Clearly the suprarational self was done-in at a tender age.

Any real Christian will admit it takes a lifetime, if then, to find the fullness of Christ. And that is as it hould be. Not truth, nor happiness, nor prosperity, nor salvation should come to us as a free lunch.

Well… I’m not sure what your answer to my question actually was. Are there rational reasons for believing in God? Or are there only instinctual or emotional reasons for doing so? And if you say that there are only reasons which are both rational and emotional for believing in God - what does that mean? What would such a reason be?

My other question remains unanswered: why shouldn’t we believe in the supra-rational FSM?

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Originally Posted by hurst
The reason I say this is because it establishes something more than what is typically called “existence”. It establishes that a “perfect somethingness” always existed, and thus must be the “essence” of existence. So if anything “exists”, it is as a result of this “perfect somethingness”, but is not a part of it inherently.

This is an assumption, and an untrue one if we look at the true nature of existence.

Not an assumption, but shown and established by clear logic and natural sense.

It is also borne out in truth when we look at the nature of existence. Even within extrinsic existence, there are further levels of extrinsic existence. For example, the atomic is extrinsic to the subatomic, diamonds and coal are extrinsic to carbon, ice sculptures are extrinsic to water, construction extrinsic to blueprints, etc. In the same way, the manifested universe is extrinsic to the p.s. because it is not essential that the manifested universe exist in order for the p.s. to exist. So they are not one and the same thing. But that the manifested universe does exist, absolutely proves that the p.s. must also exist.

Alois:

Existence defined is everything.

That is just a generality, and not the essence of existence.

Alois:

Everything that exists is existence.

This is illogical and demonstratably false.

While it is logical and demonstratable that “perfect somethingness” always existed, and that everything that exists subsists in it, it does not follow that everything that exists “is” it.

We know for a fact that the universe consists of extrinsic existences, as I already showed. These do not exist of themselves, but are composed of other existences. They inherently did not always exist extrinsically, for they were formed at some point. Thus these existences cannot possibly “be” existence themselves, for they were not manifest from eternity. In fact, anything manifested is extrinsic to what it is manifesting.

Why do you deny the logic and reason in this?

Everything that exists not of itself is extrinsic existence.
That which exists of itself is intrinsic existence.
“Perfect somethingness” exists of itself, and is intrinsic existence.
The p.s. is the only intrinsic existence that there can be.
The p.s. must be “God”.

“God” is intrinsic existence, and as I have shown, there is no other, nor can there be. But “God” is not extrinsic existence, and we observe extrinsic existence directly. Extrinsic existence exists only insofar as it participates and subsists in another existence.

There can not be extrinsic existence from total nothingness, and it therefore follows that there was never “total nothingness” and that “perfect somethingness” is the source and cause of extrinsic existence. Yes, this also proves that the p.s. has a will to cause something, for there otherwise would not be something extrinsic to itself that could have begun.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Existence is not “perfect somethingness”,

I showed logically, naturally, and reasonably that “perfect somethingness” is intrinsic existence, and not the other way around. Please stop misconstruing my case.

Alois:

this is a concept that you yourself have invented in order to put your source of everything above the definition of existence, but it is just as much a leap as claiming that God is real.

Are you in denial? Did I “invent” it? Did I not rather demonstrate, show, and prove that the concept was already there, regardless of the name one might give it?

How is it “just as much a leap”? I showed in 4 steps using logic, natural sense, and human reasoning. There is no leap of faith, nor blind claim here.

Alois:

What you have classified as perfect somethingness is existence.

Yes, but more specifically, intrinsic existence.

Alois:

There is no giant pool that existence pulls its possibilities out of, existence contains all such possibilities.

You don’t seem to be listening to reason. There is clearly a hierarchy of existence even in the visible universe. There is clearly an invisible existence, including but not limited to concepts, which are forms from which we fashion visible things.

So at a minimum, the logic is clear with respect to concepts and objects: that there is a giant pool of non-manifested concepts from which manifested existence pulls its possibilities out of. An example is an author thinking up a story, and then writing it down. Another example is an artist visualizing a scene, and then painting it. It is clear that there is no end to the number of stories or paintings that could be produced in this manner, and that they don’t all exist in the universe already.

Why do you continue to ignore extrinsic, or manifest, existence as separate from intrinsic existence?

Alois:

Over and over I have said this, but it’s as if you don’t hear me. Existence contains all that exists, it is the product of everything.

What is the point of that? It neither proves nor disproves anything. Is it not a generality, merely a general reference to all things that exist? It includes both the eternal intrinsic and the (past, present, and future) extrinsic existences. In a general sense of the word, it includes the p.s. along with what is later created by the p.s.

Alois:

There is no “perfect somethingness”, that is a concept you invented.

Rather, it is what I demonstrated using logic, natural sense and human reason.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

It is precisely the manifested “existences” that we know do not inhere in the “perfect somethingness”, and thus only participate in it.

This is an example of you building on top of faulty foundations. Maybe you just didn’t read the post in which I showed this to be false, I hope so.

Perhaps it is rather a communication problem. I interchange terms to enhance meanings, but perhaps it confuses you.

The observable fact of extrinsic existence, and the demonstrated fact of intrinsic existence are a solid foundation. I wonder how you miss this.

I read all your posts responding to me. I hope you read mine, because I show why it is true and logical and reasonable.

Alois:

This participation must logically be in such a manner that it takes its form from the “perfect somethingness” without being inherently part of that perfect somethingness, for something perfect cannot be improved or degraded.

Wrong. It is a form of existence. There isn’t a perfect somethingness, and you can’t possibly claim to understand even the conception of a perfect somethingness, which is infinite and yet someone bounded in your own mind as an object from which things are derived.

I agree we can’t fully “understand” perfect somethingness, ever.

However, we can certainly know it exists. It is logical, reasonable, and proven by the lack of total nothingness. And the observation of temporal forms of existence is proof that there is a kind of existence that is not eternal, and thus not intrinsically part of the logically existing eternal “perfect somethingness”.

Alois:

Perfect somethingness, aka existence, is everything. It’s existence. P.S. is not something beyond existence. If you want to make the claim that is is something beyond existence, you need to support it by showing it as seperate from existence.

Rather, perfect somethingness is intrinsic existence: not composed of anything else, for it has already been demonstrated that “total nothingness never existed”, thus, “perfect somethingness always existed”.

And I am not saying that it is separate from “existence”. But I am saying that extrinsic existence is separate from it, though yet dependent upon it.

Alois:

You remind of an ID advocate in the way you simply change the wording but imply exactly the same thing. (God) You logic is unfounded in this matter.

It is well founded, regardless of your assertions to the contrary. The fact is that “perfect somethingness” exists intrinsically regardless of the term you wish to use.

Perhaps you are biased because you associate many other things to the term “God”. But I would encourage you to just start with what you can know about intrinsic existence and how it differs from extrinsic existence. Many “traits” of this intrinsic existence will become clear through continued observation and logic.

So far I have shown that you have no logical, sensible, reasonable excuse to deny the eternal, intrinsic existence of “perfect somethingness” as a true reality.

Alois:

There you go again, throwing out the concept of an “essence” without defining it, or showing to even be a logical idea. What is essence?

Defined in previous post.

Alois:

… you go on to avoid the root of the matter while making extraordinary claims about “perfect somethingness”.

I showed logically how they follow from the intrinsic existence of the “perfect somethingness” which I demonstrated logically, sensibly, and reasonably to actually exist.

hurst

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

And it does not seem self-evident to me.

fair enough.

EnterTheBowser:

You’ve yet to give reasons why this sort of world is logically impossible.

well, i did, more or less: there’s at least a colloquial synonymy between “self-evident” and “necessary”; thus, if the causal principle is self-evident, it’s probably necessary; which, as you know, means true in every possible world.

EnterTheBowser:

I guess, then, no sort of evidence could possibly count as evidence against the causal principle. And if that’s true, there can be no evidence for it, either. It has to be some a priori principle. And you’ve yet to provide reasons why we should think it is.

sure. there’s no evidence for any self-evident proposition: that’s what it means to be self-evident.

look, there are lots of these principles, none of which are susceptible to demonstration by appeal to prior and more obvious truths. i mean, how would you go about trying to support your belief in the principle of non-contradiction? or identity? or excluded middle? or modus tollens?

let me ask you: why does lack of evidence of a particular cause in the case of vacuum fluctuations count as evidence of ***non-***causation, when lack of evidence of a cause does not count as evidence of non-causation in, say, a murder trial? or in any other moment of regular, day-to-day, macroscopic life?

what would you think of someone who told you, “see that car over there? well, i didn’t see anyone make it, and i don’t know where it came from, so i guess it must just have appeared there randomly”?

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

Well… I’m not sure what your answer to my question actually was. Are there rational reasons for believing in God? Or are there only instinctual or emotional reasons for doing so?

i would say that there are both discursive reasons and “instinctual” reasons for believing in god, just as there are discursive reasons and instinctual reasons for believing in things like other minds, or the reality of a mind-independent world; it’s just obvious to a lot of people that there is a god (or “more-than-human source of meaning and value”, if you prefer a less sectarian description), just as it is obvious to most people that there are other minds that occupy an objective world that is indpendent of them and their minds.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

i would say that there are both discursive reasons and “instinctual” reasons for believing in god

…

So why all this talk about a suprarational God, if there are rational reasons for believing in God?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

fair enough.

well, i did, more or less: there’s at least a colloquial synonymy between “self-evident” and “necessary”; thus, if the causal principle is self-evident, it’s probably necessary; which, as you know, means true in every possible world.

sure. there’s no evidence for any self-evident proposition: that’s what it means to be self-evident.

look, there are lots of these principles, none of which are susceptible to demonstration by appeal to prior and more obvious truths. i mean, how would you go about trying to support your belief in the principle of non-contradiction? or identity? or excluded middle? or modus tollens?

let me ask you: why does lack of evidence of a particular cause in the case of vacuum fluctuations count as evidence of ***non-***causation, when lack of evidence of a cause does not count as evidence of non-causation in, say, a murder trial? or in any other moment of regular, day-to-day, macroscopic life?

what would you think of someone who told you, “see that car over there? well, i didn’t see anyone make it, and i don’t know where it came from, so i guess it must just have appeared there randomly”?

Perhaps, instead of your example, we should imagine this scenario: a person comes to you and tells you that the car over there just appeared randomly. She’s got a large number of independent eyewitnesses, several different recording devices that notice that the car just appeared; she had previously scoured the area for anything that either is or might become a car, and having searched extremely thoroughly found none; after the car appeared she went back in time and conducted an even more thorough for possible causes for the car’s appearance - and found none; she in fact examined every particle located in a one km radius of the car’s appearance - and found no thing that could have caused its appearance.

But all that is besides the point. If this is what we’re down to, the KCA doesn’t seem particularly conclusive, since you have no support for the causality premise aside from disputed self-evidence, and the second premise is uncertain until physics progresses further.

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

So why all this talk about a suprarational God, if there are rational reasons for believing in God?

i don’t know - you’d have to ask gilbert about the suprarational stuff; i’ve been presenting the discursive reasons.

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

Perhaps, instead of your example, we should imagine this scenario: a person comes to you and tells you that the car over there just appeared randomly. She’s got a large number of independent eyewitnesses, several different recording devices that notice that the car just appeared; she had previously scoured the area for anything that either is or might become a car, and having searched extremely thoroughly found none; after the car appeared she went back in time and conducted an even more thorough for possible causes for the car’s appearance - and found none; she in fact examined every particle located in a one km radius of the car’s appearance - and found no thing that could have caused its appearance.

ahh - and here’s the rub: in your last line you say that we’d discovered that nothing could have caused the car to come into existence - that it is, in other words, impossble that it have been caused.

but this isn’t the case with QM - there are models in which there are causes for vacuum fluctuations.

but let me ask you this: what would count for you as evidence that it was impossible for something like the car to have been caused to come into existence? how would one demonstrate such a thing?

EnterTheBowser:

But all that is besides the point. If this is what we’re down to, the KCA doesn’t seem particularly conclusive, since you have no support for the causality premise aside from disputed self-evidence, and the second premise is uncertain until physics progresses further.

well, we have the support that every physical process of which we are aware involves causality, except for the speculative examples of certain indeterministic quantum reactions like vacuum fluctuations, which is itself disputed and far from certain; certainly much less sure than all of our experience with and in the macroscopic realm and everything else in the microscopic realm.

what’s more, we have the pivotal theoretical role that the principle of causality plays in scientific investigation: the very scientific enterprise proceeds on the assumption that everything that happens is caused to happen. if it didn’t, how would we conduct any experiments?

and the second premise is only uncertain in he way almost every proposition is uncertain: i.e. there’s no knock-down, drag-out proof for its truth. but, again, that’s a liability for every theory. and the only reason we have to think it false is, again, an enormously conjectural theory put forth by hawking which involves a nonsensical ontology (imaginary time). consider that, for example, linde’s chaotic inflationary model made a similar attempt to eliminate the initial singularity, but was shown to have failed by vilenkin…

anyway. every reason you have given for suspending belief in the soundness of the KCA is incredibly tenuous at best, and i’d be willing to bet that if anyone presented you with similarly weak uncertainties regarding your other beliefs, you’d dismiss them as insufficiently conclusive to mitigate your conviction in those beliefs. it strikes me as about as reasonable as disbelieving in the ingenuity of ancient egyptian structural engineering because it’s conceivable that aliens built the pyramids.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

ahh - and here’s the rub: in your last line you say that we’d discovered that nothing could have caused the car to come into existence - that it is, in other words, impossble that it have been caused.

but this isn’t the case with QM - there are models in which there are causes for vacuum fluctuations.

but let me ask you this: what would count for you as evidence that it was impossible for something like the car to have been caused to come into existence? how would one demonstrate such a thing?

I’m sorry for ever continuing the discussion about the car. You’ve already asserted that there cannot be any evidence against this causal principle; if there appears to be such evidence, we just haven’t looked hard enough. But since you ask, it would actually be pretty hard to take a single event as evidence of noncausality. On the other hand, if we had a repeated phenomenon (say ping pong balls popping into existence), and we saw that there was no other phenomenon which was correlated with this one, then that would be pretty good evidence of noncausality (since causality implies correlation). But this doesn’t matter; you’ve asserted that causality is a necessary, a prioiri principle. QM doesn’t matter in that case, nor does any other piece of evidence, as you previously argued.

well, we have the support that every physical process of which we are aware involves causality, except for the speculative examples of certain indeterministic quantum reactions like vacuum fluctuations, which is itself disputed and far from certain; certainly much less sure than all of our experience with and in the macroscopic realm and everything else in the microscopic realm.

what’s more, we have the pivotal theoretical role that the principle of causality plays in scientific investigation: the very scientific enterprise proceeds on the assumption that everything that happens is caused to happen. if it didn’t, how would we conduct any experiments?

I previously argued that science would not, in fact, break down in a universe where ping-pong balls randomly popped into existence without cause. If we admit that some things begin without cause it does not follow that everything begins without cause.

and the second premise is only uncertain in he way almost every proposition is uncertain: i.e. there’s no knock-down, drag-out proof for its truth. but, again, that’s a liability for every theory. and the only reason we have to think it false is, again, an enormously conjectural theory put forth by hawking which involves a nonsensical ontology (imaginary time). consider that, for example, linde’s chaotic inflationary model made a similar attempt to eliminate the initial singularity, but was shown to have failed by vilenkin…

…

The point is that the premise that the universe began is not yet supported or denied by physics - science is inconclusive on this fairly empirical question. So an argument based on that premise is similarly inconclusive.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Bowser

My other question remains unanswered: why shouldn’t we believe in the supra-rational FSM?

You seem to have forgotten that I said I would answer one question at a time. Please remember that in future posts if you ask several questions at once, I will choose to answer only one, so as to keep the focus narrow and intense, rather than scattered and shallow.

Your turn to answer a question, if you will.

How do atheists account for the universal instinct (except for atheists) to believe in the suprarational? That is to say, a reality beyond, above, or behind the reality that is visible to us.

 

[Paris_Blues]

Hmmmm…let me answer the title…

There IS a Godimages.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/hyper.gifimages.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/hyper.gif%between%%between%