There is one more general subject area which I will address, (at least one) before I place this blog on hiatus status, or quit it altogether other than to answer questions or propositions. (Actually that is my favorite part of this endeavor, at least until the commenter adheres dogmatically to demonstrable logic fallacies.)
This coincides with Richard Dawkins coming to the Atheist “Reason Rally” (I think it is called), and he has made his standard erroneous comments in advance, attempting to claim reason and science for Atheism and that alone. But there is a true philosopher of science whose words I will quote below as a demonstration of actual reason, and the place of science within it.
Karl Popper:
“The old scientific ideal of episteme – of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge – has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever. It may be corroborated, but every corroboration is relative to other statements which, again, are tentative. Only in our subjective experiences of conviction, in our subjective faith can we be ‘absolutely certain’. (note 5)
With the idol of certainty (including that of degrees of imperfect certainty or probability) there falls one of the defences of obscurantism which bar the way of scientific advance. For the worship of this idol hampers not only the boldness of our questions, but also the rigor and integrity of our tests. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth that makes a man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.”
[emphasis in the original].
Note 5 [in Popper’s note sequence, ed.]: … The last remark is of course a psychological remark rather than an epistemological one…
Popper, Karl; “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” (1935), Routledge, 1980; pp. 280, 281.
Compare this to Dawkins preparatory speech for the Atheist rally. And especially consider the honesty of Popper’s ‘note 5’ in comparison with the comments of Dr Dawkins.
Dawkins:
“Reason, as played out in the grand cooperative enterprise called science, makes me proud of Homo sapiens. Sapiens literally means ‘wise,’ but we have deserved the accolade only since we crawled from the swamp of primitive superstition and supernatural gullibility and embraced reason, logic, science and evidence-based truth.”
According to this Atheist evangelist, reason of which to be proud is attached only to science, and wisdom is defined as embacing reason, logic, science and evidence-based truth. If you have paid any attention to the actual function and limits of science, you know that this statement is false: evidence (material, of course) never produces truth; reason is not restricted to empirical findings; for Atheists and Materialists, logic is nothing more than a worshipful word, useful for a logo, but a hindrance to the ideology. And wisdom is never, ever attached to empirical, experimental data.
Dawkins:
“We now know the age of our universe (13-14 billion years), the age of the Earth (4-5 billion years), what we and all other objects are made of (atoms), where we come from (evolved from other species), why all species are so well adapted to their environments (natural selection of their DNA). We know why we have night and day (Earth spins like a top), why we have winter and summer (Earth is tilted), what is the maximum speed at which anything can travel (two thirds of a billion mph). We know what the sun is (one star among billions in the Milky Way galaxy), we know what the Milky Way is (one galaxy among billions in our universe). We understand what causes smallpox (a virus, which we have eradicated), polio (a virus, which we have nearly eradicated), malaria (a protozoan, still here but we’re working on it), syphilis, tuberculosis, gangrene, cholera (bacteria and we know how to kill them). We have built planes that can cross the Atlantic in hours, rockets that safely land men on the moon and robot vehicles on Mars, and might one day save our planet by diverting a meteor of the kind that - we now understand - killed the dinosaurs. Thanks to evidence-based reason we are blessedly liberated from ancient fears of ghosts and devils, evil spirits and djinns, magic spells and witches’ curses.”
Extolling the many virtues of science should have no effect on the rational observer; in fact, the entire purpose of this lengthy list is found in the last sentence: “evidence-based reason” has liberated us. Yes, in that one, single, sense, it has. But watch for the straw man being constructed. And consider what “liberation” means in that context, and the context coming up.
Dawkins:
” Who then would rally against reason? The following statements will sound all too familiar.He is now in full straw man mode: if you aren’t one of us, then you are one of the following, a list to be found deplorable and disgusting.
1. “I don’t trust educated intellectuals, élitists who know more than I do. I’d prefer to vote for somebody like me, rather than somebody who is actually qualified to be president.”Could there be a more prejudiced, biased and false statement? Let’s ask for evidence to support the claim that this opinion actually exists, and if it does, the extent of the population which holds it. It is a cartoon straw man, under construction.
Let’s consider an alternative:
1. I don’t trust self-anointed intellectuals who are still in school, never having left, never having tasted industry, commerce, nor having to face the economic or social consequences of their ideologies. Many of these self-anointed elites, if not most of them, actually believe that they know more about more than people who lead lives in actual reality - roughly half of whom have I.Q’s higher than the self-anointed “intellects”, those who think that wisdom derives from experimental data, those who strive to prove (without data) that there is no conscious mind, no free will, no agency, and who think that electron position determines human actions. [Take a breath here]. Those whose pompous declarations claim an “evidence-base”, yet whose proclamations are generally evidence free, and unsupportable due to non-falsifiability (they are moral in nature). Fortunately, there is no requirement that I vote for someone based on his personal self-image of intellectual (and thus moral) superiority: those people are dangerous.
Dawkins:
2. “Rather than have them learn modern science, I’d prefer my children to study a book written in 800 BC by unidentifed authors whose knowledge and qualifications were of their time. If I can’t trust the school to shield them from science, I’ll home-school them instead.”Dawkins thinks that science = evolution and nothing more. In fact, evolution is not and cannot ever be, on a par with real science: evolution is not a necessary or sufficient principle upon which to base deductive hypotheses for developing biological advances, despite what Atheists believe about it. While it might not be false, it has not been proven valid with the same conclusiveness available to other sciences, and those are contingent and tentative (remember Popper?).
More importantly, Dawkins et. al. want evolution (and science in general) to be taught as the one source of knowledge, the one source of wisdom, and the one source of intellectual integrity; evolution explains everything, with no further thinking required; the subject is settled science. This is blatantly false.
The purpose of home schooling is slandered by Dawkins, in combination with slandering the bible. Home schooling has been shown in scientific testing to produce superior students in every – every – subject, including science. This places Dawkins in the contradictory position of having to deny the actual science concerning home schooling in order to maintain his denigration of home schooling.
Public schools, on the other hand, consistently produce high drop-out rates (especially amongst minorities) and high degrees of illiteracy which must be compensated for in university make-up classes. They must place effort on the weakest at the sacrifice of the strongest students. Ever since John Dewey got ahold of the education community, the focus has been on training workers and abandoning education for creating literate, reasoning community members.
Dawkins’ professed “evidence base” is lacking in his claim, and in actuality, is false – demonstrably false as shown with evidence to back it up.
Dawkins:
” 3. “When I am faced with a mystery, with something I don’t understand, I don’t interrogate science for a solution, but jump to the conclusion that it must be supernatural and has no solution.”The straw man thus becomes completely absurd; Dawkins has gone over the edge in trying to create a populace to despise and deprecate. Has he any evidence to support his claim that such people exist, in the extremes he says? Or is he drawing cartoons again? He goes on:
Dawkins:
” That is the fourth time in this essay I have said something like: “the Reason Rally is not for you.” But let me end on a more positive note. Even if you are unaccustomed to living by reason, if you are one of those, perhaps, who actively distrust reason, why not give it a try? Cast aside the prejudices of upbringing and habit, and come along anyway. If you come with open ears and open curiosity you will learn something, will probably be entertained and may even change your mind. And that, you will find, is a liberating and refreshing experience.”
It appears that Dawkins means to substitute his own idol for the perceived evils he designates per his own opinion. The Reason Rally thus becomes an idol worshipper's religious retreat, where the idol is science and evidence is the absent ruler.
If you would understand and exercise reason, then compare Dawkins’ propositions to those of Popper. And consider which one is offering the "idol" for worship.
54 comments:
"I place this blog on hiatus status, or quit it altogether"
:(
:(
Stan,
Talk like that is gonna get a petition going.
Hello Stan,
I have been following your blog recently only but it's a shame to see it go away now, as I was going to ask some simple questions.
I was raised by Atheist parents who were as perfect as parents can be, but obviously never told me anything about religion. Living in America I still got exposed to many different religions of course, but nothing ever got my attention.
Obviously, this means I never started to believe in any specific god...
So, what if I am to say: ok, let's pretend I believe in 'God X' for a minute. What can you tell me about this god?
Perhaps I misread your blog and you don't even believe in a god yourself but then I would need to ask you what do you consider yourself to be if you are not an Atheist?
Stan,
What I've got to say is thanks for the information provided, it is a good defence from an analytical prospect.
Kind Regards.
Jim,
I started to write a rather lengthy note on how knowledge is justified, how deductive knowledge is created and justified, and how the questions about the universe have only probabilistic answers, leading to probabilities of external agency...
...when I realized that maybe you don't care about all that. So I should ask you first, do you have a theory of knowledge? If so, is it Materialistic? If so, have you considered the rational basis for it?
What sort of approach to non-material questions are you comfortable with? I'm happy to give a full dump, or merely a partial (but the partial won't be all that satisfying).
PRD - Installer
IF you consider that there is a logical path from "how knowledge is justified, how deductive knowledge is created and justified, and how the questions about the universe have only probabilistic answers" to "leading to probabilities of external agency", then I would love to read it.
BUT to answer your below question for now:
"...when I realized that maybe you don't care about all that. So I should ask you first, do you have a theory of knowledge? If so, is it Materialistic? If so, have you considered the rational basis for it?"
SO, as I said, yes I care; I had philosophy classes in my first two years of college and I loved it. You seem to lean toward that kind of approach. I would not know how to put a single label on my own personal theory of knowledge, as I don’t even know if I have one. I consider that there are things we can know for sure, and others we cannot even pretend to be able to know, ever. My approach goes one piece of knowledge at a time so if we have a serious disagreement on whether a thing can be known or not, I would give more details as to why I consider it to be known or not, but I cannot give a general definition without falling prey to gross generalizations.
IS it Materialistic? Did I consider the rational basis? I would say ‘I don’t know’ to the former since I am not sure what you mean, and I would say ‘yes’ to the later simply because if I have doubts about something I will express my level of doubts and that is the only rational approach there is as far as I know. The opposite would be dogmatically accepting positions that I cannot be sure of, positions that I cannot ‘know’ to be true or not.
FINALLY you wrote:
“What sort of approach to non-material questions are you comfortable with? I'm happy to give a full dump, or merely a partial (but the partial won't be all that satisfying).”
AGAIN I am not sure what you mean by your usage of ‘material’ here. Anything we think about, in our head, is non-material. But defining these things as non-material does not help us prove that these non-material things we think about map to things outside of our own consciousness, be it a material thing or not.
THE number ‘0’ is an example that came to my mind. Perhaps you can explain if I got you correctly by using it: It is non-material because we think about it, but does it exists outside our minds? I would say no... as 0 is a concept used to discuss the absence of something. But by itself ‘0’ does not really exist since it is actually a synonym to non-existence. If something has a ‘0’ something, it means that it does not have that something; it does not mean that it has something else that is ‘non-0’ quality/quantity. Is it a good example of a non-material question?
HAHA, I left the 'PRD - Installer' keywords by mistake; I was at work when I put that comment. Anyway, we'll come back later to see a response...
Jim,
You might not have expected an answer of this nature, but I have found that “knowledge” (if we can call it that) regarding a proposed deity requires an examination of one’s personal views on the most basic human interactions with that which he considers to be “real”. In order for us to communicate with meanings which we hold in common, I need to explain my own understandings and how they are derived. Even words such as “real” hold baggage of underlying philosophical constructs. ( I now use words such as “actual” rather than “real”).
For example, if a person insists that there can be only our universal existence, then according to this theory no proposed thing is real or can actually exist if it does not consist of mass/energy within space/time. This is Philosophical Materialism. It is a philosophical construct which places limitations on the idea of what is “real”. The implications are that existence is mass/energy only (by definition), and that knowledge comes only from evidence which is mass/energy and derived by empirical experimentation.
But Philosophical Materialism cannot produce, ever, evidence consisting of mass/energy which demonstrates that its foundational principle is either true or valid. (True and valid are different concepts in rigorous logic). So Philosophical Materialism is based on a claim which it cannot prove, using its own prescription of truth and reality. Making an immutable knowledge claim on the limits of “reality” which cannot be proven under its own requirements is both false and intellectually sloppy, unless the intent is to protect a related dogma, and then it is intellectually dishonest.
Because Philosophical Materialism cannot be accepted as an immutable fact of existence, then we are in a position of trying to evaluate what can be reasonably known and justified well enough to accept it as knowledge.
There are several issues that arise simultaneously. How do we know (are there process limitations)? What can we know (are there access limitations)? How does information qualify to be considered knowledge (are there acceptable justification procedures)?
How do we know?
There are (at least) two conflicting theories:
1. Knowledge comes only through perception. We can know only that which we can perceive. (empirical knowledge)
2 We can know that which we can deduce. (principles of hypothetical deductive logic).
(Continued from above)
What can we know?
There are three possible sources of information which might become knowledge:
1. sensory: e.g. empirical and information transfer. (material: mass/energy).
2. introspective: e.g. mathematical derivation and philosophical enquiry. (non-material).
3. genetic: e.g. heritable capabilities of the intellect: apprehension, comparison, differentiation, judgment, comprehension. I.e., we “know” how to manipulate sensory and introspective inputs into cogent meanings, and to interpret those meanings.
Objections to knowledge certainty; mutability:
Because sensory knowledge is susceptible to error, it cannot be immutable.
Because empirical knowledge is susceptible to the Induction Fallacy, it cannot be immutable.
Because information transfer is susceptible to noise and transmission error, it cannot be immutable.
Because introspection is susceptible to error, it cannot be immutable.
So, what we think we know is not immutable, it is probabilistic. Because it is probabilistic, it is subject to calculation based on evidence, based on the rules of probability. If an hypothesis is not based on randomness (coin toss), then it is based on evidence:
p [H(X) | e(X)] ~ 0 < n < 1.
Which reads, the probability of an hypothesis, H, concerning an issue, X, given evidence, e, regarding X, approximates 0 < n < 1.
A subject with no possibility of evidence cannot be known, even probabilistically (except to be called 0.5 as in a coin toss). But this is dependent upon how “evidence” is defined. So we will need an Evidentiary Theory.
[I will pause here for your comments and discussion of the above; note that this doesn’t go on forever, we will get to the issue you asked about. But it is necessary that you understand my underlying thought process before we jump to conclusions].
CORRECT, I did not expect an answer of that nature, but I agree that it's important to clarify some basis if we are to disagree on them. And I think there might be some disagreements already. Actually, it's not really disagreements; it's more that I don't know what you mean...
YOU said that you now use words such as “actual” rather than “real”. Can you explain what you mean by that? More importantly, there is a common definition for what the word 'real' means; in its simplest form it contrasts with imaginary. Things that are real thus exist in reality, while things that are not real do not exist in reality; they can still exist in the form of imaginary things. What's wrong with that usage according to you? Is actuality encompassing all that exists, both real and imaginary? Am I too restrictive already by saying that things are either real OR imaginary?
NOW, that was for the first paragraph only... In paragraph 2-3-4, you wrote down what you consider to be the Philosophical Materialism worldview. I have two problems with that: First, I don't understand everything you wrote in there because the words you used seem to have different meaning than what I am used to. But since you wrote a lot already, I don't think it's very useful to clarify, because, the second point is that this is not a worldview that I presented, or that you accept, so why bother discussing it?
HOW do we know? You proposed 2 conflicting theories. I see problems in both. For 1, knowledge does not come only through perception since we can get new knowledge by thinking alone. For 2, we cannot limit knowledge acquisition to deduction; we do get knowledge by perception too, just to name that example.
WHAT can we know? You proposed 3 sources. #1 is what I mentioned in #2 of the previous paragraph. #2 is what I mentioned in #1 of the previous paragraph. #3 is what we call instinct I suppose? But it's more complicated than just genetics as it would be utterly odd to pretend that we have all of the 'capabilities of the intellect' that you mention at birth... right? Also, you say that we 'know' how to manipulate xyz, but that's not knowledge per se, these are skills. Yes we use the same word but 'knowing' a skill is very different from 'knowing' whether a statement is true or not.
OBJECTIONS to knowledge certainty. That's the rest of your comment. The only thing I get from that is that there is nothing that we can know for sure, no knowledge is 100% accurate. I have the feeling that this is not what you meant so I have to ask you to clarify.
CORRECT, I did not expect an answer of that nature, but I agree that it's important to clarify some basis if we are to disagree on them. And I think there might be some disagreements already. Actually, it's not really disagreements; it's more that I don't know what you mean...
It’s difficult to compress a full accounting into short summaries without missing something or messing something up, or making it too obscure to follow. I’ll try to explain as we go.
Again the purpose of this long preamble to the answer to your question is to establish whether we can agree on what the process is for determining the “rational acceptability” of a proposition, even if there is no certitude attached to it.
To expand just a little, there are at least three options to consider when dealing with a new proposition:
(a) Rational acceptability: can a proposition be accepted despite lacking complete certainty; if so, what criteria must it meet?
(b) Rational deniability: can a proposition be denied rationally, and if so, what criteria must be used to judge failure?
(c) Skeptical deniability: any proposition can be denied using a sliding scale of certainty requirements, a scale which regresses to include even axioms (a la Nietzsche).
YOU said that you now use words such as “actual” rather than “real”. Can you explain what you mean by that? More importantly, there is a common definition for what the word 'real' means; in its simplest form it contrasts with imaginary. Things that are real thus exist in reality, while things that are not real do not exist in reality; they can still exist in the form of imaginary things. What's wrong with that usage according to you? Is actuality encompassing all that exists, both real and imaginary? Am I too restrictive already by saying that things are either real OR imaginary?
You have identified the problem with using the term “real” in a discussion which centers around the issue of physical and non-physical; the unspoken tendency is to consider that physical is tautological with real, and non-physical is tautological with imaginary. This makes the conversation impossible due to definitional problems. If one party considers it to be a truth statement that physical is the same as real and non-physical to be imaginary-only, then there remains nothing to discuss.
The use of “actual” or “actuality” is intended to relieve the confusion of statements such as “non-physical things can’t be real because only real things are real”. By comparison one can say that “non-physical things might be actual even though they are not physical”.
(more below)
(continued from above)
"NOW, that was for the first paragraph only... In paragraph 2-3-4, you wrote down what you consider to be the Philosophical Materialism worldview. I have two problems with that: First, I don't understand everything you wrote in there because the words you used seem to have different meaning than what I am used to. But since you wrote a lot already, I don't think it's very useful to clarify, because, the second point is that this is not a worldview that I presented, or that you accept, so why bother discussing it?
I point it out, because it is the default worldview for Atheism, even though not all Atheists subscribe to it. Since I don’t know what your worldview is, and you did not seem to know what materialism is, it seemed necessary to elaborate. Now, if you don’t understand what I wrote, then how do we both know that it doesn’t match your worldview? Which words are you referring to that I have different meanings for?
HOW do we know? You proposed 2 conflicting theories. I see problems in both. For 1, knowledge does not come only through perception since we can get new knowledge by thinking alone. For 2, we cannot limit knowledge acquisition to deduction; we do get knowledge by perception too, just to name that example.
OK. I failed to be complete in the statement of #2. Many Atheo-materialists do not accept thinking as a source of knowledge, and insist that only perception (empiricism) can produce knowledge. #2 was intended as an addition to #1 – i.e. #2 includes both sensory (empirical) as well as internal reflection; #1 excludes internal reflection.
WHAT can we know? You proposed 3 sources. #1 is what I mentioned in #2 of the previous paragraph. #2 is what I mentioned in #1 of the previous paragraph.
Is this a statement of a problem, or is it a summary?
#3 is what we call instinct I suppose? But it's more complicated than just genetics as it would be utterly odd to pretend that we have all of the 'capabilities of the intellect' that you mention at birth... right? Also, you say that we 'know' how to manipulate xyz, but that's not knowledge per se, these are skills. Yes we use the same word but 'knowing' a skill is very different from 'knowing' whether a statement is true or not.
And yet knowing is knowing. Is this a problem? The capabilities of the intellect to which I refer are those of John Locke, as he describes in “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”. My personal assessment, using Reductio Ad Absurdum, is that he is more nearly correct than other theories I have read.
However, the intellectual capacities are not essential (except for completeness) to the overall progress toward a criterion for rational acceptability of a proposition. It would be fine to just drop them for now, so that they are not a barrier.
OBJECTIONS to knowledge certainty. That's the rest of your comment. The only thing I get from that is that there is nothing that we can know for sure, no knowledge is 100% accurate. I have the feeling that this is not what you meant so I have to ask you to clarify.
You have it right, there is no knowledge regardless of source which is 100% certain. Even axioms are not 100% incorrigibly immutable. This is easily justified, but if you don’t accept it then we can discuss why not.
Before we move on, what else needs clarification?
THANKS for the clarifications Stan. I will try to quote you like you did. It seems to be easier to keep moving.
"the unspoken tendency is to consider that physical is tautological with real, and non-physical is tautological with imaginary."
I don't think that 'physical = real' because there are real things that are certainly not physical. Music is the first example that came to my mind. Music is real in the sense that it exists in this reality that we observe through our senses; yet it is not physical per se since music describes the patterns of sound waves placed in a certain way. The sound waves are physical but Music itself is not. Is that a good example of why you don't equate real with physical? Or do you have some more profound philosophical reasons to explain the difference?
" The use of “actual” or “actuality” is intended to relieve the confusion"
Even though I agreed with physical does not equal real, I am not sure about this 'actuality' term. Is actual a word used to describe anything that exists? An opinion would be an example of something actual, that exists, but that is not real in the sense that it's not part of reality, it's only part of my mind. It is thus imaginary, but it is actual because it is not non-existant.
"it is the default worldview for Atheism, even though not all Atheists subscribe to it."
Fair enough. I guess I don't subscribe to it then... or, as you said, because I don't understand it well enough I just don't know. I think that's enough for now since there are other things to clarify. Perhaps we'll come back to Materialism later when I get the link between Materialism and the issue of Atheism-vs-Theism (which is what I am here to ask you about after all...).
"or is it a summary?"
It was a summary, and along with your clarifications for what came before, I think we are on the same page.
"And yet knowing is knowing. Is this a problem?"
Not really, but I just consider that knowing -how- to do something is not the same as learning -about- something.
"the intellectual capacities are not essential (except for completeness) to the overall progress toward a criterion for rational acceptability of a proposition. It would be fine to just drop them for now, so that they are not a barrier."
Again, fair enough, let's move on.
"there is no knowledge regardless of source which is 100% certain. Even axioms are not 100% incorrigibly immutable. This is easily justified, but if you don’t accept it then we can discuss why not."
Nothing is 100% certain? That is a shocker... As I mentioned, I have been browsing your blog a little before commenting and I am pretty sure that I read somewhere that you were arguing about the fact that Atheists are too skeptical and thus refuse to accept the idea that there is any sort of absolute truth. Now it seems to be the opposite, you are the one who claims that nothing is known at 100% certainty? So you are not sure that you exist as part of this thing we call reality?
I don't think that 'physical = real' because there are real things that are certainly not physical. Music is the first example that came to my mind. Music is real in the sense that it exists in this reality that we observe through our senses; yet it is not physical per se since music describes the patterns of sound waves placed in a certain way. The sound waves are physical but Music itself is not
Yes, this seems to be a good example;
" The use of “actual” or “actuality” is intended to relieve the confusion"
Even though I agreed with physical does not equal real, I am not sure about this 'actuality' term. Is actual a word used to describe anything that exists? An opinion would be an example of something actual, that exists, but that is not real in the sense that it's not part of reality, it's only part of my mind. It is thus imaginary, but it is actual because it is not non-existant.
That’s interesting. Where we differ here is in the usage of the word “imaginary”. That term has typically been used in reference to “pink unicorn” statements, i.e. things that are “an impossible fancy” (Webster’s 1979), as opposed to other machinations of the mind. The “opinion” is an interesting choice, being a mental construct in the form of a judgment, or “should” statement, and which is right at the heart of the “should vs. is” issue ( can an ethic – “should” – be a subset of an existence – “is”). And that seems to separate the opinion from physical, at least until it can be shown that an existence can dictate an ethic.
"or is it a summary?"
It was a summary, and along with your clarifications for what came before, I think we are on the same page.
Good.
"there is no knowledge regardless of source which is 100% certain. Even axioms are not 100% incorrigibly immutable. This is easily justified, but if you don’t accept it then we can discuss why not."
Nothing is 100% certain? That is a shocker... As I mentioned, I have been browsing your blog a little before commenting and I am pretty sure that I read somewhere that you were arguing about the fact that Atheists are too skeptical and thus refuse to accept the idea that there is any sort of absolute truth. Now it seems to be the opposite, you are the one who claims that nothing is known at 100% certainty?
Axioms will be next up.
So you are not sure that you exist as part of this thing we call reality?
There is a concept under Radical Skepticism (Pyrrhonism / solipsism) which is commonly referred to as “brain in a vat”. That challenge against knowledge is that one cannot prove that he is not a brain in a vat of nutrients, being fed a stream of data from an army of scientists (or "brain demons", under Descartes) who are creating his “reality”. In other words, there is no way one can prove that he is not deluded, using any reasoning or experimentation. So under this challenge, there is no “absolute” knowledge.
Still there are some things that we can accept with a near certainty, such as axioms. I’ll try to get the next points up later today.
Jim,
The following is terse based on the assumption that because it is basic and simple, it might be an insult to elaborate excessively.
Evidentiary Theory
1. Axioms.
Axioms are based on empirical observations which are verified by Reductio Ad Absurdum, i.e. seeing that the contradictory is not the case. While axioms are also probabilistic, they are of a probability which is high enough to be considered “true”.
For example, we can observe that an object cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. If we test this using the contradictory – that objects can both exist and not exist at the same time – how would the universe be if that converse were actually the case?
We can conclude that the principle is the case and that the contradictory is not the case, and that the probability of that is very high. We can use this principle in judging the validity of other propositions. It is thus an axiom.
There are three axioms called the “Laws of Thought” which are found in logic textbooks and which also were derived mathematically by Boole (”An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, On Which Are Founded The Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probability”, George Boole, 1853).
(a). The Principle of Identity/Tautology.
(b). The Principle of Non-Contradiction.
(c). The Principle of Excluded Middle.
There are other axioms, such as Cause and Effect, and together these axioms are foundational for intellectual enterprises such as logic, science, and mathematics.
2. Material Evidence
(a) Induction of observations into sets.
(b) Deduction of subset from set (hypothesis, experiment, data, interpretation, conclusion, replication).
(c) Falsifiability: the demarcation of the boundary between experimentally differentiable subjects, and those subjects not differentiable experimentally (Karl Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1935).
3. Non-Material Evidence
(a) Subset deduction:
(IF [set K], THEN [subset k])
(b) Deductive extrapolation:
(IF [it happened here on earth], THEN [it might have happened on other similar planets]).
(c) Axiomatic validation:
IF [H(X) & axiom Y], THEN [H(X) conforms to Y].
IF [H(X) & (Law Z(X), based on axiom Y)], THEN [H(X) conforms to Law Z and axiom Y].
Again, this is terse and might require discussion.
"That’s interesting. Where we differ here is in the usage of the word “imaginary”..."
I don't think we differ actually; pink unicorn are imaginary, they are an impossible fantasy, but they exist in our minds since we have this picture of what a pink unicorn is, or would be, if it existed as part of the physical world.
I wonder is that is what you mean by actual though: To use the notion of sets that you wrote later in your comment, pink unicorns are part of the 'actual' set because they exist as a mental construct in our minds, but they are imaginary because they are "stuck" there. We cannot describe unicorns as anything else but an imaginary thing. Actually, that’s not completely true, because we could have a wood sculpture of a pink unicorn. This representation would be physical, not imaginary, but... not alive obviously.
"There is a concept under Radical Skepticism (Pyrrhonism / solipsism) which is commonly referred to as “brain in a vat”."
YES I am well aware of that. That's why I am surprised by your assertion that we cannot know anything at 100% certainty. But we might be saying the same thing actually: We cannot prove we are not brains in a vat, but I consider this to be an example of something we know for sure, let'S say 99.99999% certainty, since the opposite is absurd and stops any new knowledge. So why not say 100%? It's a bit ironic because we know we cannot know, so we conclude that we know. Right? ;)
FINALLY, regarding axioms and the logical laws you described, again, no problem with that of course. I would comment only on one thing though:
"we can observe that an object cannot both exist and not exist at the same time"
TO me, this observation is very important, because it shows why the logic we use is man-made and not nature-made, or whatever else that would be. Logic is based on observations; classical logic starts with the binary observation that something exists, or not. But it could have been something else; quantum mechanics offers an example. It could have been that the most fundamental laws of logic are : An object has a speed and a location, but never both at the same time. This yields a non-binary logic system where all objects have at least 2 properties, but both are never known at the same time.
OBVIOUSLY, classical logic is the only useful form of logic for us so I don't see any issues with your entire second post. I think the only part I am not sure about is the Axiomatic validation. Perhaps you'll use that principle later on with an example and I will understand exactly what you were talking about.
”I wonder is that is what you mean by actual though: To use the notion of sets that you wrote later in your comment, pink unicorns are part of the 'actual' set because they exist as a mental construct in our minds, but they are imaginary because they are "stuck" there. We cannot describe unicorns as anything else but an imaginary thing. Actually, that’s not completely true, because we could have a wood sculpture of a pink unicorn. This representation would be physical, not imaginary, but... not alive obviously.”
If the top sets are Possible and Not Possible,
And the subsets of Possible are Actual and Not Actual,
Then pink unicorns (the fantasy animal, as in living creature) are Not Possible (although not 100%: more on this to come).
Possible and Actual might include terabite disks in PCs, while Possible but Not Actual might include 100 terabite disks in PCs (yet to come).
” let'S say 99.99999% certainty, since the opposite is absurd and stops any new knowledge. So why not say 100%? It's a bit ironic because we know we cannot know, so we conclude that we know. Right? ;) “
Yes. Plus it is calculable to an extent.
” Logic is based on observations; classical logic starts with the binary observation that something exists, or not. But it could have been something else; quantum mechanics offers an example. It could have been that the most fundamental laws of logic are : An object has a speed and a location, but never both at the same time. This yields a non-binary logic system where all objects have at least 2 properties, but both are never known at the same time.”
There could be an infinite number of universes, each with a different set of initial conditions and working rules. We have ours, which we can know, and the principles of which are reliable at the macro level. Logic is based on observation of the conditions of existence in our universe, and consists of stable, uncontroverted principles (so far). So the principles of logic are man-made, and are based on observations of the functioning of the universe, so they are observations of natural principles.
Here are the next principles:
The inductive fallacy: induction of information into sets is commonly used to define “laws” concerning the sets. However, it cannot be said that the law is immutably True, because not all of any set of observations is complete, and some future observation might defy the original law. The standard example is the White Swan observation. At one point in time it could be said, inductively, that because every swan observed was white, that ALL swans are white (a rule or law), based on the large sample size which were observed. However, when Australia was discovered, black swans were found, and that discovery falsified the inductively determined law saying that all swans are white.
Induction can produce convincing data, but it can never be at p = 1.0.
This carries over directly into deduction, which starts with a “law” or set, and deduces a subset.
So neither induction nor deduction can produce immutable Truth. However, as you point out, very high probability can definitely be considered to confer rational acceptability of a proposition. And that is where we are headed.
(continued below)
(Continued from above)
First, Axiomatic Validation:
Any proposition can be validated (within the limits of inductive understanding) by the use of Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA). If we take the contrary to an argument or proposition, and compare it to our understanding of universal actualities (the way the universe actually works), then if the contrary matches universal actualities, the argument is false; however, if the contrary does not match universal actualities ( is absurd) then the argument is valid.
Example: the contrary of the Principle of Non-Contradiction would be that in our universe an entity could both exist and not exist, simultaneously, and that a proposition could be both true and false, simultaneously. Because we do not observe this contrary, then the Principle of Non-Contradiction is rationally acceptable (within the constraints of the inductive fallacy).
Next, a little probability review:
If m = the total number of samples observed, including the next observation,
And,
If n = the number of successful or “true” observations seen in the past,
Then, p = n/m.
Because n is always smaller than m, p cannot be 1.0. In order to be 1.0, the observer must be prescient in order to know that the next, yet to be performed, observation is successful or “true”. Barring prescience, only tautology would allow p = 1.0.
I’ll stop here for more digestion and discussion.
HELLO, I don't see any problem... you remind me more and more of philosophy AND probability classes...
WHAT's next?
OK. We now have the tools necessary for approaching hypothetical probabilities.
First let’s take the standard Atheist hypothesis:
“there is no deity”.
Reminding ourselves that probability calculations depend on prior evidence (unless random):
p [ H(X) | e(X)] = e(Xknown) / e(Xtotal)
Since a deity would exist in a non-physical realm, it is necessary to consider evidence which is gathered in that realm only, in order to avoid a Category Error. Since Atheists cannot gather evidence in the non-material realm, then no matter how many attempts they make, e(Xknown) is 0 (zero), and e(Xtotal) is the number of attempts, Nattempts:
p = (0) / Nattempts = 0.
Discussion:
What sort of non-physical evidence exists which would be necessary and sufficient to create a high probability that “there is no deity”? It would be necessary to have the ability to investigate the non-physical realm, to explore it completely in order to miss nothing, and it would be necessary to have the ability to adequately share that investigation evidence with others who would replicate the investigation. Neither is possible.
Given that there can be no physical or objective evidence concerning the non-physical existence of a deity, then the hypothesis itself is without meaning, at least evidentiarily. Hypotheses without any mechanism for verification or validation are without meaning, except as unsubstantiable opinion. So the standard Atheist hypothesis is no more than an opinion and is unsubstantiable.
Objections:
For that reason some Atheists have changed the hypothesis to be something like the following:
“There is no evidence for a deity, and the burden of proof is on the claimant”.
This is an attempt at an intellectual dodge, a deception which ignores the burden of proof for their actual claim that there is no deity. Even this new hypothesis is without meaning due to having the same evidentiary issues outlined above, and the general retreat to the Category Error.
These Atheists then claim that any personal experience is not acceptable evidence, and that if a deity exists, it must be shown to exist using evidence which can be examined and verified by any and everyone, i.e. resolving to physical evidence which is transferrable between parties (the Category Error).
Conclusion:
It is rationally acceptable to reject the Atheist hypotheses, based first on probability and second, based on logical error in the proposition.
However, this is only the general statement of the Atheist hypothesis; there are other specific Atheist claims which can be similarly analyzed (later).
(continued)
Now let’s examine the basic claim for agent-causation of the universe.
The hypothesis for an existence which is outside and beyond mass / energy is this:
Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity.
Part 2. The initiation of the existence of the universe was not random; was not accidental; was not self-initiated, was not spontaneous.
(a) Not random: we do not observe universes randomly popping into existence.
(b) Not accidental: an accident implies an agent which has lost control.
(c) Not self-initiated: first there is no evidence that self-initiation could have occurred, much less that it did occur; second, we observe no universes self-initiating themselves (we have actual evidence of only one universe, occurring just once).
(d) Not spontaneously initiated: Spontaneous universes are not observed to be popping into existence.
Part 3. The universe was externally caused to exist, and operates on a consistent rule-based basis, even though derived from probabilistic foundations.
Part 4. The cause for the existence of the universe was prior to mass / energy, in other words, was non-physical.
Part 5. The cause was capable of producing the effect (powerful enough to create the effect).
Part 6. The cause was as ordered as the effect.
Part 7. An action which is not random, accidental, self-initiated or spontaneous can reasonably be considered to be purposeful, i.e. agent caused and intentional.
Possible Objections:
(a) Cause and Effect applies only in the frame work of time; the cause must pre-exist the effect.
Contrary: Existing before the start of time is a pre-existence which satisfies the conditions for causality.
(b) The “orderliness of the universe” exists only in our minds, which adapted to this particular universe’s particular behavior, which we see as orderly.
Contrary: If our minds are not orderly, then rationality is not possible and delusion is inherent in all perceptions. The claim that “order is not real” results in logic not being real, which is either a self-defeating, paradoxical claim, or an admission of delusion.
(continued below)
(c) There is no reason to think that the universe’s initiation was not random.
Contrary: No other random universes are popping into existence on a random scale or timeframe.
(d) There might be a natural cause, not yet found.
Contrary: The term “natural” refers to mass / energy existence; there was no natural existence which we know of, or can know of, which existed at the time of, or prior to, the creation of mass / energy. This claim is Scientistic, and without any basis in fact, or substance in logic.
(e) There might be an infinite number of parallel universes, of which ours is only one example.
Contrary: There is no evidence to support this conjecture. Even so, it is possible to create other conjectures such as that some other universes are not physical in nature (being without mass / energy), and might contain non-physical entities which have capabilities outside our abilities to comprehend, and which might be coincident with our universe without our ability to detect them.
Probability:
Since the contraries sufficiently refute the Objections to the hypotheses, and since no data can be taken to support or refute, then the hypotheses regarding agent causation of the universe are rationally acceptable.
The Probability of Producing a Material Effect with a Non-Material Cause:
Evidence of the human mind producing physical changes is everywhere, and has been for millennia. Let’s consider 10 trillion observations:
p [ Non-material cause & Material effect is valid] ~ [(trillions – 1) / trillions] ~ 0.9999999999999 (for 10 trilllion observations).
Objection: There are no cases of non-material causes for material events.
Contrary: When one decides to lift an arm and then does so, it is a case of a non-material cause producing a material effect. There is no initiating material cause, although there are intermediate material cause/effects involved.
Objection: The mind is material.
Contrary: All Material entities are mass, containing energy either kinetic or potential. The mind is not mass and is not a physical lump removable from the brain. Meaning has no mass. Logic has no mass. Decisions have no mass. Experiencing qualia has no mass. Concepts and concept creation have no mass. None of these can be removed as physical lumps from the brain. Also, the mind is not deterministic; mass is deterministic.
Conclusion: The concept of non-material cause / material effect is rationally acceptable.
Jim,
Please consider the above - I know it's long - and let me know whatever comments, questions or objections you might have.
Stan
"Jim,
Please consider the above - I know it's long - and let me know whatever comments, questions or objections you might have.
Stan"
ACTUALLY, it's not that long but it does have a lot of content. Great work!
"First let’s take the standard Atheist hypothesis:
“there is no deity”."
USELESS, since I never believed in any particular god, so I don't even have a definite 'I don't believe in god X'; I simply never believed in anything that looks like what people describe as a god... to me it's just 'magic' that people talk about. I'm sorry if that infantilize your own belief; that is not the intention. I am merely expressing why 'there is no deity' is meaningless.
"“There is no evidence for a deity, and the burden of proof is on the claimant”.
This is an attempt at an intellectual dodge, a deception which ignores the burden of proof for their actual claim that there is no deity."
THAT is simply an approximate copy/paste of the 'there is no deity' thing above. Meaningless.
"Conclusion: It is rationally acceptable to reject the Atheist hypotheses, based first on probability and second, based on logical error in the proposition."
SINCE I don't subscribe to such hypothesis, I guess I agree with you by default :-)
"Now let’s examine the basic claim for agent-causation of the universe."
THE implication here is that the universe was caused by an agent god. Obviously, if the claim is that this god exists, we cannot start by assuming that it exists. However, since I want to save some time and see where the god hypothesis leads us to, I will grant you the fact that god exists.
IN other words, remember that I came here with the question: Let's pretend I believe in 'God X' for a minute. What can you tell me about this god?
LET'S see what we can learn from the rest of your comment. I will stop quoting everything since it will be too long...
WE can thus learn that:
GOD is not:
- Physical/Material
GOD is:
- Cause of the universe
- A rational agent
OK, so... what's next? Because I don't feel like I learned anything about an actual god yet. This is merely a conceptual representation of what could have caused the universe. Note also that, to be frank, I am not convinced by your argument; but I am willing to set aside my opposition for now in order to continue to learn about what god is when "discovered" through logic.
IF you want to know my objections let me know. I insist that it's not necessary to do so, in order to answer the initial question I asked you.
"IF you want to know my objections let me know. I insist that it's not necessary to do so, in order to answer the initial question I asked you."
Hmmm. Perhaps I am unable to answer your question because I misinterpreted it. If by "God X" you meant a random and non-existent fable for which you wanted me to fill in the details, then that is not something I will be doing.
What I can do is to deduce the properties of an actual agent, based on observations and rational extrapolations.
And yes, if you wish to proceed then it would be necessary to discuss whatever reservations you have, as you have them. Otherwise, I am wasting my time, typing up stuff which you don't accept.
If there is a single proposition which you consider false, then no subsequent arguments could be true. So it would be a waste of my time to produce them for you.
(NOTE: Please don't post my previous comment; once again I copy/pasted too much text from work...sorry!!)
“Perhaps I am unable to answer your question because I misinterpreted it. If by "God X" you meant a random and non-existent fable for which you wanted me to fill in the details, then that is not something I will be doing.
What I can do is to deduce the properties of an actual agent, based on observations and rational extrapolations.”
BY ‘Go X’ I meant the god you are talking about. The one that, according to your previous comments, is NOT physical/physical, and IS the cause of the universe and IS an agent. What can you tell me about this god if I assume it really exists?
“And yes, if you wish to proceed then it would be necessary to discuss whatever reservations you have, as you have them. Otherwise, I am wasting my time, typing up stuff which you don't accept.
If there is a single proposition which you consider false, then no subsequent arguments could be true. So it would be a waste of my time to produce them for you.”
TOO bad because I sincerely think that you can answer my initial question without having to convince me that you are correct regarding the existence of such god.
I will thus try to explain the problems I see. One by one.
“Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity.”
HOW can you know that the universe started from some other existence? The universe existed as a ‘non-mass/energy’ thing before becoming mass/energy? It was thus what you called a non-physical entity, but what does it mean for the universe to be a non-physical entity? The universe was merely a thought? It was a concept? It was a process? I really don’t know what you mean and how you differentiate that from ‘nothing’. I was willing to skip over it anyway simply because it seems to mean ‘the universe began to exist’ at some point, which is also not proven true in my opinion, but we can use it as a hypothesis to see where it leads us to.
According to Stephen Hawking (2010) the universe started as just rules, like the law of gravity, and/or the equation collapse of a rule similar to that of Schrodinger’s equation collapse in quantum theory, except on a huge scale. Those are non-mass / energy entities and are non-physical.
Some theories include that of the singularity, in which the entire universe was contained in a dimensionless point (per Brian Greene, 2004); if that were the case, then the mass components could not have existed as mass, but would have to have been something other than mass, ergo, non-material or non-physical per the understanding of the words material and physical.
I am not aware of any current physics theory that posits the pre-existence of mass before the Big Bang, but perhaps you know of one / some?
As far as the question “how do you know?” the answer is that we are establishing here a basis for knowledge which is rationally acceptable, not one which is empirically demonstrated, experimentally, replicably, falsifiably, because the empirical method applies only to material subjects which can be tested, and which could be subsequently refuted. The origin of the universe is a demonstration case for the point of opacity for empirical science, the limit beyond which current and foreseeable empiricism is blind.
Is this an adequate answer? Do you have other objections?
Perhaps this would be an opportune point at which to discuss the limits of deductive logic. It is possible to deduce conclusions which, even though they are not knowable empirically, those conclusions – properly framed and grounded – are rationally acceptable. However, they can take us only so far, because at some point there will be a multiplication of deductions which starts to lose its accuracy. In other words, there is a danger of basing new inductions on older deductions, and starting a chain, an infinite regression, which at some point loses its probable truth value.
So the limit, my own limit, is one level of deduction. This limits the process to deism.
Theism is by definition a personal experience, initiated subjectively, fulfilled by the creating entity at its leisure, and is neither deducible nor is it refutable, including by means of empiricism. It is common for Atheists to claim that such an experience is delusion; however, that claim is skeptical deniability, and is without evidentiary support, so is not rationally acceptable.
So we are at a point where we can say that it is rationally acceptable to consider that (a) there is a high probability for the existence of a creating agent, (b) one with powers and abilities sufficient to have created (c) the universe, (d) the rules governing it, and (e) all the contents of the universe, including (f) the characteristics of those contents.
Beyond that, I have no rational (deductive) evidence to provide which is not subjective in nature.
"According to Stephen Hawking (2010) the universe started as just rules, like the law of gravity, and/or the equation collapse of a rule similar to that of Schrodinger’s equation collapse in quantum theory, except on a huge scale. Those are non-mass / energy entities and are non-physical."
I don't believe that this is what Hawking, or anybody else, says. Gravity is not 'just' a rule. The Schrodinger’s equations are not just equations. These concepts, that are non-physical because they are concepts, describe physical processes. They are grounded in the physical world and describe what we observe.
"Some theories include that of the singularity, in which the entire universe was contained in a dimensionless point (per Brian Greene, 2004); if that were the case, then the mass components could not have existed as mass, but would have to have been something other than mass, ergo, non-material or non-physical per the understanding of the words material and physical."
A singularity is, just like the previous examples, a concept that describes something we observe. However, a singularity is slightly different since we don't literally observe singularities, since they are by definition unobservable. The observations point to a moment in the distant past where everything in the observable universe was compressed so much that the space tented toward 0. The singularity represents this idea that it was literally 0 at some point. But we never observed it being 0; it's mathematical models that show a slope that goes to 0. In other words, it's false to say that the universe ever had a size of 0 at some point in the past. The correct statement is that it approached 0 so much that we can approximate it to be 0; but, by doing so, the equations that we used to get to that 0 breaks down, and our knowledge stops.
"I am not aware of any current physics theory that posits the pre-existence of mass before the Big Bang, but perhaps you know of one / some? "
YOU named one yourself actually. If the universe we see around us is actually part of a network of infinite universes, each with their own characteristic, then mass-energy objects could exist outside of our universe, as part of other universes that are all part of a bigger thing we could call a universe again, or a multi-verse, or God ;-) Obviously, I cannot say that I believe this to be the case, since there is no justification for it. The point is only that it's no more, or less, probable than a single universe alone. But you seem to think otherwise, because you say...
" As far as the question “how do you know?” the answer is that we are establishing here a basis for knowledge which is rationally acceptable, not one which is empirically demonstrated, experimentally, replicably, falsifiably, because the empirical method applies only to material subjects which can be tested, and which could be subsequently refuted. The origin of the universe is a demonstration case for the point of opacity for empirical science, the limit beyond which current and foreseeable empiricism is blind. "
SO, you agree that we cannot know, but you consider to have rationally acceptable arguments to support one option over another. i.e., you have rationally acceptable arguments to believe that where our empirical observations stop, there MUST be a god, an agent, which caused our own universe to be the way it is. I don't understand why?
”I don't believe that this is what Hawking, or anybody else, says. Gravity is not 'just' a rule. The Schrodinger’s equations are not just equations. These concepts, that are non-physical because they are concepts, describe physical processes. They are grounded in the physical world and describe what we observe.”
Then you have not read Hawking, and you are judging based on your own opinion of how it must work. And I take it that you do not accept Feynman’s path integral or the decoherence of Schrodinger’s equation or Heisenberg’s uncertainty?
Hawking:
”On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Ch 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
Hawking, Stephen; “The Grand Design”, Bantam, 2010; p 180.
Next,
” But we never observed it being 0; it's mathematical models that show a slope that goes to 0. In other words, it's false to say that the universe ever had a size of 0 at some point in the past. The correct statement is that it approached 0 so much that we can approximate it to be 0; but, by doing so, the equations that we used to get to that 0 breaks down, and our knowledge stops.”
And yet the posit is that not only is all mass/energy contained in the singularity, but so is space/time; the singularity (or point) or whatever term you choose to describe it, is no longer describable in terms of physical existence which is governed by the understood principles of physics, either classical or quantum: they are something else other than physical. Once again, we are deducing from what we know to what is rationally acceptable; if you must insist that “our knowledge stops,” then we are no longer in inquiry mode and have retreated to Scientism and Materialist empiricism as a sole source for knowledge. If that is your view, then we are actually done.
And then,
” SO, you agree that we cannot know, but you consider to have rationally acceptable arguments to support one option over another. i.e., you have rationally acceptable arguments to believe that where our empirical observations stop, there MUST be a god, an agent, which caused our own universe to be the way it is. I don't understand why?
Your conclusion is stated as an inference of Jumping to Conclusion, which is not what I presented. You have (purposely?) left out the process used to drive the conclusion, a process which is based on logical processes and rational procedures.
So. No, I don’t agree that "we cannot know", my position is that what we know is of variable probability, that empirical knowledge has limitations, and that deductive knowledge can be rationally acceptable and extensible. My position is that it is acceptable to think of propositions which have a probability which is sufficiently high to be true, at least true enough to depend on them in a worldview, exactly as we do certain axioms, including those which underpin science.
And that knowledge which is based on empirical observation, and which is then extrapolated deductively, as is always the case with hypothesis generation, is rationally acceptable, when it is of a high probability. And that probability can be generated by Reductio Ad Absurdum.
Now, if you still cannot understand why, perhaps you could falsify the hypothesis, or failing that, show why the deduction fails. Or failing that, indicate why a deduction cannot, as a general principle, provide such knowledge even probabilistically, or why it is not rationally acceptable. I have provided my case, and in considerable detail. Now it is your turn.
“Then you have not read Hawking,”
ACTUALLY, I have The Grand Design in my line of sight right now :-)
“And I take it that you do not accept Feynman’s path integral or the decoherence of Schrodinger’s equation or Heisenberg’s uncertainty?”
I am not familiar with “Feynman’s path integral” but I did read about Schrodinger’s equation or Heisenberg’s uncertainty principles, but I don’t see why it’s relevant... Let me explain by continuing with the rest of your comment, after you replied to my comment about ‘0’.
“And yet the posit is that not only is all mass/energy contained in the singularity, but so is space/time; the singularity (or point) or whatever term you choose to describe it, is no longer describable in terms of physical existence which is governed by the understood principles of physics, either classical or quantum: they are something else other than physical.”
EXACTLY, the singularity is something else because it is a concept, a product of human thinking. That’s why it’s not physical...
YOU claim that you have rational reasons to believe that this non-physical thing, that the singularity concept points to, is both not a concept and not physical. So I am asking you what is it?
TO me, this singularity is nothing more than a line/curve on a graph. I can even describe it very quickly... Imagine a graph with time on the ‘x’ axis and size on the ‘y’. We start by drawing the point (0,a), where ‘a’ is the current size of the universe. Then, the graph simply goes from (-b, 0) to (0,a), where ‘b’ is the estimated age of the universe. THAT point on the graph,(-b,0) is the singularity. That’s where our math breaks right now (even though certain theories appear to get away with it, but I am no physicist so I stop here...).
“Once again, we are deducing from what we know to what is rationally acceptable; if you must insist that “our knowledge stops,” then we are no longer in inquiry mode and have retreated to Scientism and Materialist empiricism as a sole source for knowledge. If that is your view, then we are actually done.”
IRONICALLY, I think that by claiming that the singularity has to be the product of a god, you are actually the one who insists that our quest for answers should stop there. Yes I claim that our knowledge stops there but I am in no way in favor of stopping to look for more... I am in inquiry mode and will always be! Well, hopefully I’ll have the mental faculties to do so for some time ;)
“Your conclusion is stated as an inference of Jumping to Conclusion, which is not what I presented. You have (purposely?) left out the process used to drive the conclusion, a process which is based on logical processes and rational procedures.”
I am sorry to misrepresent your position; that is not the intention. Remember that I am still stuck at “Part 1” of your arguments... So, I will re-phrase my current objection. You said:
“Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity.”
TO me, when you say non-physical entity, I am thinking of concepts, ideas, dreams, emotions, things like that, that are everyday concepts, or about things like natural laws, logic, numbers, etc... which are, hum, let’s say non-temporal concepts. They are basically tools we use when discussing these other physical or non-physical things.
THE point is that all of these physical OR non-physical things have certain properties and/or a proper definition, but you did not do the same for the cause of the universe. In ‘Part 1’, you take something that we declare to be physical, the mass/energy universe, and state that it started as a non-physical entity, without proper justification.
LET me save us some time though. I think that your justification is what you wrote above, regarding the law of gravity. Right?
THE reason why I disagree is because the law of gravity explains the natural processes we see in nature. Because all the physical entities we have ever observed depict the behavior we label ‘gravity’ we can conclude that all mass/energy entities conform to the law of gravity. So it’s because we have mass/energy things that we have the law of gravity, not the other way around. Yet, what Hawking stated does not contradict what I just said at all since all of his statements are based on observations. We “see” stuff popping out of what appears to be nothing, we “see” gravity all around us, we “see” the expansion of the universe, we “see” that the universe is flat, we “see” that the total energy of the universe is 0, and so on...
“Now, if you still cannot understand why, perhaps you could falsify the hypothesis, or failing that, show why the deduction fails. Or failing that, indicate why a deduction cannot, as a general principle, provide such knowledge even probabilistically, or why it is not rationally acceptable. I have provided my case, and in considerable detail. Now it is your turn.”
TO be clear, I am merely addressing Part 1 of your argument, so I am not even looking at the deduction process that follows it. I see what I consider to be a deduction error INTO Part 1.
I have time only for a short comment, but I will continue when I return later.
The purpose of this comment chain and for the blog itself is to demonstrate that the Atheist contention that there is no creating agent cannot be demonstrated, either physically or logically.
The intent is not to "prove there is a God". The intent is to show that Atheists, under their own system of understanding, cannot demonstrate, much less prove, that there is no creating agent. Further, their own system of understanding is both limited, probabilistic, contingent, and religiously held, to the exclusion of any other sources of understanding. Further still, they use other sources of understanding which they deny exist.
(Your graph doesn't match physicist understandings... but I have to go).
"The purpose of this comment chain and for the blog itself is to demonstrate that the Atheist contention that there is no creating agent cannot be demonstrated, either physically or logically.
The intent is not to "prove there is a God". The intent is to show that Atheists, under their own system of understanding, cannot demonstrate, much less prove, that there is no creating agent."
LET me quote you Stan:
“Any proposition can be validated (within the limits of inductive understanding) by the use of Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA). If we take the contrary to an argument or proposition, and compare it to our understanding of universal actualities (the way the universe actually works), then if the contrary matches universal actualities, the argument is false; however, if the contrary does not match universal actualities ( is absurd) then the argument is valid.”
My proposition, as an Atheist, is that I don’t believe that any of the concepts of god that I have heard of exist outside the minds of humans. I never believed in anything we can describe as a god and nobody was ever able to describe to me why the idea they have in their mind exists outside of their mind. Every single believer I have ever heard of always talks about what they believe, what other before them have believed, and the books that explain what they believe.
IN other words, I am NOT claiming that no gods exist since I don’t even have a particular concept of a god to disprove or prove non-existent. I suppose I could prove that Zeus does not exist because of the way lightings work but that is as far as I can go.
BY the use of Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA), I am attempting, by asking believers like you why they believe, to see if my own belief is correct. Should I believe in one of these gods that I have heard of?
IF you are not interested in continuing down this road that’s fine with me...
“Further, their own system of understanding is both limited, probabilistic, contingent, and religiously held, to the exclusion of any other sources of understanding. Further still, they use other sources of understanding which they deny exist.”
UNDERSTANDING of what? All you know is that I don’t believe in gods. Very funny of you to pretend that, because of that, everything else I understand is “religiously held” :-)
“(Your graph doesn't match physicist understandings... but I have to go).”
PERHAPS I was not expressed my idea clear enough then... Here’s two links, the first one shows a very common image that explains the current undertstanding of the expansion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg
HERE’s a second one that is as close as it could be to what I was trying to explain.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts_exp.html
"Should I believe in one of these gods that I have heard of?"
If this is the sum total of what you want me to answer, then I have nothing to contribute.
Also, the first diagram seems pretty accurate (with the caveat that the universe is a sphere, appearing flat only to humans due to the light speed horizon), noting the extreme non-linearity at the beginning and the growing non-linearity at the far end, both attributed to negative gravity.
The "Quantum Fluctuations" noted at the beginning (t=0) are an indication of non-material existence posited for the planck "nugget" wherein the entire universe (including its dimensions) was packed into a diameter of 10 e-33 cm.
The reference is to the reduction of mass to quantum fields such as the Higgs fields which are probability fields under QM. They are not material in the same sense that mass is material.
But this is all peripheral to what I now see that you want from me.
It should be obvious that I do not know what gods you have been told about and which you reject. So why you address this question to me is a curiousity. It appears that I could have saved a lot of time had I properly interpreted your issue. The apparent answer is no, I cannot tell you if you should believe in one of the gods you have heard of.
Just jumping in to say that having followed this discussion with great interest, and having the same issue with Part1 as Jim, I'd be disappointed to see it apparently end here.
I felt it was very informative and definitely going somewhere until generalised statements about "what 'atheists' believe" were brought into the mix and it lost focus somewhat.
Mike
OK, then. Re: Part 1:
We should define our terminology. Remember that this discussion is about knowledge; the physical view of knowledge is empiricism, which requires observation and experimentation. Inability to observe and experiment crosses the Popper demarcation boundary for empirical knowledge. Lacking the ability to generate empirical knowledge of an entity or event renders it beyond physical knowledge, i.e. non-physical.
Physical / material: being composed of mass/energy in the context of space/time.
Non-physical / non-material: not being composed of mass/energy in the context of space/time.
A “non-“ statement is defined by what it is not, not by what it is. For example, the set [!X] includes everything which is not definitively X. Whether it is [Y] or [Q] or [H & Z] is not the point. The point is that it is not [X].
So the burden of proof is not on me to prove that something is non-material, it is on the challenger to prove that it is, in fact, material.
A large part of QM is the troubling aspect of the non-materiality of non-decohered probability waves. The concepts of QM include that the particle is not actual until it decoheres (loses some of its probabilism due to entanglement with the environment: entropy, due to observation for example). Going back to the Copenhagen understanding, the “particle” is actually a probability wave existing in a quantum field; it does not materialize until observed (Einstein denounced this, but finally accepted it). One decohering event is the observation which entangles and decoheres the probability wave.
The probability wave for a single particle encompasses the entire universe, and that encouraged Feynman to declare that the “particle” traversed all of the possible paths in the universe, in order to get to its final destination. He expressed this as a path integral including all possible paths which the particle could take. This is an analog of the all-pervasive probability wave.
(Feynman also said that if you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, then you don’t).
As for something coming from nothing, that is not a posit of either classical mechanics or QM. The posit is this: When a matter/antimatter pair appear, it is due to a local decoherence of their quantum probability wave, which permeates all of space. The local decoherence occurs due to noise in the quantum wave. In fact, if something is ever found which pops into existence from exactly nothing, then it will violate cause and effect, and all science will be suspect due to the apparent falsification of cause and effect.
OK, let’s back up and discuss exactly what we are trying to talk about here. There are several cosmological theories at the moment:
(a) The original Big Bang, occurring from a dimensionless point containing mass/energy and space/time;
(b) The Guth inflationary theory, for which the original exponential expansion was more rapid than could be accounted for considering gravity, but then gravity was determined mathematically to have a negative, repulsive force for very small and very large dimensions. But the origin before planck time is still not understood; thought to be a dimensionless point. Also not explained is why the point would have come into existence if negative gravity were present.
(c) The String Theory I which claims a minimum dimension of one planck length 10^-33 cm. for aggregation. This posits planck-sized “nuggets” floating around waiting to be jogged into universes. The inflationary theory is still used for (t= 0+) > (planck times)> (t=10^-43 sec).
(d) String Theory II, which Lee Smolin posits to be universes spawned by black holes in prior universes; the black hole at the center of our own galaxy would be the mother of another universe at the back side of the black hole, a universe which is invisible to us due to the event horizon of the black hole. The original universe, the one which started the chain of universes, is unknown, and possibly the chain is infinite. This doesn’t appear to answer the issue of negative gravity requirements, either, because black holes exist due to positive gravity – negative gravity would seem to cause them to explode back into the host universe.
(e) Other miscellaneous, lesser accepted theories.
First, none of these theories is directly observable using material techniques, and cannot fall under the ageis of empirical knowledge; the boundary for empiricism is at the light horizon of black holes, and that would be the same for the original expansion of the universe when we look back in time.
None of these explains the state of existence or origin of the proposed planck nugget, and because the dimensions of space/time are wrapped into planck length also, there is no material way in which to measure or judge it. In fact, the status of the space/time dimensions is thought to become non-coherent, possibly existing only as a “foam” (the analog for matter, the Bose-Einstein foam, has been produced at temperatures just above absolute zero).
So, there is no reason to presume that the existence within the planck nugget is the same or even similar to the existence which we term “physical” and which consists of well-defined atomic and molecular existences, especially those which are stable enough to be subjected to empirical knowledge extraction. If they are actually merely probability waves compacted into near zero space, they are non-physical. No matter what they actually are compositionally, they are non-empirical in terms of knowledge.
The example, of course, is within Quantum Theory where particles do not exist except as probability waves until they decohere, a demonstration of a non-physical existence in terms of empirical knowledge.
"What Atheists believe":
The objections made by the Atheo-Materialist community need to be addressed, in my opinion, so I have done so.
If that is not what you are referring to, then please expand, thanks.
A quick re-read shows an error:
(d) should read:
The inflationary theory is still used for (t= 0+) < (planck times) < (t=10^-43 sec).
(arrows were reversed).
Jim,
I want to experiment with something, just for fun.
You said "My proposition, as an Atheist, is that I don’t believe that any of the concepts of god that I have heard of exist outside the minds of humans."
The generic God of Western Montheism is the creator of everything other than himself. So, a few definitions:
God: the greatest conceivable being
Great: unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc
Your statement: "God exists only in our minds, but not in reality"
Replaced with the definitions: "[The greatest conceivable being] exists only in our minds, but not in reality."
And again: "[The [unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc]est conceivable being] exists only in our minds, but not in reality."
But the problem with that statement is that there is a being who is conceivably even more [unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc]: the one that exists both in our minds and in reality.
So your statement is incoherent. It's like maintaining that K2 is the highest mountain, even though Mt Everest is higher.
I said:
"Should I believe in one of these gods that I have heard of?"
STAN said:
"If this is the sum total of what you want me to answer, then I have nothing to contribute. "
YES and no, in general, with respect to my atheism, yes this is the sum total of what I want to get an answer to.
BUT from you, I am obviously only looking for an answer to: 'Should I believe in that one god that you believe in?'. Nothing more.
"Also, the first diagram seems pretty accurate (with the caveat that the universe is a sphere, appearing flat only to humans due to the light speed horizon), noting the extreme non-linearity at the beginning and the growing non-linearity at the far end, both attributed to negative gravity."
WE know the universe is flat to an extremely high degree of accuracy; but I don't see the relevance of that fact in the current discussion.
(http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html)
"The "Quantum Fluctuations" noted at the beginning (t=0) are an indication of non-material existence posited for the planck "nugget" wherein the entire universe (including its dimensions) was packed into a diameter of 10 e-33 cm.
The reference is to the reduction of mass to quantum fields such as the Higgs fields which are probability fields under QM. They are not material in the same sense that mass is material."
THESE statements, and pretty much everything else you wrote about physics, are what boggle me.
WHY do you conclude that it is an ' indication of non-material existence'?
TO be clear, I already told you why I don't accept your conclusion: All the equations you talk about are grounded in the physical (material) world and describe what we observe, empirically. What is non-material are the concepts we have about the world we describe.
ACTUALLY, let me put it in another way. Before the invention of the telescope, humans had absolutely no way to know what all these bright dots were. To them, the sky was like a vast 2D black sheet of paper with colored stuff, mostly white, painted on it. They could see them move in an organized manner and thus started to create conceptual representation to describe that movement. Ultimately, what did they conclude? Most of them put their gods behind these bright moving dots...
YOUR version is obviously more sophisticated and we are not even talking about gods yet. Here's the problem:
WE have concepts that describe the movements of pretty much everything we see, and even don't see, around us. These equations are extremely successful at making predictions, from the tiniest objects to the largest, from the present to the distant past, even what appears to be the beginning of our universe.
UNLIKE our ancestors, you don't conclude right away that a god put these things in place (remember we are just in 'Part 1'), but I consider it to be a reasoning error to assume that there was necessarily some non-material existence before the material existence described by these non-material equations. Can you explain why you disagree?
BY the way, thanks for the longer comments that followed this, it made me realize that I knew what you meant by "Feynman’s path integral" after all. And if this is the answer to the question I just asked, please let me know and I will re-read them carefully. As of now, I only see a description of what we can know in physics... and I fail to see why I should accept the conclusion that a non-material something was there before the universe we see started expanding from a size of '0'.
MARTIN, you said:
"Your statement: "God exists only in our minds, but not in reality""
I never made that statement. You turned my statement around.
LET'S remove a few words to prove my point:
"God exists [...] but not in reality"
WHICH means the same as:
"God does not exist in reality"
I don't believe that. I never claimed that.
PLUS, you even used quotes around the statement as if I had written it. What a terrible way to start a discussion.
"As of now, I only see a description of what we can know in physics... and I fail to see why I should accept the conclusion that a non-material something was there before the universe we see started expanding from a size of '0'."
Your understanding of physics is incorrect; the QM equations describe something which does not exist materially, but only exists probabilistically, as a probability wave.
However, since I have explained it in all the detail that I can muster, yet you object, then there is nothing else I can do, and the conversation has hung at the first point.
"UNLIKE our ancestors, you don't conclude right away that a god put these things in place (remember we are just in 'Part 1'), but I consider it to be a reasoning error to assume that there was necessarily some non-material existence before the material existence described by these non-material equations. Can you explain why you disagree?"
And yet you go on to claim superstition on my part, when you are believing religiously in a material explanation while physics has moved on without you.
I repeat that I think this conversation is done. I have no desire to continue with you.
Jim,
Quick question. Would it be fair to say that your position is that supernaturalism is not logically coherent whereas philosophical materialism is?
I am putting myself on hiatus status. I will check for comments and post those, and anyone who wants to carry a reasonable conversation may continue to do so.
CHRIS:
"Quick question. Would it be fair to say that your position is that supernaturalism is not logically coherent whereas philosophical materialism is?"
No. I consider both not logically coherent.
I am done here. I will post a quick conclusion of what I learned on this blog on the "good-bye" thread.
MARTIN:
SINCE Stan won't reply to my questions anymore. Perhaps you will be able to.
WHY should I accept this proposition:
"Now let’s examine the basic claim for agent-causation of the universe.
The hypothesis for an existence which is outside and beyond mass / energy is this:
Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity."
I stop right here. I am not biased against the claim for agent-causation of the universe, I don't believe the opposite, I simply don't believe Part 1 so I cannot really go further in the argumentation.
I don't believe it because I don't know how the universe started. Possible explanations range from the simplest to the most complex, passing by some obscure and just plain silly ideas. The one presented here is not silly, but meaningless.
IN other words, I am asked to start an argument with the assumption that 'something non-physical existed prior to the physical universe' when I know nothing about what existence prior to the physical universe.
AS mentioned before, I am done here. I will post a quick conclusion of what I learned on this blog on the "good-bye" thread.
Accepting that QM shows non-material existence in the post big bang universe (but not really sure how you can be sure that the same or anything is definitively true for t=0), I'd like to ask about Part 2. How do you justify "we don't witness universes spontaneously/randomly popping into existence" as proof that it doesnt happen?
Notwithstanding the issues of human timescales with cosmological timescales (or much longer!), why do you believe it would have to be (or even possible to be) observable from inside our own universe if other universes were springing up spontaneously?
Mike
Mike,
Why would it be reasonable to assume that the entire universe exists as the same mass/energy existence we know, when it is all in a "nugget" sized 10^-33cm? Including space-time, of course.
Now, spontaneity:
First, Spontaneous means without control or reason. It means that there is no restriction on its occurrence, no limiting principle. If a truly spontaneous function existed, it would be expected to occur everywhere, all the time.
Since it does not occur everywhere, all the time, then there is some limiting principle, and it is not spontaneous.
Second, there is no space-time posited outside the universe; spontaneity is conceptually time-related.
Third, it is not observed, ever; we must accept a proposition claiming materialism without any material evidence, and without rational cause except to support a worldview/ideology.
Mike,
I should be more explicit here. This thread has been about knowledge, and what we can consider to be rationally acceptable as knowledge vs. what is rationally deniable, and finally differentiating those considerations from skeptical denialism.
Skeptical denialism is rejection based on the insistence for being given absolute proof of the truth value of a given proposition. Since there is nothing which is 100% knowable under the extremist attack of pyrrhonism/solipsism, then probability comes into play for every proposition.
Probability is based on evidence, which is based on observation (unless the event is truly random). Probability is a deduction of likelihood.
The issue is: what is considered rationally acceptable when considering the origin of the universe, rather than absolute knowledge of the composition of the universe when it was compressed into a planck sized nugget.
What we know with acceptable probability is that the elements of the periodic table did not exist, nor did their components. We also know with acceptable probability that empirical, direct observation of the planck nugget by humans is not likely.
So the question becomes, what can we rationally accept as being likely, if anything? If it is posited that we can know nothing, then that needs justification. The posit here is that we can know with rational acceptability based on current science, that the material existence which we probe empirically today and which is based on elements in the periodic table did not exist within the planck-sized nugget. Nor did the sub-atomic particles exist. If we claim that they physically existed, merely in some other form, then we have stretched the meaning of “physical” beyond its normal bounds, and we have done so in order to preserve an ideology, rather than in order to search for actual facts: there are no facts to be had, only deductions of what is likely or not likely.
STAN, for someone who decided to quit commenting, you replied a lot already, and with some interesting information.
" Mike,
Why would it be reasonable to assume that the entire universe exists as the same mass/energy existence we know, when it is all in a "nugget" sized 10^-33cm? Including space-time, of course."
LOOKING forward to Mike's answer... but personally I don't assume that the "entire universe exists as the same mass/energy existence we know, when it is all in a "nugget" sized 10^-33cm". I don't assume anything. I just don't know.
YOU assume that it was definitely non-material. You pretend that you know something about that pre-mass/energy world.
" First, Spontaneous means without control or reason. It means that there is no restriction on its occurrence, no limiting principle. If a truly spontaneous function existed, it would be expected to occur everywhere, all the time.
Since it does not occur everywhere, all the time, then there is some limiting principle, and it is not spontaneous. "
HOW can you know that it is not the case? That's what Mike asked already... How can you know that there are restrictions? How can you know that it is not occurring everywhere, all the time, but just before our universe, or after, or outside, or... anywhere that we cannot currently look at...
"Second, there is no space-time posited outside the universe; spontaneity is conceptually time-related."
AGAIN, how can you know anything about what's outside our space-time universe? You said it yourself, we have an event horizon. It does not mean there is nothing after it, it means that we are currently unable to explore it. We cannot know anything about it as of now.
IT's not that different from our ancestors who could not look at other galaxies due to a lack of telescope. They had absolutely no way to know that other galaxy existed. They would have wrong to assume that they did AND they would have been wrong to assume they did not. The only reasonable position was to say 'I don't know if other galaxies exist'. Actually, it was very hard for them to even comprehend the idea of a 100,00 light-year wide galaxy that floats among billions of other galaxies in a universe that spans across tens of billions of light-years...
"Third, it is not observed, ever; we must accept a proposition claiming materialism without any material evidence, and without rational cause except to support a worldview/ideology."
NOT believing in a non-material cause does not equal 'believe in a material cause', or anything else.
CONTINUE below...
"...The issue is: what is considered rationally acceptable when considering the origin of the universe, rather than absolute knowledge of the composition of the universe when it was compressed into a planck sized nugget.
What we know with acceptable probability is that the elements of the periodic table did not exist, nor did their components. We also know with acceptable probability that empirical, direct observation of the planck nugget by humans is not likely. "
ALL of the above, starting from the beginning of the comment makes perfect sense.
"So the question becomes, what can we rationally accept as being likely, if anything? If it is posited that we can know nothing, then that needs justification."
IT is not posited that we can know nothing; we all agree that we at least know what you listed above...
"The posit here is that we can know with rational acceptability based on current science, that the material existence which we probe empirically today and which is based on elements in the periodic table did not exist within the planck-sized nugget. Nor did the sub-atomic particles exist."
AGAIN, yes we agree on that, but there is an important assumption here. When we say that they did not exist, it means that from our point of view, from within our universe they did not exist, so when you say:
" If we claim that they physically existed, merely in some other form, then we have stretched the meaning of “physical” beyond its normal bounds, and we have done so in order to preserve an ideology, rather than in order to search for actual facts: there are no facts to be had, only deductions of what is likely or not likely."
YOU are attacking a strawman. The point is not that they physically existed prior to our universe. The point is that we cannot know if beyond our perception they existed, or if anything else existed. From our point of view, they certainly appear as if they did not exist; we know that. They appear as if there was nothing; that's why it's called a singularity...
THE only ideology being preserved at this point is:
"Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity."
WHY should we accept this ideology?
Very post script to this argument, which I just re-read in its entirety, I see that the very last statement sums up the entire issue for Atheists:
"THE only ideology being preserved at this point is:
"Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity."
WHY should we accept this ideology?"
What is called "ideology" is actually a definitional tautology. While it seems obvious that before physical existence, if the universe existed then it necessarily had to be non-physical, where "physical", defined several times above, means existing as mass/energy within space time.
By falsely calling this "ideology" as opposed to logical necessity, the Atheist thinks he has found a way to stop the conversation cold. This is an application of Radical Skepticism which, in this case, denies the First Principle of Tautology.
Atheism is threatened by loss of personal autonomy; its adherents resort to many irrational escapes in order to preserve their status as the intellectual source of the truth of their own individual independence from absolutes, including the First Principles.
By calling a tautological instance, "ideology", the Atheist halts all further deductive investigation and preserves his own ideology.
Further, this Atheist is, in fact, asserting Radical Skepticism in the form of Philosophical Materialism, while not admitting to it. He asserts what cannot be known with complete certainty, physically, materially, to be his boundary which he will not violate. And that is also known as Scientism.
And it is interesting that he asserts that the universe is flat, presumably based on the WMAP readings, which find an angle of radiation which is declared flat on the one hand, and that flatness cannot be known due to the immensity of the universe, on the other hand. From NASA (WMAP):
" All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
Observation is limited both by size and by the acceleration of distant portions away from us at speeds which prevent radiation from moving toward us very rapidly.
How this corellates with an expanding universe, and with observations going back very close to the BIG Bang, is not explained; it is implied that our observational horizon might be so small that the universe, actually a sphere receding from the original Big Bang expansion point, is so large that our zone of observation appears flat, just like our position on the Earth looks generally flat until we view it from afar. The closer we are, the flatter it looks, without observable horizons to tell us otherwise.
Post a Comment