The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Davian]

No, I just cut and pasted from an earlier post of mine.

No, with the insertion of the words "merely" and "nothing more" is was not a "simple" question, was it?

And, for the third time, I will ask you: what is your point?

Did the answers not go the way you expected?

They went exactly the way I expected, although I still have hope!

You won't have to evade my question a forth time... I got your point.

You wanted to see if you can get this thread a few pages along without further holes being poked in your OP.

Successfully done, if only a temporary reprieve.

 

[KCfromNC]

Seems to me that there is some confusion as to how science and philosophy relate.

Science would be impossible without philosophy.

Nah, we can observe stuff, see patterns and make predictions without philosophers going on and on about nonsense quite easily.

And you still haven't given us scientific references to demonstrate this alleged universal scientific law of causation exists. Why not?

 

[The Engineer]

Nah, we can observe stuff, see patterns and make predictions without philosophers going on and on about nonsense quite easily.

I must disagree here. Without philosophers, the scientific method would not exist. It's also philosophers who justify and improve the scientific method.

 

[KCfromNC]

I must disagree here. Without philosophers, the scientific method would not exist. It's also philosophers who justify and improve the scientific method.

I'd say the results do more than enough to justify the scientific method. Philosophers of science are more along the lines of anthropologists - reporting what scientists do without influencing them too much. Practicing scientists really don't pay much attention to what the philosophers are doing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'd say the results do more than enough to justify the scientific method. Philosophers of science are more along the lines of anthropologists - reporting what scientists do without influencing them too much. Practicing scientists really don't pay much attention to what the philosophers are doing.

Which is a pity, given that the work in many areas of science has implications for philosophy or is built upon earlier systems rooted in philosophy. I don't buy into the idea that scientists wouldn't benefit from a closer reading of philosophy.

 

[Gracchus]

Philosophy was the placenta of science. One does not drag one's placenta around with onself for three-score and ten. (Unless, of course, one is religious!)

 

[Elioenai26]

Philosophy was the placenta of science. One does not drag one's placenta around with onself for three-score and ten. (Unless, of course, one is religious!)

Your analogy is brilliant but not sufficient.

You would be more accurate in saying that philosophy is the mind of science, without which, it could not function properly.

 

[Danyc]

Your analogy is brilliant but not sufficient.

You would be more accurate in saying that philosophy is the mind of science, without which, it could not function properly.

Scientists do their work everyday without giving philosophy a second thought.

 

[Elioenai26]

Scientists do their work everyday without giving philosophy a second thought.

You are exactly right Danyc! In the same way that we go about our lives everyday without ever giving a thought to how our brain is necessary to our decision making processes.

 

[Danyc]

You are exactly right Danyc! In the same way that we go about our lives everyday without ever giving a thought to how our brain is necessary to our decision making processes.

By comparing the brain to philosophy, you are expressly stating that philosophy in the main driving mechanism behind all of science.

This is akin to the equally ridiculous statement that without philosophy and philosophers, we would not be able to make predictions and test these predictions. That is science. Your claim is absurd.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

By comparing the brain to philosophy, you are expressly stating that philosophy in the main driving mechanism behind all of science.

This is akin to the equally ridiculous statement that without philosophy and philosophers, we would not be able to make predictions and test these predictions. That is science. Your claim is absurd.

I think his point was more that, without philosophy, it would be impossible to do science. And on that I agree. Science doesn't just happen in a vacuum. Scientists may take for granted the philosophy of it all while they are actually doing science, in the same way that one takes for granted the automated functions of respiration, but that doesn't make it inconsequential.

 

[Danyc]

I think his point was more that, without philosophy, it would be impossible to do science. And on that I agree. Science doesn't just happen in a vacuum. Scientists may take for granted the philosophy of it all while they are actually doing science, in the same way that one takes for granted the automated functions of respiration, but that doesn't make it inconsequential.

Perhaps- however, in any practical sense, I don't see how the distinction is important. In this case I would stick with Gracchus's initial analogy.

And I certainly would not use Elioenai's revision as any reason to bolster an argument for a deity in any way.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Perhaps- however, in any practical sense, I don't see how the distinction is important. In this case I would stick with Gracchus's initial analogy.

And I certainly would not use Elioenai's revision as any reason to bolster an argument for a deity in any way.

In a practical sense, the link between philosophy and science is definitely forgotten. Arguably this is necessary. If scientists were always worried about the philosophical problems implicit in their work then they would never get any science done and would instead be philosophers.

 

[Elioenai26]

By comparing the brain to philosophy, you are expressly stating that philosophy in the main driving mechanism behind all of science.

This is akin to the equally ridiculous statement that without philosophy and philosophers, we would not be able to make predictions and test these predictions. That is science. Your claim is absurd.

Science presupposes certain philosophical principles in order for it to even be feasible as a means of understanding reality.

Science is built upon philosophy Danyc, would you like evidence of this?

 

[Danyc]

Science presupposes certain philosophical principles in order for it to even be feasible as a means of understanding reality.

Science is built upon philosophy Danyc, would you like evidence of this?

No, what I would like is your point.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, what I would like is your point.

The point is that we are reliant upon at least one other discipline outside of science in understanding the nature of the world in which we live.

 

[Danyc]

The point is that we are reliant upon at least one other discipline outside of science in understanding the nature of the world in which we live.

Still waiting for your point.

 

[Elioenai26]

Still waiting for your point.

The point of the matter, and my concluding remarks regarding the thread as a whole is this:

1. The metaphysical principle of causality is substantiated by our intuitive awareness that
things do not just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing, and is further verified by our everyday experiences.

2. To maintain any position other than this is to maintain that something can just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing. To do so is to quit doing serious metaphysics. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you have the magician, the hat, and the rabbit! Denying the plausibility of the causal principle would be like maintenaning that a rabbit could just pop into existence uncaused out of thin air, sans magician, sans hat, sans anything!

3. The universe exists and we know that it is not eternal for several good reasons. These reasons are both scientific and philosophic in nature.

4. The Standard Model of the universe presents a very clear picture of all of material reality I.e. time, space, matter, and energy coming into existence from literally no prior material cause.

5. This Cause is best explained from the pool of live options as One who is immaterial, non-spatial and timeless. Out of the pool of live options that fit the proceeding criteria, God is the best explanation.

6. Therefore God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.

7. This is a conclusion that is acceptable as true beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what is required to make the argument a valid argument for the existence of God.

8. For any that do not agree with the above, you must either:

a. Maintain that you do not know, I.e. that you are agnostic and withhold judgment on the matter.

b. Present good reasons why God is not the best explanation for the origin of the universe and build a case for whatever cause you wish to defend as best.

c. Maintain that the universe does not need a cause for its existence and build a good case as to why it does not.

d. Maintain that you do not care about the matter at all.

I will not be responding to any counter arguments which I have already addressed in the proceeding posts.

 

[The Engineer]

The point of the matter, and my concluding remarks regarding the thread as a whole is this:

Your argument is wrong.

1. The metaphysical principle of causality is substantiated by our intuitive awareness that
things do not just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing, and is further verified by our everyday experiences.

This implies that God can't pop into existence, either. And if we say that he was always there, then we can just as well say that the universe was always there.

2. To maintain any position other than this is to maintain that something can just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing.

Like God?

To do so is to quit doing serious metaphysics. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you have the magician, the hat, and the rabbit! Denying the plausibility of the causal principle would be like maintenaning that a rabbit could just pop into existence uncaused out of thin air, sans magician, sans hat, sans anything!

Like God?

3. The universe exists and we know that it is not eternal for several good reasons. These reasons are both scientific and philosophic in nature.

Like Gadarene said, this depends on whether we define the universe as all that is currently in existence, or as the very fabric of existence itself, so to speak. As we can't observe the second definition of the universe, making any claims about it is futile; it might be eternal, for all practical purposes.

For the first definition, things are trickier, but again, we can't just say that it isn't eternal. Does the heat death of the universe count as an eternal state, or doesn't it count as a state at all? Questions like this need more thought than you put into them.

4. The Standard Model of the universe presents a very clear picture of all of material reality I.e. time, space, matter, and energy coming into existence from literally no prior material cause.

So?

5. This Cause is best explained from the pool of live options as One who is immaterial, non-spatial and timeless. Out of the pool of live options that fit the proceeding criteria, God is the best explanation.

No, he isn't.

6. Therefore God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.

God is the best explanation, because God is the best explanation? Very funny!

7. This is a conclusion that is acceptable as true beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what is required to make the argument a valid argument for the existence of God.

Mentioned it above. This is nonsensical, a non sequitur! You just jump to the conclusion that God is the best explanation!

8. For any that do not agree with the above, you must either:

a. Maintain that you do not know, I.e. that you are agnostic and withhold judgment on the matter.

That would be my opinion, I guess.

b. Present good reasons why God is not the best explanation for the origin of the universe and build a case for whatever cause you wish to defend as best.

The only property the first cause needed to have is that he must have been the first cause. How does God follow from this?

c. Maintain that the universe does not need a cause for its existence and build a good case as to why it does not.

Again, depends on how we define the universe. If we define it as existence itself, then we can't say it needed a cause; this might have been true for things we observe inside the universe, but how can we say the same about the universe itself?

d. Maintain that you do not care about the matter at all.

I don't think anybody in this thread holds this opinion.

I will not be responding to any counter arguments which I have already addressed in the proceeding posts.

This will probably mean that you will ignore everything we say because you claim that you already addressed it.

EDIT:
By the way, I still don't understand why the cause-effect chain can't be infinitely long. Or why it must be a chain. Why not a circle?

 

[quatona]

I will not be responding to any counter arguments which I have already addressed in the proceeding posts.

Ok. In return I will not respond to your points because they are just a repetition of what you have already brought to the table and which has been addressed.

Suffice to say that as far as I can see neither you nor anyone else here postulates that there has ever been a state of nothingness, so your permanent attempt to refute ideas that allegedly postulate that something popped out of nothing into existence or came from nothing or (whatever way you word it) is fighting imaginary windmills.