Atheistic Big Bang: Illogical?

[JAL]

Here's where you tried to qualify inertia as a dancing tactic (post #27)

They don't teach that living matter is inert.
...You haven't provided any. You've provided a logical progression based on an incorrect assumption that living tissue is inert...Again. It isn't inert.

 

[JAL]

Before we go anywhere else, I was wondering:

Just so we are all on the same page, could you give a definition for inert?

An object at rest tends to stay at rest, an object in motion tends to stay in motion.

But then again, God would ALSO only have Himself to blame for your behavior as He provided you with your soul, no?

You're suggesting determinism. The soul as I define it isn't inert. It self-propels by free will and, as such, is responsible for its own behavior. An indeterministic system (a system where the body's behavior is the result of free choice rather than divine engineering) is a necessary component of a theological system that incorporates justice, reward, punishment, mercy, etc. Without free will, none of this stuff makes any sense. it's axiomatic.

Also, i was addressing those atheists who already admit free will (or imply it at least).

 

[JAL]

Third, did you consider quantum phenomena? Quantum mechanics is WEIRD. Actually violates several other laws of physics. Energy, mass, motion can pop into and out of nothing. So this 'first motion' could be a known (but not necessarily understood, at least by me) quantum fluctuation in motion that is perfectly consistent with how humanity understands things to operate.

Objects popping in out of existence gets into areas of humanly unintelligible concepts. This kind of bizarre conclusion is the natural result of theories which, though quite useful/ pragmatic for applied science, shouldn't be accepted as an accurate description of reality. Maybe I'll discuss this more.

 

[JAL]

I am committed to the following methodological principle in both religion and science. When faced with two theories, we should tend to prefer the one more humanly intelligible. (That's one reason I reject the notion that God is an intangible substance called spirit). The reason for this methodology is that, as new theories keep appearing, if we keep inclining toward those more and more unintelligible, we end up with utter gibberish.

For instance, imagine a physics conference. All the great minds are there. You stand up and say, "I have a new theory which I call spacetime mega-warp." "Ok, tell us about it." "Sorry, I can't explain it, because it's beyond human understanding." This would be similar to the theologian who says, "I have a theory of the Incarnation but it's beyond human understanding." If your theory is beyond human understanding, then you don't understand it either. For all intents and purposes, you don't HAVE a theory.

Well, I'll qualify. If the theory moves us to conduct experiments in a certain way, and draw a particular kind of conclusion, I suppose we could call it a pragmatic theory as opposed to a "real" theory (a possible revelation of metaphysical truth).

Why do I bring this up? On an old thread I suggested that gravity is evidence of God's existence. One guy replied, "Gravity seems to be caused by massless particles called gravitons." Massless particles? A substance without substance? That's not humanly intelligible. Therefore it doesn't qualify as a "real" theory. It's only a pragmatic theory. For instance, Newton postulated gravity as a "force". He only meant this as a pragmatic theory. He didn't take it literally. He said you'd be a fool to assert that a force acts across a distance. For it is not humanly intelligible to say that I push you, or pull you, from a distance. At the very least, it is far more intelligible to attribute a known push or pull to an impetus transmitted by direct physical contact.

There is a second intelligibility issue in regard to graviton theory. If I emit particles (or waves that act like particles) in your direction, this would tend to impact you in a manner that pushes you farther away rather than pulls you in my direction. A pull is accomplished by casting out a rope to you with a hook or noose at the end, and then I begin to tug the rope towards me (ultimately the movement is thus away from you, not towards you). Thus a graviton (something that pulls by moving toward you) seems to be a humanly unintelligible, even self-contradictory concept. At the very least, it is far less intelligible than ordinary mechanisms of pushes and pulls. In a similar way, I am inclined to characterize terms such as "curvature of space and time" as purely pragmatic theories, because such language doesn't seem humanly intelligible. In fact Einstein's theory of special relativity is internally problematic because it seems self-evidently a logical incoherence. Although it works fine as a pragmatic theory, an atheist who claims that it is an accurate description of "how things really are" seems to be making a very silly statement.

This page points out that gravity is still a mystery to modern scientists:


So we don't have many options left as to the cause of gravity. Newton wasn't sure whether it was God or atmospheric pressure. Let's consider atmospheric pressure. Okay, I probably don't have enough scientific knowledge to make such an analysis, but I'm going to try (maybe I'll get lucky). Gravity is a force in all directions conceived as either a push or a pull. Atmospheric pressure would tend to construe it as a push rather than a pull. So imagine the earth immersed in a huge atmospheric field called ether. The ether is pushing on it, and toward it, from all directions. This serves as the source of the earth's gravitational field. To come near the earth is to enter into an area of push, and therefore you will be pushed toward the earth. And if an object on earth tries to depart from earth, the push will tend to propel you back to earth. Now here's what I see as a couple of problems with that model.
(1) Since an external agent (ether) is blindly causing the push, it shouldn't care how big the object is. Ether wouldn't say, "I'll push hard on big objects such as the earth, but I'll push softly on small objects such as a marble floating in outer space." Therefore a marble should have a gravitational field equal to that of the earth.
(2) The ether wouldn't say, "I'll push harder as the objects get closer together." Newton's theory, which is roughly accurate, held that the force of gravity increases as I approach the earth (to an extent inversely proportional to the square of the distance). So does the ether happen to notice that you got closer to an object and thereby push you harder? And, if it did so, wouldn't that mean that ALL the objects in your line of push, being immersed in that same ether, also be pushed harder, even though they HAVEN'T moved any closer to the earth?

Gravity isn't a purely mechanical push, then. Is it a pull? But that seems to imply that the earth casts out a rope with a noose, yanks me in, and remembers to pull harder as I get closer to it. This doesn't even seem logically incoherent. I also turned to this page on string theory but quickly began to lose interest. The writer speaks of one-dimensional objects, two dimensional objects, realities of 26 dimensions, and particles of zero mass. Okay, none of this seems humanly intelligible.

My conclusion: The observed data concerning gravity seems inconsistent with purely mechanical pushes and pulls. It is more consistent with an "intelligent pusher" who uses a non-mechanical force (His free will) to apply gravity in a uniform manner for the sake of holding the planets and stars in their respective positions and orbits. Perhaps God does indeed uphold the universe as the Bible says.

Unacceptable reasoning, right? Because, this is just another "God of the gaps theory, right?" Perhaps not. Suppose a five dollar bill is sitting on your desk. The next morning, it's no longer there. You unlock your safe, however, and there it is. So you make it a topic of discussion among the employees in your building. One guy says, "I know what happened. Using the force of free will, someone reached out his hand, picked up the money, unlocked the safe, and placed it inside. Because no known mechanical forces would likely have accomplished this remarkable feat."

Another guy objects, "Please. Don't be ridiculous. To postulate a supernatural force such as free will is just a ‘gap’ theory. It's better to assume an ordinary mechanical chain of causality, wholly deterministic, with no one to blame."

Who would you side with? Well, there's certainly value in the "scientific approach." It advances science. But while we're waiting for a viable scientific explanation - one that's at least humanly intelligible - it's probably appropriate to (tentatively) embrace the "supernatural" explanation. After all, if God does exist – and only a fool would deny that possibility – there is probably at least one thing in nature best accounted for by the power of His free will.

Furthermore, CSI detectives operate in a similar manner. When a dead body is found with multiple knife wounds, they don’t spend much time wondering, “I wonder what ordinary mechanical forces caused all this? Surely no one is to blame.” Instead, they quickly chalk it up as a murder or suicide, a homicide caused by the force of free will. Is their approach unscientific? Hardly.

 

[laconicstudent]

Again, you're making assertions without addressing the logic of my objections. You're not responding to any of my challenges. If the soul is intangible it CANNOT tangibly impact the body. Why not? That's the definition of tangibility versus intangibility.

if the soul has no tangible impact on the brain, then the brain, which is a thoroughly tangible substance, isn't to any extent driven by the soul. In this case my behavior is the result of my brain (as you YOURSELF already suggested), and God should judge (and blame) my brain, not my soul.

But of course, you'll just do more dancing, because your assumptions cannot address this sort of objection.

Thats a very interesting philosophical conundrum. On the basis of my faith, one can only assume that the soul, as a spiritual component, isn't bound by human logic? I don't really know, since the exact nature of the soul isn't something we can ever really know, and isn't relevant to the core tenets of the faith

Huh? Evolution? Where did we get on THAT topic ???

Oops. thats my bad.

The words in bold are in direct contradiction to statements you made earlier. This proves that you've only been dancing around in circles.

Or perhaps I'm confused because I'm never quite sure what you mean by "inert". If you want to avoid misunderstandings, define your terms.

So what drives the CNS? More chemical processes?

Um. Obviously yes?

God has only Himself to blame for my behavior as He allowed me to have this body.

No. God made Man unfallen, then Man messed it up. And you are still responsible for your own behavior as a sentient being.

Here's where you tried to qualify inertia as a dancing tactic (post #27)

Yes, because you're pretty vague in just what "inert" means. I originally thought you meant non-organic matter, but then you seemed to imply that everything was inert including biological systems. If you don't want these misunderstandings, be more precise from the outset.

 

[laconicstudent]

Another guy objects, "Please. Don't be ridiculous. To postulate a supernatural force such as free will is just a ‘gap’ theory. It's better to assume an ordinary mechanical chain of causality, wholly deterministic, with no one to blame."

Who would you side with? Well, there's certainly value in the "scientific approach." It advances science. But while we're waiting for a viable scientific explanation - one that's at least humanly intelligible - it's probably appropriate to (tentatively) embrace the "supernatural" explanation. After all, if God does exist – and only a fool would deny that possibility – there is probably at least one thing in nature best accounted for by the power of His free will.

No, that would violate the scientific method.


And define "Humanely Intelligible"

 

[JAL]

Not one specific thing to quote, but it seems like you think the Big Bang went something like this:

Mass is.
Mass remains motionless.
Mass suddenly expands.

While it goes more like:
?
Spacetime expands.
Mass expands.

If there was just a lump sitting there before time as we know it existed that just SUDDENLY happened to randomly explode... well, we don't know it and the Big Bang theory is not predicated on that having happened.

Scientists don't seem to be providing a humanly intelligible definition of the initial conditions. So we need to appeal to the law of non-contradiction and extrapolate from there. In each case, BOTH can't be true. We can ask questions like this:
(1) Was there tangible substance? Yes or no?
(2) Was there the potential for motion? Yes or no?
(3) Was the substance self-propelling? Yes or no?
(4) Was there an infinite time lapse? Yes or no?

It is not humanly intelligible - it seems quite irrational - to suggest that these most basic characteristics of reality CHANGED. If an atheist is going to tell me that some of my beliefs are irrational, I am going to remind him that the sword cuts both ways.

The humanly intelligible position is that tangible substance, at the outset of the big bang, wasn't self-propelling, as it isn't such today.

Why does the question need to be answered? Because a system that can address more challenges, and more charges of contradiction, than another, is clearly preferable to a bunch of unresolved question marks. For instance laconicStudent says that he doesn't need to address my questions about soul. Baloney. If I charge him with contradiction, and he doesn't resolve it, then we should prefer a system that can DEMONSTRABLY address the hard questions.

It's sort of like if a scientists presents some new data that doesn't seem to fit accepted theory. Is it appropriate to respond, "Sorry, we don't have to address that objection" ?

 

[JAL]

No, that would violate the scientific method.

But here again you're just dancing. CSI would be violating scientific method as well. You haven't shown the difference. You just dance.

And define "Humanly Intelligible"

A theory is unintelligible to me when I cannot conceive of myself or any rational man claiming in good conscience to clearly understand it. For instance I don't have a humanly intelligible theory of the boundaries or outskirts of reality. I can't conceive of outer space as an infinitely extended region because a "region" is a discrete demarcation of discrete size. I do conceive of reality as finite (because a finite substance or region is a concept quite intelligible to me) but even so I cannot clearly define the outskirts of this finite region.

A theory doesn't need to be fully intelligible, however. But we do need to incline toward those theories most intelligible, to avoid a slippery slope into gibberish.

Obviously, a theory that is self-contradictory is humanly unintelligible. If I have a theory that seems self-contradictory, therefore, and another one that seems plainly consistent, I should incline to the seemingly consistent one.

 

[laconicstudent]

. For instance laconicStudent says that he doesn't need to address my questions about soul. Baloney. If I charge him with contradiction, and he doesn't resolve it

Possibly because using logic and the scientific method to describe the soul an inappropriate approach for what is a religious subject.

It's sort of like if a scientists presents some new data that doesn't seem to fit accepted theory. Is it appropriate to respond, "Sorry, we don't have to address that objection" ?

But there isn't ANY data regarding the existence of a soul....

 

[laconicstudent]

But here again you're just dancing. CSI would be violating scientific method as well. You haven't shown the difference. You just dance.

Ok, then CSI is violating the scientific method. Of course, people who died a violent death aren't ruled homicide until a medical examiner rules that it is by showing that the nature of the death precludes a suicide, usually by finding direct evidence of a violent interaction with another individual. Your analogy is flawed because forensics can find direct evidence of whether or not there was anyone else involved.

A theory is unintelligible to me when I cannot conceive of myself or any rational man claiming in good conscience to clearly understand it.

Of course, that is a personal judgment call, and dependent on your level of education.

A theory doesn't need to be fully intelligible, however. But we do need to incline toward those theories most intelligible, to avoid a slippery slope into gibberish.

Whether or not a theory is intelligible depends on your level of your education.

Obviously, a theory that is self-contradictory is humanly unintelligible. If I have a theory that seems self-contradictory, therefore, and another one that seems plainly consistent, I should incline to the seemingly consistent one.

Scientifically, yes.

 

[JAL]

Ok, then CSI is violating the scientific method. Of course, people who died a violent death aren't ruled homicide until a medical examiner rules that it is by showing that the nature of the death precludes a suicide, usually by finding direct evidence of a violent interaction with another individual. Your analogy is flawed because forensics can find direct evidence of whether or not there was anyone else involved.

I don't see the flaw. What do you mean by "direct evidence". You mean observable data that cannot be easily explained by blameless mechanical causes. Could be that the wind carried my hair to the crime scene, but CSI will often rule this out as too unlikely.

You say that CSI is violating the scientific method. Let's assume your correct (I think it's a tough question). In that case, reaching an important conclusion about reality isn't necessarily limited to "using sceintific method." The atheists I was reacting to suggested that only those conclusions reached "scientifically" are appropriate.

If it is in fact appropriate to use a CSI approach, then they shouldn't presume the conclusion that a soul exists, or that God exists, to be unwarranted and irrational. Let's try to allow the observed data take us where it may, even if we don't like the implications.

Of course, that is a personal judgment call, and dependent on your level of education.

Everything's a personal judgment call. That's not going to stop the calls. As for the level of education, it's less relevant than you'd think. Generally, self-contradictory statements are very easy to spot.

 

[laconicstudent]

Everything's a personal judgment call. That's not going to stop the calls. As for the level of education, it's less relevant than you'd think. Generally, self-contradictory statements are very easy to spot.

I agree, but I'm referring to the fact that not everyone is qualified or educated enough to actually understand the scientific literature. Throwing out theories that are self-contradictory is fine, but intelligibility is more problematic. There may be a theory that seems like complete gibberish to the average person, but makes perfect sense to someone who has a PhD in the field.

 

[JAL]

I agree, but I'm referring to the fact that not everyone is qualified or educated enough to actually understand the scientific literature. Throwing out theories that are self-contradictory is fine, but intelligibility is more problematic. There may be a theory that seems like complete gibberish to the average person, but makes perfect sense to someone who has a PhD in the field.

This is true. And in most aspects of physics, for example, I wouldn't presume to make a judgment because they are too complicated for me to understand, presently. I am extremely more likely to make a judgment in theology than science.

Nonetheless I think there are some basic principles (underlying principles and assumptions) of mainstream science that I can reasonably question or make judgments about. Intuitively, the idea that matter can be created or destroyed is unlikely (short of a miracle). So I don't think I'm being presumptuous to question that.

My complaint with special relativity is this. I find it too counterintuitive to accept the notion that the speed of light is constant for all observers. And most of the seemingly bizarre conclusions arising in modern physics seem to ultimately stem from that problemmatic assumption.

I don't think it's a humanly intelligible claim to say that light is a constant speed. Recently I saw a blob posted on the web. The guy made a simple argument. He said, imagine a person traveling toward an oncoming light at x-miles per hour. To insist that the speed of light is its usual speed (even relative to him) is to force us to say that, for him, time slows down (as though 'time slowing down' were a humanly intelligible concept).

Fine. The writer then asked, but what if a light is also oncoming from the opposite direction? To insist that this light, as well, is running at its usual speed (even relative to the moving observer), we'd have to say that time, for him, is slowing down.

Contradiction: Time is slowing down while speeding up.

My sister is VERY close friends with a physics professor at FAMU. I wrote up this criciticism in an email and my sister sent it to him. The email asked him to help me understand how physicists would respond to this objection. Almost immediately, his wife contacted us to confirm that he got the message. That was about three months ago. His silence on the issue looks a little suspicious. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[metherion]

Objects popping in out of existence gets into areas of humanly unintelligible concepts. This kind of bizarre conclusion is the natural result of theories which, though quite useful/ pragmatic for applied science, shouldn't be accepted as an accurate description of reality. Maybe I'll discuss this more.

Perhaps, but if we can come up with scientific theories that deal with them they obviously have evidence.

Furthermore, saying that they are useful for applied science but are not accurate descriptions of reality is self-contradiction. If it were junk science that did not accurately describe reality it would be USELESS for science. It could only be useful for applied science if it accurately described the portion of reality it dealt with. And with nano-technology, we can more accurately discern and MEASURE such things as spontaneous energy change at the quantum level.

Also, see below about human intelligibility.

When faced with two theories, we should tend to prefer the one more humanly intelligible.
...
One guy replied, "Gravity seems to be caused by massless particles called gravitons." Massless particles? A substance without substance? That's not humanly intelligible.

Photons have no rest mass. Massless particles exist. We comprehend them. A lot more is humanly comprehensible than you would think.

Furthermore, your example of the guy at the physics meeting is flawed, because he could not have his theory he claims is incomprehensible to humanity because he is human.

Also, the level of human understanding is increasing, so just because we cannot comprehend it NOW does not mean we never will be able to. Hence unknowns that we try to discover thru research.

Lastly, being incomprehensible to you, or me, or anyone on the entire CF boards does not mean HUMANLY unintelligible.

There is a second intelligibility issue in regard to graviton theory.
...
Although it works fine as a pragmatic theory, an atheist who claims that it is an accurate description of "how things really are" seems to be making a very silly statement.

So we DON”T fall towards the earth at 9.8 m/(s^2)? Merely because we don’t know what the mechanism is doesn’t make it incomprehensible, it makes it UNKNOWN.

Also, electromagnetism creates pulls from a distance. Just sayin’.

So we don't have many options left as to the cause of gravity.
...
Okay, none of this seems humanly intelligible.

Okay, so regarding gravity, you think of two possibilities, ridicule one (and rightly so), the other is God, and declare the whole mess incomprehensible? No, it’s unknown. We know of forces that attract over distance and change force with regard to the distance already (magnetism). We also know it has something to do with mass as the earth and a marble have vastly different masses. Just because you can’t comprehend or find interest in things does not make them beyond human comprehension. Maybe we haven’t discovered them yet, but that does not make them incomprehensible.

The observed data concerning gravity seems inconsistent with purely mechanical pushes and pulls

Okay, good. You’ve made observations, disproved a hypothesis and now...

It is more consistent with an "intelligent pusher" who uses a non-mechanical force (His free will) to apply gravity in a uniform manner for the sake of holding the planets and stars in their respective positions and orbits.

... and now give up, propose an unfalsifiable mechanism, and ignore any other possibilities. *headdesk*

What about it being, say... a wave?

Well, there's certainly value in the "scientific approach." It advances science. But while we're waiting for a viable scientific explanation - one that's at least humanly intelligible - it's probably appropriate to (tentatively) embrace the "supernatural" explanation.

No. It is NOT appropriate. It raises far too many questions (which supernatural entity, for example), it is ONLY there till we find the actual answer which belittles the supernatural, etc etc etc. And you keep tossing around this intelligibility thing.

When a dead body is found with multiple knife wounds, they don’t spend much time wondering, “I wonder what ordinary mechanical forces caused all this? Surely no one is to blame.” Instead, they quickly chalk it up as a murder or suicide, a homicide caused by the force of free will. Is their approach unscientific? Hardly.

Because we know that knives don’t pick themselves up and insert themselves into people on their own unless assisted by gravity (box of knives falls, poor sap is impaled, it could happen and would leave its own set of evidence), or people. The same can not be said of many things, like gravity.

Scientists don't seem to be providing a humanly intelligible definition of the initial conditions. So we need to appeal to the law of non-contradiction and extrapolate from there. In each case, BOTH can't be true. We can ask questions like this:
(1) Was there tangible substance? Yes or no?
(2) Was there the potential for motion? Yes or no?
(3) Was the substance self-propelling? Yes or no?
Was there an infinite time lapse? Yes or no

Did the something that expanded exist before it expanded? We don’t know.
Well, ASSUMING it was there ‘before’ it is expanding now. So yes. But that’s an assumption, note it.
We don’t know yet. But IF there was something that was completely motionless quantum energy fluctuations could provide a gradient for the whole to act upon.
Well, it happened ~17 billion years ago, so no. Unless you mean ‘before’ where time as we know it didn’t exist that we know of, so it’s another ‘we don’t know yet’.

It is not humanly intelligible

*facepalm*

it seems quite irrational - to suggest that these most basic characteristics of reality CHANGED

You know, it’s actually refreshing to hear someone say that next to dad and his different state past nonsense. Anyways, back to the topic...

If an atheist is going to tell me that some of my beliefs are irrational, I am going to remind him that the sword cuts both ways.

Except IT DOESN”T SAY THAT. And it’s not ‘humanly unintelligible’ since there are obviously scientists who do understand it, or have the capacity to do so once it is discovered.

Is it appropriate to respond, "Sorry, we don't have to address that objection" ?

Yes. It’s usually followed by “let’s see what the accepted theory predicts in that situation, see where/if there are gaps, repeat the experiements as described that provided the contradictory data, and go from there” or some variation thereof.

Because a system that can address more challenges, and more charges of contradiction, than another, is clearly preferable to a bunch of unresolved question marks.


Not if it’s “god did it” versus science. Then it’s ‘god of the gaps’ versus the time it takes science t fill in those gaps and you get disasters like ID popping up.

A theory is unintelligible to me when I cannot conceive of myself or any rational man claiming in good conscience to clearly understand it.

So greats like Stephen Hawking and Einstein and many many others could not POSSIBLY understand things like photons (massless particles) and so on? Gee, you have a really low opinion of them. Unless they’re irrational. And if you went to school for however many decades it takes to get to that point in many of the fields you have disparaged as ‘unintelligible’ I bet you could too. Your specific understanding does not demarcate the end of humanity’s understanding.

Intuitively, the idea that matter can be created or destroyed is unlikely (short of a miracle). So I don't think I'm being presumptuous to question that.


Except I have several power plants, Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and many testing sites around the world to name a few that would like to show you wrong.

Intuition and science are often directly opposed.

The rest of what you list is pretty much an argument from incredulity, “I don’t see how it could work so it can’t.”

Metherion

 

[JAL]

Perhaps, but if we can come up with scientific theories that deal with them they obviously have evidence.

Furthermore, saying that they are useful for applied science but are not accurate descriptions of reality is self-contradiction. If it were junk science that did not accurately describe reality it would be USELESS for science. It could only be useful for applied science if it accurately described the portion of reality it dealt with.

Every statement in this paragraph is obviously false in light of the specific example I gave. What is this? Selective reading? (Sigh). I'll repeat the example. Newton defined gravity as a force acting across a distance. Totally pragmatic theory. Not for one moment did he believe it. He KNEW it didn't represent reality. Useless theory? No. Junk science? No. Accurate description of reality no.

Photons have no rest mass. Massless particles exist. We comprehend them. A lot more is humanly comprehensible than you would think.

No, massless particles do not exist, no more than space and time are "curved". Mass refers to the amount of matter in that particle or cluster of particles. If that amount is zero, stop calling it a particle. When you start coming up with ridiculous conclusions, at some point it becomes time to start asking, "Maybe there's a problem somewhere in the assumptions." For a long time many experts believed that classical physics was true. That changed. Now most people believe that Einstein got it right. But we were wrong at least once before - maybe we're wrong again?

Furthermore, your example of the guy at the physics meeting is flawed, because he could not have his theory he claims is incomprehensible to humanity because he is human.

Come again?
A human can't produce a humanly unintelligible theory? I'll give you one right now: A square circle.

Also, the level of human understanding is increasing, so just because we cannot comprehend it NOW does not mean we never will be able to. Hence unknowns that we try to discover thru research.

No one's ever going to "understand" a square circle, or a massless particle, or a speed of light constant for all observers. An internally self-contradictory concept will never be "comnprehended" regardless of its pragmatic value.

Here's an example of a pragmatic theory which I would NEVER want to abandon (it's extremely useful): in math, the idea of a point in space without any size and shape. Zero dimensions. Thus if you have an x,y coordinate system, the point 0,0 isn't presumed to have any size and shape. Fine. But if you tell me that you just identified a particle of no size and shape, or a region in space with no size and shape, that's insane. Any ACTUAL point in space has dimensions.

By the way, traditional Christianity defines the soul as an immaterial substance with no size and shape. Where is it? It's in the human body, they say. Absurd and unintelligible. Show me the region of the human body where you think God placed the soul, and I'll show you a region with size and shape.

Lastly, being incomprehensible to you, or me, or anyone on the entire CF boards does not mean HUMANLY unintelligible.

No one denies it's a judgment call. But it's fun to see confirmations of my judgments, for instance when I send a simple challenge to a physics professor, and still haven't heard back for three months.

So we DON”T fall towards the earth at 9.8 m/(s^2)?

Silly question.

Also, electromagnetism creates pulls from a distance. Just sayin’.

That just begs the question. Newton claimed that a force acting at a distance is too humanly unintelligible to merit credibility.

I'm open to theories of gravity, and I'm open to theories on magnetism. But only the intelligible ones. Right now, my money's on God.

Okay, so regarding gravity, you think of two possibilities, ridicule one (and rightly so), the other is God, and declare the whole mess incomprehensible? No, it’s unknown. We know of forces that attract over distance and change force with regard to the distance already (magnetism).

Right, just like we know a square circle exists.

We also know it has something to do with mass as the earth and a marble have vastly different masses. Just because you can’t comprehend or find interest in things does not make them beyond human comprehension. Maybe we haven’t discovered them yet, but that does not make them incomprehensible.

I didn't say that reality is incomprehensible. I said that many widely accepted theories are unintelligible. A good example in Christianity is the concept of an immaterial soul with no extension in space and yet positioned within the human body and tending to drive the human body. Sorry, makes no sense, logically, and therefore should be discarded.

If we only want a pragmatic theory, Einstein came up with a system that works well enough. If we want a theory that accurately describes reality, we shouldn't spend centuries extrapolating assumptions that don't make sense.

... and now give up, propose an unfalsifiable mechanism, and ignore any other possibilities. *headdesk*

What about it being, say... a wave?

Is this a push theory? Or a pull theory? Sounds like a push theory, which doesn't seem very promising. But I'm open to new ideas. However, until I see one that looks promising, my money's on God. That's all I'm saying. I see nothing wrong with that.

No. It is NOT appropriate. It raises far too many questions (which supernatural entity, for example), it is ONLY there till we find the actual answer which belittles the supernatural, etc etc etc. And you keep tossing around this intelligibility thing.

God is a moral agent. If it's never appropriate to suspect a moral agent, then CSI is an inappropriate endeavor.

Because we know that knives don’t pick themselves up and insert themselves into people on their own unless assisted by gravity (box of knives falls, poor sap is impaled, it could happen and would leave its own set of evidence), or people. The same can not be said of many things, like gravity.

Right, sort of like I know that I can't pull or push you from a distance. Wait a minute, how do we KNOW that knives don't pick themselves up and stab people? Maybe we just haven't found the mechanism yet, just like you said? Let's give the scientific community a a few hundred years to find it. In the meantime, don't put all those so-called "killers" in prison. That would be unscientific, after all.

Did the something that expanded exist before it expanded? We don’t know.
Well, ASSUMING it was there ‘before’ it is expanding now. So yes. But that’s an assumption, note it.
We don’t know yet. But IF there was something that was completely motionless quantum energy fluctuations could provide a gradient for the whole to act upon.
Well, it happened ~17 billion years ago, so no. Unless you mean ‘before’ where time as we know it didn’t exist that we know of, so it’s another ‘we don’t know yet’.

We don't know...We don't know...We don't know...Ok, until we DO know, I'm going to (tentatively) embrace a theory that DOES answer the hard questions. You speak of energy fluctuations. I don't think you're making any sense. Because: Again, we can't intelligibly postulate an infinite past. Therefore we are looking for the beginning of time and hence a state of motionlessness in which case an impetus is needed.




So greats like Stephen Hawking and Einstein and many many others could not POSSIBLY understand things like photons (massless particles) and so on? Gee, you have a really low opinion of them. Unless they’re irrational. And if you went to school for however many decades it takes to get to that point in many of the fields you have disparaged as ‘unintelligible’ I bet you could too. Your specific understanding does not demarcate the end of humanity’s understanding.

If Stephen Hawking wrote a book on square circles, I wouldn't consider it an accurate description of reality, no matter how pragmatic/ useful the theories presented. I feel the same about a book on massless particles and, probably, so should you.


Except I have several power plants, Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and many testing sites around the world to name a few that would like to show you wrong.

You're obviously not understanding me - or even Newton.

The rest of what you list is pretty much an argument from incredulity, “I don’t see how it could work so it can’t.”

Like, for example, an immaterial soul tangibly impacting a human body? It's a question of definition and therefore tautological. An intangible substance is by definition a sphere of reality insusceptible to tangible collisions. If you say that an intangible soul has a tangible impact on a tangible body, you're simply contradicting your own definitions.

Again, when faced with two theories, it is methodologically unreasonable (irrational) to opt for the one that seems completely self-contradictory / unintelligible.

 

[metherion]

Newton defined gravity as a force acting across a distance. Totally pragmatic theory. Not for one moment did he believe it. He KNEW it didn't represent reality. Useless theory? No. Junk science? No. Accurate description of reality no.

But there IS something there that DOES cause a pull across a distance. Yes... or no? Just because he didn’t know the mechanism, particle/wave/space-time curvature/magical pixies/whatever doesn’t mean it didn’t accurately describe reality. Furthermore, just because something MORE accurate came along later does not mean Newtonian physics was way off or not an accurate description, just less accurate that the current description.

No, massless particles do not exist, no more than space and time are "curved".

Flat out denial doesn’t change the facts.
A single photon can be ‘captured’ and measured:
Detection of single photons using a field effect transistor with a layer of quantum dots
and yet they have wavelength which only waves do, and no rest mass. Which means... massless particle.

Mass refers to the amount of matter in that particle or cluster of particles.

Acceptable.

If that amount is zero, stop calling it a particle.

Unless it exhibits undeniable particulate properties.

When you start coming up with ridiculous conclusions, at some point it becomes time to start asking, "Maybe there's a problem somewhere in the assumptions." For a long time many experts believed that classical physics was true. That changed. Now most people believe that Einstein got it right. But we were wrong at least once before - maybe we're wrong again?

Such as... “All scientists are wrong because I can’t comprehend what they’re going on about?”

It may not be 100% correct, we may always discover things, but that does NOT mean that what we do know and can experimentally verify is false.

A human can't produce a humanly unintelligible theory? I'll give you one right now: A square circle.

That’s a contradiction, not humanly unintelligible.

No one's ever going to "understand" a square circle, or a massless particle, or a speed of light constant for all observers.

Except we do 2 of those 3, with the other being a contradiction.

An internally self-contradictory concept will never be "comnprehended" regardless of its pragmatic value.

And 2 of 3 three aren’t internally self-contradictory.

Here's an example of a pragmatic theory which I would NEVER want to abandon (it's extremely useful): in math, the idea of a point in space without any size and shape. Zero dimensions. Thus if you have an x,y coordinate system, the point 0,0 isn't presumed to have any size and shape. Fine. But if you tell me that you just identified a particle of no size and shape, or a region in space with no size and shape, that's insane. Any ACTUAL point in space has dimensions.

That also isn’t a scientific theory like the particle/wave duality of elementary particles is, or special relativity, etc etc etc.

No one denies it's a judgment call. But it's fun to see confirmations of my judgments, for instance when I send a simple challenge to a physics professor, and still haven't heard back for three months.

A mere non-reply doesn’t mean the challenge is unanswerable. Perhaps it got lost in a shuffle of meetings. Perhaps his research is demanding a ton of his time. Perhaps he got put on a long, intensive tenure deciding board. Perhaps there are textbooks out there that answer the question so he feels he doesn’t have to.

Silly question.

Not at all. You keep saying it doesn’t accurately describe reality. Yet, it accurately describes the speed at which things fall on Earth, on the Moon, in various regions of the solar system enough to send satellites out, on Mars, at various orbit distances from the earth, and so on. Just because the mechanism isn’t understood doesn’t mean it’s incomprehensible or self-contradictory.

That just begs the question. Newton claimed that a force acting at a distance is too humanly unintelligible to merit credibility.

Because goodness knows humanity’s knowledge in those fields hasn’t advanced at ALL since Newton.

I'm open to theories of gravity, and I'm open to theories on magnetism. But only the intelligible ones.

And intelligibility is something you can define, an unquantifiable variable, that you can use to reject anything you don’t understand or don’t want to take the time to learn to understand.

Right, just like we know a square circle exists.

So things ARE NOT magnetically attracted over distances and that attraction IS NOT varying in magnitude according to distance?

I said that many widely accepted theories are unintelligible.

And I say that the scores of scientists who understand, research, comprehend, and successfully utilize said theories show you wrong.

If we want a theory that accurately describes reality, we shouldn't spend centuries extrapolating assumptions that don't make sense.

You know, I fully agree with you. But that isn’t the case here. Lots of things do make sense, if one has the foundation of knowledge to understand them. Not everyone does, hence the length of time higher degrees take. It takes time and schooling to learn why they make sense.

Is this a push theory? Or a pull theory? Sounds like a push theory, which doesn't seem very promising. But I'm open to new ideas.

If something has mass, maybe. Inertia and all that. But try and deny it as you will, we KNOW of massless particles, and we also know of massless waves. So there COULD be a pull wave with no problems and nothing associated with your idea of ‘push’.

God is a moral agent. If it's never appropriate to suspect a moral agent, then CSI is an inappropriate endeavor.

You’re drawing a false dilemma. CSI is around to determine what happened, and from there whether a moral agent was responsible or not. In some cases, it cannot be immediately determined. For example, is this skeleton with chipped bones a centuries old one that’s been in too many sandstorms, leftovers from an animal attack, or someone that was murdered with a chainsaw? Gotta figure out what it IS before it can be determined if their is a moral agent to look for. In some cases there is a head start, processes that only happen through human means (guns do not levitate to chest level and fire on their own, and the household cat sure didn’t do it).

Right, sort of like I know that I can't pull or push you from a distance. Wait a minute, how do we KNOW that knives don't pick themselves up and stab people? Maybe we just haven't found the mechanism yet, just like you said? Let's give the scientific community a a few hundred years to find it. In the meantime, don't put all those so-called "killers" in prison. That would be unscientific, after all.

You DO exert a pull on me from a distance. You can’t control it. You have mass, therefore you have a specific gravity.

Furthermore, you’re taking the idea of the unknown mechanism to absurdity. We know of forces that exist that we just don’t know the carriers yet. Gravity is one. No such thing is involved in macroscopic motion like being stabbed by a knife.

We don't know...We don't know...We don't know...Ok, until we DO know, I'm going to (tentatively) embrace a theory that DOES answer the hard questions.

And do WHAT to find the answers? After all, you have your answers. Oh, wait for people who don’t accept your idea (which is NOT a theory in the scientific sense of the word) to find answers, if they’re findable? I would call that being a hypocrite. “I have no idea what did it, so I’m going to assume unscientific X is the cause until people who don’t find it out for me.”

You speak of energy fluctuations. I don't think you're making any sense.

That’s because you (apparently) haven’t had schooling/class/homework exercises/etc dealing with quantum stuff. But the fact that I, and those who taught it to me, and those who wrote the textbooks, and those who conduct the experiments to verify it can understand and carry out those things indicate that it IS humanly intelligible.

Because: Again, we can't intelligibly postulate an infinite past. Therefore we are looking for the beginning of time and hence a state of motionlessness in which case an impetus is needed.

Which, IF your assumptions of some timeless lump of matter sitting there until SOMETHING caused it to move, a quantum energy fluctuation fits the bill quite nicely.

If Stephen Hawking wrote a book on square circles, I wouldn't consider it an accurate description of reality, no matter how pragmatic/ useful the theories presented. I feel the same about a book on massless particles and, probably, so should you.


And limit myself to your understanding in that field? No thanks. NO THAT IS NOT AN INSULT. For example, I don’t know what your education is in, but I’m sure no lawyer wants to limit themselves to MY understanding of the law. Or a doctor to MY understanding of medicine. Or a software designer to MY understanding of C++. And seeing as how you are not a physicist, I would not want to limit myself or the human race to YOUR understanding of it.

You're obviously not understanding me - or even Newton.

E=m(c^2) came after Newton.

Like, for example, an immaterial soul tangibly impacting a human body? It's a question of definition and therefore tautological. An intangible substance is by definition a sphere of reality insusceptible to tangible collisions. If you say that an intangible soul has a tangible impact on a tangible body, you're simply contradicting your own definitions.


You’re assuming collisions are the only way to interact with something.

Again, when faced with two theories, it is methodologically unreasonable (irrational) to opt for the one that seems completely self-contradictory / unintelligible.

And what SEEMS self-contradictory/unintelligible may wind up not BEING so upon further investigation/education/experimentation/etc.

Metherion

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Atheistic Big Bang: Illogical?

There really is no notion of an "Atheistic Big Bang". There is just clear evidence that the universe existed as a singularity is all. To be honest I'm sure it annoys atheists that there is such evidence. The notion that the universe began is very strong evidence for a creator in my view.

If an infinite number of events had to transpire before I was born, I would never have been born. My birth would still be pending.

Therefore, only a finite number of events have occurred in cosmological history, in which case there was a first event in the sequence.

This is very sound reasoning and in agreement with modern and ancient Philosophy. They refer to this as the impossibility of an actual infinite. Christian apologetics uses this as a separate and distinct form of reasoning for a beginning of the universe. It is only recently that modern cosmology has verified that this reasoning does indeed agree with scientific evidence.

I can point you to some good apologetic references for this if you like. William Lane Craig is very very good at this form of argument.

 

[laconicstudent]

There really is no notion of an "Atheistic Big Bang". There is just clear evidence that the universe existed as a singularity is all.

Um.... Instead of simply claiming it, why don't you do the really impressive thing and actually cite it.

To be honest I'm sure it annoys atheists that there is such evidence.

I bet I'd be a lot more annoyed if you cited it instead of simply claiming it exists

The notion that the universe began is very strong evidence for a creator in my view.

Formal logic disagrees.

This is very sound reasoning and in agreement with modern and ancient Philosophy.

Yes, when modern science disagrees with you, resort to ancient civilizations.

They refer to this as the impossibility of an actual infinite. Christian apologetics uses this as a separate and distinct form of reasoning for a beginning of the universe. It is only recently that modern cosmology has verified that this reasoning does indeed agree with scientific evidence.

Citation?

I can point you to some good apologetic references for this if you like. William Lane Craig is very very good at this form of argument.

Please. Although before you do, if you are going to try and dump "scientific proof" by people who have been dead for centuries, I am going to laugh at you.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Um.... Instead of simply claiming it, why don't you do the really impressive thing and actually cite it.


Formal logic disagrees.



Yes, when modern science disagrees with you, resort to ancient civilizations.




Citation?




Please. Although before you do, if you are going to try and dump "scientific proof" by people who have been dead for centuries, I am going to laugh at you.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? Please be specific. I'm honestly not sure.

I bet I'd be a lot more annoyed if you cited it instead of simply claiming it exists

Are you an atheist? I don't understand why you would be annoyed?

 

[laconicstudent]

What exactly are you disagreeing with? Please be specific. I'm honestly not sure.

Postulating a supernatural explanation for a physical phenomenon in the absence of scientific understanding is called the "God-of-the-Gaps" argument and is considered a fallacy in formal logic.

Are you an atheist? I don't understand why you would be annoyed?

I'm annoyed because you claim the existence of proof and don't bother to cite any of it. And no, I am not an atheist. Why does everyone who thinks God works through purely physical mechanisms without directly interfering is an atheist?