Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm suggesting predictions or implications of the physics (mathematics) underlying known successful models. A plausible extension would be consistent with, or subsume, the original model. Ultimately though, it must be useful - either by making some testable predictions, or by providing new techniques and approaches that could be useful in generating models that do have testable predictions.If it's not "possible" based on empirical cause/effect justification, who gets to decide if it's a "plausible" extension to the "natural laws"?
By that standard it is possible to conclude that everything is designed.
However ID theory asserts that only some things are designed, so the argument from functionality fails.
I would say that it's logical presume that everything we observe is possibly a result of intention. This isn't necissarily a conclusion, but rather a logical presumption.
Presuming that everything observed is possibly not the result of intention is illogical? By everything observed I'm sure you don't mean EVERYTHING observed since there are Cleary events which are not the result of someone's intention. They are called accidents. If indeed EVERYTHING would be tagged as intentional then the claim of innocence in court cases would be futile. Or we could claim innocence by claiming that although the murder happened it was not our intention but was intended by someone who controls all events and it was his intention not really yours. So when you say everything we view can be logically assumed to be intentional, I will assume you mean things which clearly display intentionality in order to prevent the claim from becoming nonsensical.I would say that it's logical presume that everything we observe is possibly a result of intention. This isn't necissarily a conclusion, but rather a logical presumption.
I wasn't addressing ID theory, I was addressing the use of the word 'possible' and how it can logically be used.
Selective blindness isn't science.It is also logical to presume that everything we observe is possibly NOT a result of intention. The trick is being able to tell when something is probably NOT the result of a given mechanism. That is the trick used in science.
I'm suggesting predictions or implications of the physics (mathematics) underlying known successful models.
A plausible extension would be consistent with, or subsume, the original model.
Ultimately though, it must be useful - either by making some testable predictions, or by providing new techniques and approaches that could be useful in generating models that do have testable predictions.
This brazen willingness to be unscientific while claiming admiration of and a strict adherence to science raises serious doubts concerning the sincerity of such claims. If indeed the standard is set very high for others but they refuse to abide by them themselves, then how can they expect to be taken seriously? The sad part about it is the vehement denial that they detect this glaring discrepancy while pompously posturing as unwavering defenders of both science and logic.GR is a known successful model, but stuffing magic into a GR formula, or specifically an "extended" version of GR doesn't give "magic" any extra 'viability' by virtual of help to get some mathematical fit using magic with GR.
Space expansion isn't a *requirement* of GR anymore than magic is a *requirement* of GR.
A "magic" GR model might be arguably "consistent" with the original formulas, but so what? Once we start deviating from empirical physics, and enter into the realm of pure speculation, how much "confidence" could we claim to have in the idea anyway?
SUSY models of "dark matter", as well as other models of "dark matter", claimed to make all sorts of "testable" mathematical predictions, but alas none of them "passed" those tests, either in the observational cosmos, or in the lab. Now what? Shall we just ignore those "mathematical predictions" because they don't work out in our favor?
The fact we can insert magic into a GR formulas doesn't lend scientific legitimacy to the topic of "magic". Likewise, stuffing the supernatural claim of "space expansion" and "dark energy" into a GR formula doesn't lend any physical credibility to those claims either. The fact we might get a mathematical fit to some observation with "magic" is ultimately irrelevant.
The fact that string theory can be made to look "consistent with" what we observe in 3D+Time really doesn't lend any additional credibility to that theory either.
I am a fan of clarity, preferably in a concise manner but I suspect that this write-up won’t be particularly so. These three common terms (Possible, Plausible, and Probable) are sometimes used interchangeably, and in the context of religious discussions they are used with intention of arguing for or against a god. This makes it imperative that these terms be used appropriately and clearly, as well as their antonyms (Impossible, Implausible, and Improbable).
I’ll use as an example, William Lane Craig’s premise that “The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.” (I took this quote from this essay here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...od-exist). What is meant by possible in this context? He goes on to say “In order to understand this argument, you need to understand what philosophers mean by ‘possible worlds’. A possible world is just a way the world might have been. It is a description of a possible reality. So a possible world is not a planet or a universe or any kind of concrete object, it is a world-description. The actual world is the description that is true. Other possible worlds are descriptions that are not in fact true but which might have been true. To say that something exists in some possible world is to say that there is some consistent description of reality which includes that entity. To say that something exists in every possible world means that no matter which description is true, that entity will be included in the description. For example, unicorns do not in fact exist, but there are some possible worlds in which unicorns exist. On the other hand, many mathematicians think that numbers exist in every possible world.”
But is that what the word “possible” really means? Well, yes and no. Possible is a word that is intended to mean that something may or may not exist (or may or may not have occurred) based on our understanding of how things work. The critical part of this is that there must be some sort of evidence to point to in order to say that something/someone/some event, is possible. WLC even gets close to this in his unicorn example. We know, based on the study of evolution and biology, that Unicorns are not possible beings in our universe because no evidence exists to show their possible existence and evidence does exist to show how the lineage of horses includes no characteristics that would produce the anatomical features of a unicorn. So WLC correctly asserts that unicorns are not possible in this universe, but is it true that they are possible in other universes? No, it isn’t. For a couple of reasons: 1) we don’t have any evidence to show that other universes exist and 2) even if other universes do exist, we don’t know anything about them, we can only hypothesize what they could be like. In short, we don’t know anything about their actual possibilities or the actual possibilities of things existing/occurring within them. I realize that the math associated with quantum mechanics and the multiverse hypothesis assert some interesting things that might be true, but these are not evidence that these things that might be true are realistic or possible. For instance, they may be telling us more about human imagination than external realities.
Okay, so the take home point for the word “possible” is that in order to assert that something is possible to exist or have occurred, you need some piece of evidence that it exists in order to point to it and say it is a possible explanation. An example would be bolide impact killing off the dinosaurs. Is that possible? We find craters on Earth showing that we have been hit by large bolides before, making it entirely possible that a large one could strike the Earth. Secondly, we know what the effects of an impact would be and what the consequences of large amounts of particulate matter are. We can look at the craters and calculate how large the objects were and how much ejecta they produced and calculate the atmospheric effects using observations of similar events (like large volcanic eruptions). So, is it possible that a large bolide impact could have resulted in the extinction of the dinosaurs? Yes, because the Earth can and has been hit before and the consequences of a large enough impact would result in widespread “nuclear” winter-like conditions that would generate the ecosystem stress to drive extinctions.
Let’s use an alternative explanation; is it possible that sentient aliens intentionally killed off the dinosaurs? We have no evidence that advanced alien civilizations exist or have visited Earth. So no, it is not possible that aliens killed the dinosaurs.
Why go through all of this? It’s because of the other two words I highlight: Plausible and Probable. Plausibility is intended to say whether or not a possible thing or scenario is or isn’t likely to have existed or occurred. It isn’t a calculation of the odds, it is a qualitative evaluation of what the possible thing/event’s effects would be and whether or not the evidence substantiates it as a likely candidate. So, let’s ask another question of the dinosaur extinction: is it plausible that competition from mammals drove them to extinction? This is a possibility given that 1) mammals were around at the time, 2) competition can drive extinction, and 3) the mammals radiated after the dinosaurs were gone. So we know that this is possible, but does the evidence logically conclude this? No, because this explanation does not sufficiently explain the extinction of marine organisms at the same time, it also does not provide an explanation for the evidence of the bolide impact. Therefore the plausibility of this scenario is considered very low or effectively implausible.
The last term is probability, which is now a calculation of the odds associated with plausible things (events or existence of things). Probability means you actually have a method for calculating the odds of something happening or something having existed. But this can get tricky.
For instance, what is the probability of winning the lottery? Those odds can be calculated based on the frequency at which winners are drawn, how many people play, and how many numbers you have to select in order to win. But once you play, you either win (probability of 1, or 100%, means you win) or you lose (0 or 0%). So calculating the probabilities before hand does not predict what will actually happen, it can’t tell me the truth because it can only tell me what the odds are of a plausible scenario are. So, could we calculate the probability of a unicorn existing? No, because we can’t conclude that one is plausible because we can’t conclude that they are possible.
And this is the big take home point. You can’t accurately or reliably assess the probability of something that can’t be shown to be plausible and you can’t assess the plausibility or probability of something if you can’t demonstrate it is first possible. And in order to show something is possible, you need evidence to corroborate its existence in some way. You need to show that it occurs in nature. You need to show that it is present in some way in the universe.
So, when people assert the probability of a god existing, they are starting off with the assumption that a god is possible, but that is not a corroborated claim. That makes any attempt at calculating the odds or the plausibility, pointless and useless.
This is also why Intelligent Design/Creationism are not taken seriously outside of religion. It is because the possibility of an intelligent designer has never been shown. That makes all of the “evidence” of intelligent design moot because it cannot be shown to logically connect to the intelligent designer because no evidence of an intelligent designer exists. This results in circular arguments where the “evidence” of intelligent design is then used as evidence of the designer, but that can’t be logically concluded because you can’t conclude it is evidence of intelligent design without showing that the intelligent designer is real.
Your definitions are very muddled at a philosophical level
Take this..
"based on our understanding of how things work. The critical part of this is that there must be some sort of evidence"
The first part "understanding of how" is a statement based on whether a relationship can be derived or approximated in the axiomatic model of science. All so called "understanding" is whether or not the phenomenon is modelled in that framework.
"there must be some sort of evidence" refers to empirical observation, NOT whether or not it can be approximated or derived in the axiomatic model.
The two things are chalk and cheese, yet you somehow try to relate them.
I have cited before the wholesale misunderstandings of ohms law and how it impacts those spheres to illustrate that difference.
Ohms law is a limited scope empirical observation model.
The equation (more correctly and equivalence) almost universally but wrongly attributed as ohms law, lives in the axiomatic model as the definition of resistance. That equivalence holds true, whether or not ohms law does.
Also the evidence, that is observation lives in an observation projection. Much can exist that it is not observable, which is constrained by our senses, therefore the lack of evidence for it, does not make it impossible, or even implausible.
The words possible, plausible and probable are in almost all cases used to describe a persons level of faith in the existence of something. Although the last "probable" does have clear systematic meaning.
Most atheists believe in a hole in the paradigm of life as a biochemical accident called abiogenesis. It is not a theory, nor even a valid scientific hypothesis. There is no evidence nor anything in the axiomatic model.
Yet they call it possible, plausible or probable, depending on emotion not science. There is far more evidence for (such as) bread became flesh in the eucharist, yet this is discounted for emotive rather than scientific reason.
Probability is also widely misunderstood. Take dawkins wholesale misunderstanding of probability applied to quantum chemistry has led to a wholly false premise. But there is atheism for you. It is a belief that affects dawkins judgement.
The annals of science are littered with bad judgement influenced by atheist belief. It is laughable how science loses all objectivity when it gets close to matters with theistic overtones.
Thousands of examples could be cited.
You've made an erroneous assumption in that I said that the evidence must be empirical and/or observational. I did not say that and you should not have assumed that.
What it takes for something to be possible is a reason to believe that it exists beyond the imagination.
So what you are claiming is that there are entities and phenomena in the universe which have no Final cause? You put yourself in the position that the entire universe was not created by God, but only parts of it.Presuming that everything observed is possibly not the result of intention is illogical? By everything observed I'm sure you don't mean EVERYTHING observed since there are Cleary events which are not the result of someone's intention. They are called accidents. If indeed EVERYTHING would be tagged as intentional then the claim of innocence in court cases would be futile. Or we could claim innocence by claiming that although the murder happened it was not our intention but was intended by someone who controls all events and it was his intention not really yours. So when you say everything we view can be logically assumed to be intentional, I will assume you mean things which clearly display intentionality in order to prevent the claim from becoming nonsensical.
What you said is purely subjective
"the" imagination is not an objective reality independent of an observer
"Your" imagination may be more limited than others.
But Possibility is unchanged by your inability to perceive it - or indeed the likelihood that it occurs.
Take. There is no evidence whatsoever for abiogenesis.
There is plenty of analytical evidence for bread became flesh in eucharistic miracles.
By your rules, abiogenesis is not possible. Eucharistic miracles certainly are.
But Most atheists would disagree,
because for them "possibility" is contingent on them "liking" the proposition.
They "Like" abiogenessis. They "dislike" eucharistic miracles.
Life is the evidence of abiogenesis and there are multiple natural hypotheses about how abiogenesis works.
Even that statement is ultimately a statement of faith on your part.
I could just as easily say that human experiences of the "effect" of "God" in their lives is evidence of God. The cause/effect relationship might not be as advertised, and the observed effect might have multiple valid alternatives.
Is life on Earth also evidence of Panspermia and intelligent design?
Life is evidence life is here and that it is plausible for life to arise on Earth. That is all that is necessary in order to construct a hypothesis about how life got here.
So sure, you could propose life as evidence for intelligent design but the onus is now on you to demonstrate that it is possible. Step 1, show that the intelligence you propose exists.
As for showing "that human experiences of the "effect" of "God" in their lives is evidence of God." You are almost correct. It is evidence that they believe their god is involved in their life, but is not evidence of their god.
Life is the evidence of abiogenesis....
I don't think you realize what you are arguing for or against with respect to the imagination, but you certainly aren't arguing against any point I made. For instance, I did NOT say the imagination was an objective reality independent of an observer.
Secondly, what limits anyone's imagination? How do you know if someone's imagination is more or less "limited" and what does that even mean in the context of this discussion?
Also, there is evidence of abiogenesis. Life. Life is the evidence of abiogenesis and there are multiple natural hypotheses about how abiogenesis works. What there is no evidence of is a supernatural "consciousness" being involved in any part of the formation of life or the Earth or the Universe.
People have imagined such a scenario, but it requires a deviation from what we know to be true about the way the universe works.
It can be subjective depending on what's being observed, but mainly that whatever is being observed performs some kind of function. Fore example: the function of a painting is to convey meaning. Or the function of an ant hill is to support the ants in what they do. We see function in all matter, which is why it's logical to presume possible intent/design.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?