WHY NON-CHRISTIAN?

[Eudaimonist]

Well explain how I am wrong.

I have no reason to think that this hypothetical second dimension of time is privileged in any way over the one that we are familiar with, or has characteristics that advance your argument in any way.

You are correct Christianity IS based on revelation. But what many do not know is that many of the most important teachings of that revelation have been confirmed by science, history, and philosophy.

Such as?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

According to Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History, the majority of cosmologists agree that at time=0 NOTHING existed. No mass, space or time.

I'm unable to look at the Nov 2007 issue at Natural History's site. Do you have a title for the article I can search on?

No, your mind was the cause, you willed to break your arm.

I agree that my mind was the cause, but my mind is a function of my brain, so my brain was also the cause. Mental causes are also physical causes. Modern science doesn't show any sharp dualistic difference between the mind and the brain.

The real YOU resides in your mind not your arm. So again the cause was not part of the effect.

I can find other examples. If I choose to stoke a certain emotion in myself, whether love, hate, fear, kindness, or whatever, my mind is the cause of something that has a mental effect. The cause is part of the effect.

The burden is on you to prove that the universe is not an effect even though it has all the characteristics of being one.

That burden isn't on me. You are claiming that the universe is an effect. All I have to do is show that it doesn't necessarily have to be, and I have spoken at length about this. I don't have to prove that the universe isn't an effect in order to show how your argument isn't as secure as you think. You don't have to agree with me, of course, but I've accepted the only burden that I have needed to so far.

Post 116.

Do you mean this quote: "It is also possible that the universe is uncaused, and that causes are only internal to the universe."

*scratches head*

It's exactly as I have been saying. I didn't suggest that the universe is the cause of its own existence. I suggested that it is uncaused. Any causes are only internal to the universe, such as me writing this post. I didn't say that the universe had created/caused/explains itself.

Maybe I didn't give enough context, but when I suggest that the universe is uncaused, I really do mean that the universe is uncaused, not that it caused itself.

Given that so far it has always worked in science, it is irrational and unscientific to abandon logic with ANY unknown.

Science =/= logic. Science involves logic, to be sure, but simply offering logical arguments is not science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Mere assertions and links to a paper that doesn't even touch the subjects you are making claims about.

Colour me unimpressed.

Evidence it doesn't touch the subject?

 

[bhsmte]

Evidence it doesn't touch the subject?

Ah, shifting the burden of proof. What a surprise.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No. You are mistaken. If you don't understand it how can you conclude it is true?

Just like a high school kid may not fully understand how humans made it to the moon but still conclude it happened.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I thought that a bit odd myself.

The same way a high school kid can know that humans landed on the moon without knowing exactly how we did it. Unless you are saying that he should not accept that fact.

 

[Ed1wolf]

lol.... you don't know but.... you know?

yep, makes perfect sense!

See above about landing on the moon. Unless you think the kid should deny we landed on the moon until he understands how we got there.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I look forward to your evidence to support that a brain and a "mind" are two seperate entities.

I am not saying that they are necessarily two totally separate entities. The mind needs the brain to interact with the physical world. The mind has some connection to the brain but it is not totally tied to the physical. The mind can operate according to the laws of logic, the brain like any physical entity can only operate according to the laws of physics. Also the placebo effect is evidence that the mind is not totally tied to the physical. Also, NDEs and if transgenderism is real then it is also evidence for this. In addition, a purely physical mind is self refuting.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It applies to the math used in physics, yes. However, it is not itself a physical theory.

The article's point can be summed up in a single sentence: "There are necessary limits to human knowledge regarding physics." That's it. GIT doesn't give any support to the idea that there is a supernatural realm that explains the natural realm.

No, the second paragraph sums it up best: David H. Wolpert, a physics-trained computer scientist at the NASA Ames Research Center, has chimed in with his version of a knowledge limit. Because of it, he concludes, the universe lies beyond the grasp of any intellect, no matter how powerful, that could exist within the universe. Specifically, during the past two years, he has been refining a proof that no matter what laws of physics govern a universe, there are inevitably facts about the universe that its inhabitants cannot learn by experiment or predict with a computation. Philippe M. Binder, a physicist at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, suggests that the theory implies researchers seeking unified laws cannot hope for anything better than a “theory of almost everything.”

The key points are "no intellect WITHIN the universe" and "cannot learn by experiment or predict with computation". But if we use logical reasoning without restraining ourselves to just natural explanations, we can avoid the problem of self-reference that GIT shows limits our understanding.

eud: One can't meaningfully speculate on what one can't know. You are just guessing that this unprovable knowledge has anything to do with the origin of the universe.

No, the universe is a system and GIT shows that if we bring in data from outside the system then those problems can be solved and the knowledge can be gained.

eud: That is just wishful thinking on your part. Nothing about the GIT says that this is possible.

No, it is called logical reasoning. The GIT explains the problems with self reference in any system that can be analyzed and studied.

eud: The article you reference argues precisely that -- some things are just "not provable".

As scientists, "we" use methodological naturalism. Science is not going to conclude that if there are limits to science, that it's perfectly okay to abandon science and go for supernatural explanations. If there are limits to what we can know, then there are limits to what we can know. Full stop.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But according to the GIT they are only not provable if you try to explain the system only by using the system itself. If you go outside the system, then the system becomes knowable and explainable. I know most scientists won't admit that there is the supernatural because they will be accused of being a fundie and probably lose their job. I am not saying that there are not limits to what we can know, but that does not mean that we can't know the Cause of the existence of the universe.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, the second paragraph sums it up best: David H. Wolpert, a physics-trained computer scientist at the NASA Ames Research Center, has chimed in with his version of a knowledge limit. Because of it, he concludes, the universe lies beyond the grasp of any intellect, no matter how powerful, that could exist within the universe.

All that means is that using formal mathematics there are limits to what can be proved and known about physics. That's it. That's all. There is no reason to think that there is any existence beyond the physical universe.

This is an epistemological issue, not a metaphysical one. It's an issue of knowledge and its limits.

The key points are "no intellect WITHIN the universe" and "cannot learn by experiment or predict with computation". But if we use logical reasoning without restraining ourselves to just natural explanations, we can avoid the problem of self-reference that GIT shows limits our understanding.

Alternatively, we can use logic in ways that don't involve formal mathematical systems. We can make different sorts of judgments. However, nothing in GIT means that we can successfully use logic about "non-natural explanations" to correctly explain anything.

No, the universe is a system and GIT shows that if we bring in data from outside the system then those problems can be solved and the knowledge can be gained.

It doesn't show that as far as I know. Indeed, any extra data (if it even exists) would have its own limitations. IOWs, you'd have the same GIT problem all over again. You would still not be able to prove certain things using the formal math.

I have to get to work now. More later.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not saying that they are necessarily two totally separate entities. The mind needs the brain to interact with the physical world.

These two sentences contradict eachother. Your second sentence implies the exact opposite of the first sentence.

If "x needs y", then X and Y are two seperate things.

The mind has some connection to the brain but it is not totally tied to the physical

How so?

The mind can operate according to the laws of logic

What does that mean?

, the brain like any physical entity can only operate according to the laws of physics

On that, we agree.

Also the placebo effect is evidence that the mind is not totally tied to the physical.

How so?

Also, NDEs and if transgenderism is real then it is also evidence for this.

There are perfectly sound neuroscientific explanations for phenomena like NDE's, out-of-body experiences etc. These days, through neuroscience we can even trigger such experiences on demand in subjects.

In addition, a purely physical mind is self refuting.

How so?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The GIT explains the problems with self reference in any system that can be analyzed and studied.

Yes, it does explain the limitations of mathematical proofs using algorithms. However, that doesn't help your argument as much as you seem to think. Simply explaining those problems doesn't create any solutions.

But according to the GIT they are only not provable if you try to explain the system only by using the system itself. If you go outside the system, then the system becomes knowable and explainable.

Not necessarily. Showing that there are limits to mathematical proofs regarding physics does not show that all mathematical proofs regarding physics are suddenly possible when introducing "non-natural" information. One can speculate along those lines, but it becomes a matter of wishful thinking, as I said.

One major hurdle is epistemological. Can one really combine natural and non-natural premises into a single logical/mathematical system in a way that is philosophically justified? It is not clear that the answer is "yes".

It's not enough to have a mathematical system. One needs to have a mathematical system that is epistemologically justified, and that justification in physics relies at least to some extent on empiricism. If there are no empirical reasons to think that one isn't creating an arbitrary math, no knowledge is gained. Adding "non-natural" data to the math is a dubious exercise.

I know most scientists won't admit that there is the supernatural because they will be accused of being a fundie and probably lose their job.

There are scientists who believe in something supernatural or divine, and yet are employed. Of the rest, there are far better reasons to reject the supernatural than mere employment issues.

I am not saying that there are not limits to what we can know, but that does not mean that we can't know the Cause of the existence of the universe.

It doesn't mean that we can, either. That is just the Argument from Ignorance, which is pretty much what your entire arguments rests on.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[super animator]

@Ed1wolf
Nothing what you said make any sense and just makes it more confusing then necessarily.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I don't see why that should be so. Physical entities function and produce effects, and don't need non-physical entities in order to have causes. I can see no reason why the brain should be any different.

Because there is strong evidence that the mind can operate according to the laws of logic, physical entities only operate according to the laws of physics. IOW if the mind is entirely physical then all your conclusions are just based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain not on the weighing of evidence and argument.

eud: I agree, but mind and brain function are the same thing. A functioning brain implies a functioning mind, and vice-versa. A human brain without the properties of mind is simply a brain that isn't functioning as a healthy brain.

The mind isn't a non-physical entity attached to a brain, though, any more than "motion" is a non-physical entity attached to a baseball being hit out of the park. There is no scientific evidence that there is some non-physical effect that explains brain function. The brain is itself the source of the causes that allow it to function in various ways.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your entire argument is self refuted if the mind is purely physical, see above. Your conclusion is just based on the ratio of chemical reagents in your brain, NOT on the consideration and weighing of evidence and argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because there is strong evidence that the mind can operate according to the laws of logic, physical entities only operate according to the laws of physics. IOW if the mind is entirely physical then all your conclusions are just based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain not on the weighing of evidence and argument.

This makes no sense at all.
The brain is what you do your thinking with.
"weighing of evidence and argument" clearly is underpinned by physical processes in the physical brain.

Your entire argument is self refuted if the mind is purely physical.

It is not.

Your conclusion is just based on the ratio of chemical reagents in your brain, NOT on the consideration and weighing of evidence and argument.

False.
The physical processes in the brain are the physical underpinnings of how you weigh evidence and argument.

Just like how the molecular sturcture and contractions of your biceps are the physical underpinnings of how you lift your arm.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Because there is strong evidence that the mind can operate according to the laws of logic, physical entities only operate according to the laws of physics.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever in terms of your position. I thought it was your position that the "laws of logic" apply to the natural universe. In post 121, you had claimed that "causality is a law of logic".

IOW if the mind is entirely physical then all your conclusions are just based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain not on the weighing of evidence and argument.

I have no reason to think that a biochemical brain can't weigh evidence and argument. A brain isn't just a soup in which only some "ratio of chemicals" matters in the same way that a "ratio of meat to vegetables" matters in a can of soup at the supermarket. Brains are quite a bit more complex than that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I cant explain the physics since I am not a physicist, but the conclusion is quite simple, ie that there is evidence for a second dimension of time.

eud: So what? Let's say that there is. How is this second dimension of time any more helpful for your arguments than the first?

If Causality is temporally bound then it provides a way for God to create OUR space and time dimensions. Though actually you have not proven that causality cannot occur in timelessness.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Name one important teaching that has been confirmed by science, history or philosophy, that could not have been known any other way.

I will name three things about the universe that the Bible taught 3000 years before they were discovered by science. The Bible has taught that the universe had a definite beginning from something not detectable, that the universe is expanding, and that the universe is energetically winding down 3000 years before these were discovered by scientists. I am not saying that the writers fully understood what they were writing at the time, but these things are taught by the bible especially if you look at the original languages.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Here is a better question, name one you have.

Ok, most cosmologists agree that the universe has all the characteristics of an effect.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ok, most cosmologists agree that the universe has all the characteristics of an effect.

Source? And I don't mean a source for cosmologists who believe that the universe started with a Big Bang. I mean for that part in bold above.

I have never heard cosmologists talk about how "the universe has all the characteristics of an effect", as if that was some big issue in cosmology. That seems to be your claim, and of course that of some Christian apologists.


eudaimonia,

Mark