Theism Vs Atheism

[wavy]

Another great read Paidion. Thanks. I am inspired by your depth of thought in these matters.

The Proof:

3. The idea of the Universe always existing contradicts the third premise. For an infinite amount of time would have passed, plenty for plenty for entropy to have increased to the extent of inert uniformity. Thus the Universe did not always exist, but had a beginning, or is still coming into being.

A potential problem here, and I'm no physicist, maybe that time itself is thought to have started at the Big Bang.

Your proof sounds a lot like the "prime mover' argument.

It really doesn't explain anything, because you'd have to explain where the Supernatural Source came from, and that just starts an infinite regress.

If you say that the Supernatural Source always existed (and how could you say that since, as you've pointed out, you can't really say anything about the Supernatural Source because there's no way of knowing anything about it if it is outside our natural world), then all you've done really is said that the problem of existence has no natural explanation, so it must be supernatural. That's no explanation.

Lastly, it is not falsifiable or testable. It doesn't help us to understand anything and we cannot test it in any way, so I don't think its of any use.

Best,
SB

No, you're confused. You don't have to explain where the 'supernatural source' came from because it is necessary. That it is necessary follows logically from the premise that the universe had a beginning and has no natural explanation. This is an ontological claim, not an epistemological claim. You don't have to know any specifics about the 'supernatural source' to say that it does not need something else to explain its existence.

Also, you talk about what's falsifiable and testable. But this is also confused. By its very nature the supernatural source cannot be investigated empirically, so you can't 'test' it. Saying you need to test it empirically in order to verify its truth is just begging the question of metaphysical naturalism. But it can be disproven. You'd have to demonstrate some logical incoherency about the existence of this 'supernatural source' to show that it isn't true.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Silver Bullet]

No, thank-YOU Eric. I have no formal education or training in logic or philosophy, so I really appreciate you helping me clarify my thoughts.

No, you're confused. You don't have to explain where the 'supernatural source' came from because it is necessary. That it is necessary follows logically from the premise that the universe had a beginning and has no natural explanation.

The concept of a beginning involves time, and I was trying to point out that time itself is thought to have started at the Big Bang. This makes intuitive premises about beginnings challenging.

While I am not a physicist, I intuitively agree with the premise that the Universe had a beginning (recognizing that there are very likely limitations in this intuition), and I think it is accurate to say that we have no natural explanation for that beginning. I do not think that it necessarily follows that a natural explanation does not exist though.

You don't have to know any specifics about the 'supernatural source' to say that it does not need something else to explain its existence.

What I was getting at here is that if we are seeking knowledge about the origins of existence, even if a supernatural being or force of some kind did provide a beginning for our universe, we would still be left with the question of the beginning of the supernatural being or force itself. Concluding that our origin lies in a supernatural being does not explain the origins of all existence - it just pushes the answer into a domain we can't investigate. Maybe I'm just repeating myself and not addressing your particular concern . . . If I am, please help me to see where I am going wrong.

Also, you talk about what's falsifiable and testable. But this is also confused. By its very nature the supernatural source cannot be investigated empirically, so you can't 'test' it.

No, I dont think I'm confused about this. We are, in fact, in agreement, since I said that it could NOT be tested.

But it can be disproven. You'd have to demonstrate some logical incoherency about the existence of this 'supernatural source' to show that it isn't true.

I believe I have done that.

Thanks again Eric,
SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

The following may be helpful in the debate:

There really are countless ways that an omnipotent God could convince atheists of his existence.

He has done enough already, as Sinthesis pointed out.

Christians are a minority on this planet. Atheists/agnostics plus believers of all other faiths outnumber Christians. We are living proof that the Christian God, if he does exist, has not done enough to convince people, let alone atheists, of His existence. It is interesting to note that every religious believer is a minority when considered this way (as are atheists/agnostics). Many Gods have been postulated, but no one God, if she does exist, has done a sufficient job of convincing people. Our major religious beliefs are mostly incompatible with one another, and they serve to balkanize our species rather than unite us under belief in the right God. This is a threat (among others) to the survival of our species. Finally, even if most people on the planet were convinced (the way majorities have at times been convinced that Blacks were an inferior race, or less-than-human), that still wouldn't mean that the evidence was good and that said God actually exists. It could just mean that most people are especially gullible when it comes to God. It's all about the quality of the evidence.

There are problems with Russell's teapot argument, as I pointed out in another thread in "Christianity & Other Religions". It really isn't a good argument at all and as such I'm not so sure he meant it as an argument.

Russell's point is this: The existence of God cannot be disproved (despite this being rather obvious, I repeatedly hear believers tell me that I cannot prove that God doesn't exist, as if I should then wither away or do an about face and begin praying for forgiveness or kneel and worship). The only reasonable position to hold with respect to a claim that cannot be disproved is disbelief until good evidence of the claim (the burden of which is on the believer) is provided.

For example: I cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist. The only reasonable position to hold on the existence of Santa Claus is disbelief until some good evidence of his existence is made available. I am sure every sane adult is an A-Santaist. That's not because it's been proven that Santa doesn't exist; it's because there is no good evidence that he does exist.

If I was debating you, I'd ask you to provide the good evidence that God exists because that, and that alone, is what belief in the existence of God should rest upon. But of course, you believe much more than that God exists because you surely believe all kinds of thins about said God including that he answers your prayers, cares about you, was raised from the dead, etc. All of these claims require evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Best,
SB

 

[wavy]

While I am not a physicist, I intuitively agree with the premise that the Universe had a beginning (recognizing that there are very likely limitations in this intuition), and I think it is accurate to say that we have no natural explanation for that beginning. I do not think that it necessarily follows that a natural explanation does not exist though.

I never meant to imply one might not acually exist.

What I was getting at here is that if we are seeking knowledge about the origins of existence, even if a supernatural being or force of some kind did provide a beginning for our universe, we would still be left with the question of the beginning of the supernatural being or force itself. Concluding that our origin lies in a supernatural being does not explain the origins of all existence - it just pushes the answer into a domain we can't investigate. Maybe I'm just repeating myself and not addressing your particular concern . . . If I am, please help me to see where I am going wrong.

We don't need to question where the supernatural force 'came from' if it is a necessary entity. There is something that exists necessarily. The explanation of its existence would be in its very nature. If the universe is contingent, we only need to posit one necessary entity beyond it. And unless there's something about the definition of this entity which shows that it also cannot explain itself, then there's no need to invoke some kind of infinite regress, always invoking something else to explain the existence of something.

Something doesn't have to have an explanation for its existence outside of itself just because it exists.

Also, you talk about what's falsifiable and testable. But this is also confused. By its very nature the supernatural source cannot be investigated empirically, so you can't 'test' it.

No, I dont think I'm confused about this. We are, in fact, in agreement, since I said that it could NOT be tested.

I know you said that. I'm saying that the inability to test it doesn't matter. It can't be tested by definition. That doesn't mean it can't be logically deduced. We don't need to test it in order to know it exists.

I believe I have done that.

Where? What about the supernatural is 'incoherent'? Expressing a few reservations about how little we would know about it does not demonstrate it to be logically contradictory, which is what is meant by 'incoherent'.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Silver Bullet]

While I am not a physicist, I intuitively agree with the premise that the Universe had a beginning (recognizing that there are very likely limitations in this intuition), and I think it is accurate to say that we have no natural explanation for that beginning. I do not think that it necessarily follows that a natural explanation does not exist though.

I never meant to imply one might not acually exist.

Oh. I thought that you did when you wrote this:

That [the supernatural force] is necessary follows logically from the premise that the universe had a beginning and has no natural explanation.

On another note,

We don't need to question where the supernatural force 'came from' if it is a necessary entity. There is something that exists necessarily. The explanation of its existence would be in its very nature. If the universe is contingent, we only need to posit one necessary entity beyond it. And unless there's something about the definition of this entity which shows that it also cannot explain itself, then there's no need to invoke some kind of infinite regress, always invoking something else to explain the existence of something.

Something doesn't have to have an explanation for its existence outside of itself just because it exists.

Ok - I understand better what you mean. This seems fair enough for the purpose of purely logical proofs. Thank goodness that while science employs logic, it doesn't just work this way.

What about the supernatural is 'incoherent'?

The problem with the logic is that it does not include the possibility that we are not completely informed about the laws of thermodynamics or the finite nature of the universe - that a natural explanation beyond our current understanding of the apparent paradox exists.

Scientifically, simply concluding that a supernatural force must have created the universe is useless, and stifles inquiry. It has no scientific value. It does not advance our understanding of our origins in any way. It is entirely unpersuasive.

Thanks again for elaborating and helping me to understand.

Best,
SB

 

[Free]

Scientifically, simply concluding that a supernatural force must have created the universe is useless, and stifles inquiry. It has no scientific value. It does not advance our understanding of our origins in any way. It is entirely unpersuasive.

Quite the opposite actually. Most of the fathers of modern science were theists. The premise was that since the universe was created by an intelligent being, there ought to be order and design that could be discovered. And this we do find in all the laws governing the universe and the appearance of design.

 

[epistemaniac]

SB wrote

The problem with the logic is that it does not include the possibility that we are not completely informed about the laws of thermodynamics or the finite nature of the universe - that a natural explanation beyond our current understanding of the apparent paradox exists.

Scientifically, simply concluding that a supernatural force must have created the universe is useless, and stifles inquiry. It has no scientific value. It does not advance our understanding of our origins in any way. It is entirely unpersuasive.

what does thermodynamics have to do with logic? I thought these were scientifically proven principles, not laws of logic.... if you can point me towards an explanation that tells me how these laws are principles of logic I would appreciate it.....

to say that a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe is false because a natural cause might be found is argumentum ad ignorantiam. That a natural explanation might someday be found for the existence of the universe does not prove anything right now. One might just as well argue that a supernatural cause for everything might one day be found (not that it hasn't ;) ), therefore philosophical materialism must be false... I don't think you would buy that one...

just because you personally find a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe "useless" or "stifling" it does not make it so for everyone else.... learned physicists like John Poliknghorne http://www.polkinghorne.net/ , Stanley Jaki, and Robert Jastrow apparently have no problem combining their faith with their highly developed scientific and academic life, nor evidently did they think that postulating a supernatural cause for the universe was useless or stifling to the scientific endeavor. That is, simply to say that all of life and the universe is here due to supernatural causes, does not mean that therefore there is no more work to be done in the realm of science. For the philosophical materialist to say that a supernatural explanation is no explanation seems to me to be a bit of Imperialistic dogma. Of course, a supernatural explanation for anything might well be something that the philosophical materialist does not like, but just because it is an idea that does not fit in with philosophical materialist's presuppositions about what science "MUST" be, and about which kinds of answers will be accepted, it does not follow that it is no explanation at all. It is an explanation, just not one they want to assent to. If rational inquiry leads to the conclusion that the origin of life and that the universe was created by a supernatural being, then our understanding and questions about origins has not only been advanced, it has been conclusively answered, though of course many questions and hopefully answers still remain for brainiacs like Polkinghorne and other men and women of science and faith.

"Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions." (Freeman Dyson)

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Robert Jastrow)

blessings,
ken

 

[Silver Bullet]

Scientifically, simply concluding that a supernatural force must have created the universe is useless, and stifles inquiry. It has no scientific value. It does not advance our understanding of our origins in any way. It is entirely unpersuasive.

Quite the opposite actually. Most of the fathers of modern science were theists. The premise was that since the universe was created by an intelligent being, there ought to be order and design that could be discovered. And this we do find in all the laws governing the universe and the appearance of design.

This is a weak argument for deism, and a very poor one indeed for theism.

Most of the fathers of country music were also theists. Most of all people who ever lived were theists. By default, most historical scientists would have been also.

One does not need to believe in God to recognize that apples always fall down and never fall up. The order around us is apparent to us all (at the same time that it falls apart in quantum mechanics). It is only natural that some historical scientists who have also been theists would attribute the order that is found to God.

Today, the fact is that faith in God disappears among the most distinguished scientists. Only 7% of members of the National Academy of Science - an organization of our most elite scientists - believe in God, while 40% of ordinary scientists, and 90% of the population at large do. Interestingly enough, among scientists, biologists -those most intimately involved with the study of the apparent design of life -are the ones least likely to believe in God (followed by physicists and astronomers - those most likely to be involved in the study of the apparent order and design of everything else). The fact that historical scientists managed, or a small minority of scientists today manage to believe in God does not indicate that there are good reasons to believe in God.

It is one thing to believe that the universe is dispassionately understandable by science, and another to believe that it is understandable by passionate wishful thinking, and then looking to see if that understanding is compatible with the edges of or gaps in science.

A supernatural explanation stifles inquiry because (a) it provides a facile explanation for anything and (b) the explanation is one that cannot be further studied, by definition.

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

SB wrote

The problem with the logic is that it does not include the possibility that we are not completely informed about the laws of thermodynamics or the finite nature of the universe - that a natural explanation beyond our current understanding of the apparent paradox exists.

Scientifically, simply concluding that a supernatural force must have created the universe is useless, and stifles inquiry. It has no scientific value. It does not advance our understanding of our origins in any way. It is entirely unpersuasive.

what does thermodynamics have to do with logic? I thought these were scientifically proven principles, not laws of logic.... if you can point me towards an explanation that tells me how these laws are principles of logic I would appreciate it.....

The laws of thermodynamics and the concept that the universe is finite were the premises upon which the logical proof was based. I never said they had anything to do with logic in general, but they are clearly important for the proposed logical proof. My understanding is that physicists are quite uncertain about how the known laws of physics operate under the conditions of the Big Bang, but this is an intense field of inquiry.

to say that a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe is false because a natural cause might be found is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I'm not exactly sure what this means, but I suspect it is my argument exactly: the correct position to hold with respect to the origins of our universe is one of ignorance. We just don't know.

The most important concept in science is intellectual honesty. If one is to be intellectually honest about Paidion's proof, one must admit that the only conclusion we can draw about the origins of the universe is that we just don't know.

just because you personally find a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe "useless" or "stifling" it does not make it so for everyone else.... learned physicists like John Poliknghorne http://www.polkinghorne.net/ , Stanley Jaki, and Robert Jastrow apparently have no problem combining their faith with their highly developed scientific and academic life, nor evidently did they think that postulating a supernatural cause for the universe was useless or stifling to the scientific endeavor. That is, simply to say that all of life and the universe is here due to supernatural causes, does not mean that therefore there is no more work to be done in the realm of science. For the philosophical materialist to say that a supernatural explanation is no explanation seems to me to be a bit of Imperialistic dogma. Of course, a supernatural explanation for anything might well be something that the philosophical materialist does not like, but just because it is an idea that does not fit in with philosophical materialist's presuppositions about what science "MUST" be, and about which kinds of answers will be accepted, it does not follow that it is no explanation at all. It is an explanation, just not one they want to assent to. If rational inquiry leads to the conclusion that the origin of life and that the universe was created by a supernatural being, then our understanding and questions about origins has not only been advanced, it has been conclusively answered, though of course many questions and hopefully answers still remain for brainiacs like Polkinghorne and other men and women of science and faith.

Despite Paidion's thoughtful proof, rational inquiry has not lead to the conclusion that the origin of the universe lies in a supernatural being.

In fact, time and time again, rational inquiry has found natural explanations rather than supernatural ones for our knowledge gaps.

What we have above is the classic "God of the gaps". While obvious questions still remain, gaps previously held by God have been closed thanks to science.

"Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions." (Freeman Dyson)

The religious moderates mentioned in the quote above betray both their faith and reason.

Religion, and Christianity in particular, make claims that bear on science all the time.

The pinnacle of arrogance is the inability to say "I don't know". "Faith" is entirely about claims that one cannot possibly know.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Robert Jastrow)

This remains to be seen. As mentioned above, sitting at the top of many historical peaks of faith is science.

Best,
SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

Eric,

Can you help me understand the following better?

We don't need to question where the supernatural force 'came from' if it is a necessary entity. There is something that exists necessarily.

Don't you mean that we don't need to question whether it exists? It seems to me that the question of the origin of the supernatural force is a separate issue.

The explanation of its existence would be in its very nature.

I don't understand how you can say that. All we would know is that it exists, but we would know nothing of its own origins.

If the universe is contingent, we only need to posit one necessary entity beyond it. And unless there's something about the definition of this entity which shows that it also cannot explain itself, then there's no need to invoke some kind of infinite regress, always invoking something else to explain the existence of something.

It seems to me that the entity could only be defined as "the creator of our universe". As you have pointed out, if the entity is supernatural (beyond our natural world), then we can't know anything more about it. I don't see why we wouldn't logically be free to ponder the origin of such an entity, the same way we ponder the origin of our existence.

Something doesn't have to have an explanation for its existence outside of itself just because it exists.

Yet that is exactly what we're doing with our own universe.

Thanks in advance,
SB

 

[wavy]

Oh. I thought that you did when you wrote this:

That [the supernatural force] is necessary follows logically from the premise that the universe had a beginning and has no natural explanation.

No, what I was saying was that if naturalism has no explanation for the beginning of the universe then only a supernatural one can. So the question is whether or not it is true that naturalism has no explanation or that it does not have a potential explanation.

Ok - I understand better what you mean. This seems fair enough for the purpose of purely logical proofs. Thank goodness that while science employs logic, it doesn't just work this way.

I don't see how that's relevant even if it were true. Doesn't work what 'way'?

The problem with the logic is that it does not include the possibility that we are not completely informed about the laws of thermodynamics or the finite nature of the universe - that a natural explanation beyond our current understanding of the apparent paradox exists.

No, I asked you what about the supernatural is 'incoherent', not what about that particular argument may be untrue. You said the supernatural isn't 'falsifiable'. I responded that it could be proven false by demonstrating that it is logically contradictory. Demonstrating whether not an argument works for establishing the supernatural is not the same thing as demonstrating that the supernatural is 'incoherent'.

Scientifically, simply concluding that a supernatural force must have created the universe is useless, and stifles inquiry. It has no scientific value. It does not advance our understanding of our origins in any way. It is entirely unpersuasive.

Again, I don't understand what 'science' has to do with this. It doesn't matter if you like it or not or if you think it contributes to our 'scientific' knowledge. If it follows from a set of true premises then it is true, the implications for science notwithstanding. Science, by definition, is methodologically naturalistic. So views about the supernatural are obviously not going to comport with a discipline committed to the idea that nature is all that exists. That has nothing to do with whether or not supernaturalism is true. You can't measure it against science and say it's worthless because they represent two distinctive worldviews.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Silver Bullet]

As always, thanks for your thoughtful comments Eric.

I don't understand what 'science' has to do with this. It doesn't matter if you like it or not or if you think it contributes to our 'scientific' knowledge. If it follows from a set of true premises then it is true, the implications for science notwithstanding. Science, by definition, is methodologically naturalistic. So views about the supernatural are obviously not going to comport with a discipline committed to the idea that nature is all that exists. That has nothing to do with whether or not supernaturalism is true. You can't measure it against science and say it's worthless because they represent two distinctive worldviews.

I wonder if I might ask if you are a "supernaturalist" and if you consider this logic actual proof of the existence of a supernatural creator of our universe?

(The second part of the question is more important if you don't want to answer the first)

Best,
SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

Hi Eric,

I hope you get a chance to answer my previous question(s). I have one more for you:

Would you agree that Paidion's proof can be summarized by your very own words?

. . . if naturalism has no explanation for the beginning of the universe then only a supernatural one can. So the question is whether or not it is true that naturalism has no explanation or that it does not have a potential explanation.

SB

 

[wavy]

1st question: No, I am an agnostic.

2nd question: What logic?

3rd question: Yes. What Paidion's argument does is infer the best explanation from a set of facts about the universe. It entails that nature itself cannot explain these facts and therefore the best explanation is a transcendent reality.

Now, an oft parroted accusation is that this is nothing but 'God of the gaps' sort of reasoning; that the supernatural is just being used as a placeholder for our ignorance. But that is not at all true. There's a difference between deducing a specific explanation from what seems to be the case about the facts and just saying 'we don't know, therefore supernatural/God'.

I think William Lane Craig does a fair job of making the distinction here.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Silver Bullet]

3rd question: Yes. What Paidion's argument does is infer the best explanation from a set of facts about the universe. It entails that nature itself cannot explain these facts and therefore the best explanation is a transcendent reality.

Thanks for clarifying Eric. I will get a chance to read the William Lane Craig link later tonight I hope.

We agree that your words do accurately summarize Paidion's argument, and we must therefore agree that it is indeed a circular argument.

"No natural explanation exists, so the explanation cannot be natural, it must be un-natural, or super-natural."

The conclusion is already in the premise, and all that's happening is that the words are being played with. Since the definition of 'supernatural' is 'of or relating to an order of existence beyond the natural universe', not natural, un-natural, and supernatural all mean the same thing.

The only intellectually honest conclusion to draw from this exercise is that we do not have a natural explanation for the existence of the universe at this point in time. Period.

That does not provide a good reason for believing in the existence of a supernatural creator.

To conclude that we must have a supernatural creator on this basis is circular reasoning, and wishful thinking.

Best,
SB

 

[wavy]

3rd question: Yes. What Paidion's argument does is infer the best explanation from a set of facts about the universe. It entails that nature itself cannot explain these facts and therefore the best explanation is a transcendent reality.

Thanks for clarifying Eric. I will get a chance to read the William Lane Craig link later tonight I hope.

We agree that your words do accurately summarize Paidion's argument, and we must therefore agree that it is indeed a circular argument.

"No natural explanation exists, so the explanation cannot be natural, it must be un-natural, or super-natural."

The conclusion is already in the premise, and all that's happening is that the words are being played with. Since the definition of 'supernatural' is 'of or relating to an order of existence beyond the natural universe', not natural, un-natural, and supernatural all mean the same thing.

The only intellectually honest conclusion to draw from this exercise is that we do not have a natural explanation for the existence of the universe at this point in time. Period.

That does not provide a good reason for believing in the existence of a supernatural creator.

To conclude that we must have a supernatural creator on this basis is circular reasoning, and wishful thinking.

Best,
SB

No, no, no...

What I stated was a conditional, not an argument, first of all. You worded it that way by inserting premise and conclusion indicators. Anyway, what I said applied to Paidion's argument only insofar as what the issue is at stake. It does not attempt to restate the argument in other words. It's not an argument.

Even if it were an argument, you poorly stated it. The correct way to state it would have been:

1) Either there is a natural explanation for P or a supernatural one
2) There is no natural explanation for P
3) Therefore, there must be a supernatural explanation for P

This argument is valid because it concerns two kinds of explanations, and only one could be true. There's nothing circular about this.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Silver Bullet]

What I stated was a conditional, not an argument

I have just been trying to use common sense, so please forgive me if I have proven unfamiliar with certain philosophical terms and rules that apply to logic.

Your words:

That [the supernatural] is necessary follows logically from the premise that the universe had a beginning and has no natural explanation.

That sounds like an argument to me Eric. In fact, you stated the argument as follows:

1) Either there is a natural explanation for P or a supernatural one
2) There is no natural explanation for P
3) Therefore, there must be a supernatural explanation for P

This is a deeply flawed way of stating the argument: the glaringly obvious problem (which I have brought up several times before in this thread, and which a junior high school student ought to be able to identify) is that statement (2) is an overstatement. Paidon's argument does not prove that a natural explanation does not exist. Now I now that when you wrote this you were just re-writing an argument I seemed to be making, but the point is that this is one of the issues we've been dancing around in our posts.

The argument above ought to read as follows:

1) Either there is a natural explanation for the origin of the universe or a supernatural one
2) No natural explanation has yet been discovered
3) Therefore, there is either a supernatural explanation, or a natural explanation that has not yet been discovered.

Paidon's argument boils down to this very issue: that there is not at the moment a natural explanation for the origin of the universe. (All of the issues relating to the laws of thermodynamics are really extraneous since they only serve to bring us to this conclusion, which really is obvious.)

We ought to stop there, which is exactly what I have been arguing all along.

It does not follow logically that a supernatural explanation is necessary because this excludes the logical possibility that a natural explanation exists but is not known to us yet. This is relevant because of the countless times when our species, in our ignorance, has attributed unexplained phenomena to supernatural sources and been absolutely wrong. This has, in fact, been a one-way, zero sum game between supernaturalism and science

An insistance on this rigid logic is wishful thinking. To put any significance on this argument is to wish that science will not discover a natural explanation, or to ignore the possibility that it will. You asked me earlier what I meant when I said "thank goodness science doesn't work this way". Now you know what I meant: science doesn't employ wishful thinking.

Thanks,
SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

1st question: No, I am an agnostic.

2nd question: What logic?

My second question was whether you considered Paidion's argument to represent proof of the existence of a supernatural creator?

Since you are agnostic, the answer is presumably no, so my next question to you would be if, despite the apparent disagreements we have had in the last 2 pages of posts, we agree as to why it does not represent such proof (my reasons have been well outlined above).

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

The Proof:

1. Since the Universe is finite, it is, itself, a closed system. Thus the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to it.

2. Either the Universe always existed, or else it came into being (either instantaneously or over a period of time), or it is still coming into being.

3. The idea of the Universe always existing contradicts the third premise. For an infinite amount of time would have passed, plenty for plenty for entropy to have increased to the extent of inert uniformity. Thus the Universe did not always exist, but had a beginning, or is still coming into being.

4. If the Universe (total of all matter and energy) had a beginning, then its matter and energy couldn't have come into being within itself. For this would contradict premise 2. The same applies if the Universe is still coming into being.

Conclusion: Since the Universe had a beginning, and its matter and energy could not have arisen within itself, then it must have come into it from outside itself, from outside nature itself. That which is outside nature is the Supernatural. Thus the production of matter and energy within the Universe had a Supernatural Source.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercur ... thing.html

It appears that one theoretical explanation of point #4 arises from the concept, apparently supported by Stephen Hawking, that the total energy of the universe is actually zero. If accurate, this would not necessarily contradict the second law of thermodynamics. As a non-physicist, I must say that it is difficult to understand this. Nevertheless, it seems that there may be at least one potential natural explanation for the beginning of the universe that doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics.

Another potential work-around that I have come across is the notion that the universe is not necessarily a closed system in the conventional sense, since it is expanding at an increasing rate. Total energy need only remain constant in a closed system, but if the universe is ever increasing its volume, it may not be fair to consider it a closed system. The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems.

Finally, and this is perhaps the easiest one to understand intuitively I think, the laws of thermodynamics may not hold under the conditions of the Big Bang, when space and time are thought to have had their beginning.

My conclusion would be: the universe seems to have had a beginning, but we have no good explanation for the origin of the matter and energy of the universe (yet ;) ).

SB

 

[stranger]

hi wavy,

In your posts you seem to present 'natural' or 'supernatural' as a possible explanation for an event. The reason behind an event is either N or S. The problem is 'or'.

As a theist I would say that the true laws science discovers are infact God's laws. One equation that I recall is F=ma. That's an example of God's law of physics. It took a few thousand years for a man to articulate it -- and I see it as part of God's general revelation to man. So AS a scientist or mathematician discovers the action is God revealing. If God does not reveal - the scientist remains in the dark and discovers nothing or worse reaches a position that is not true and will eventually be found to be so.

That's the apologetic, here's the price tag -- it (apologetics) all but destroyed me in 1989.

br