Strawman. I do not agree that this is an adequate summary of philosophy's "attitude". Without getting too deep into details, consider that philosophy, through its philosophers, has reached and will continue to reach no shortage of findings that appear to go against "common sense".
True. I admit that I didn't define the term philosophy before I used it. Just look at the argument between Science, Empirical Science, and Philosophy as a discussion between individuals. I was trying to follow a pattern, but I think you
might see that some of these abstract personages took on characteristics of one another as the discussion progressed instead of remaining true to their character. But maybe not. 8-)
Absurd according to whom? The planets orbiting around the sun was once absurd to the entirety of the population on this planet. Now, the opposite is true.
I'm glad you see my point. :D The arguments in the discussion between S, ES, and P were not all necessarily mine. In fact I am against some of them as you may have been able to tell.
Strawman again. Science, empirical or otherwise, cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God. It also cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of unicorns, dragons, and honest politicians.
True, but we can arrive at semi-accurate conclusions on some of those matters. History and logic can disprove Santa, a lie detector could determine if a politician is honest or not (to a certain degree of reliability - not always right). I could even see unicorns as being real at some point. It's not farfetched to think so. You get one deformed horse with a sort of horn on its head and then a legend springs up about them, with fantasy diluting the reality of it. I think our brains, though, are the best God-ometers. They can take the facts and interpret them to show the probability of there being a God. The reason why there are differences between our God-ometers is because they don't have all the facts. Some have more facts than others while others have more prejudice or biases toward one interpretation over the other.
Quote:
All the world and the universe are your empirical evidence. If we can't explain the universe's existence without a creator beyond a doubt (let alone simply explain this paradox),
That's just not reasonable. We will never be able to explain anything without any shadow of a doubt remaining.
But I said:
let alone simply explain this paradox... By this I meant that we cannot (as of now) simply explain this paradox using logic. So what I meant to say is that we cannot explain this beyond a doubt of course, but we cannot even explain it using logic or offer another means which logically explains the universe. Of course science and common sense, as you've said, don't necessarily go together all the time. However, our science is limited and to base your lack of faith on the limitations of our current science when it is not even logical does not seem to be a very sound choice to me.
That said, we have a pretty darn good idea nonetheless.
Of course.
Take planetary formation.
I've always wandered how planets formed exactly. Could you give me some articles and photographs on it?
Quote:
then logic and philosophy dictate that - by the patterns of the universe - there must be a creator outside of the universe (or multiverse) who created it.
1. What are the "patterns of the universe"? You haven't defined this term.
The pattern of the universe is that a creation requires a creator. I suppose even a creating force which then wouldn't require a creator in and of itself.
2. What about logic and philosophy leads you to believe this?
Bear with me as I look at this from an atheistic perspective and a theistic perspective.
Atheist: I created this text in this post. My parents created me. Their parents created my parents. Evolution created the first humans. The chance circumstances of the universe helped fuel evolution. The Big Bang - among other things - placed the world in such a position (over a great deal of time) as to make such circumstances possible which in turn fueled evolution. Something we don't know of yet but that we will figure out will cause the Big Bang or a similar event which created our universe as we know it. And then something else which we don't know of will create the events that will create the events which cause the Big Bang or some similar action which in turn created me over a long period of time. We always thought that matter or a substance isn't created out of nothing, but look at Quantum Mechanics. This seems to show that it is and that it returns to nothing. Therefore there must be an explanation other than a 'God of the gaps'.
Theist: I created this text in this post. My parents created me. Their parents created my parents. God created humans using some means which is not known. He usually uses his creation to accomplish his purposes (by looking in the Bible) so it is safe to assume he may have been acting according to the laws of science he set forth at the creation of the universe in order to accomplish this ultimate act of creation. Evolution may have occurred, but it is very unlikely that it occurred on its own without intervention (and by saying very unlikely I am understating the matter). When God 'spoke' in Genesis, his testimony was the universe. I predict that there will be no limit to the universe or to infinite regression in reasoning about how small things can get or how large or how complicated because God is infinite and he created the universe. As for Quantum Mechanics, we don't even know if the particles are vanishing into nothingness since we can't keep track of both their momentum and position at the same time to a great degree of accuracy. They may be unaccounted for in our immediate medium or else have moved to another medium. What other explanation is there to offer than the God of the gaps? The universe of the gaps? God created it, it has existed forever, or it created itself. In fact I think that we may find out that the universe has existed forever (in the concept of time) because I believe that it came from God and that God is the ultimate medium and God has existed forever. To understand the universe is to understand the mind of God.
Simply because we have not explained (or are not capable of explaining) the universe down to every last quark, why must we posit a god of the gaps to fill in the rest?
But did we in the first place or is there some truth behind it? I think I found out in the Bible - by crossreferencing passages - that people didn't start worshiping God until a thousand years after humans were created. But to not dance around the issue, I'll give you this answer: When so much is supposedly at stake, I'd rather believe in the God of the gaps than the universe of the gaps. Now this doesn't do anything to disprove or prove God, but is merely personal preference.
We are both aware of, and have observed, spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles in a vacuum through our study of Quantum Mechanics (QM).
I read a couple articles on Wikipedia about it, but I didn't find anything that would lead me to assume that these particles are coming from 'nothing'. Just that they are popping up infront of us from no apparent place that we can detect and that they concluded that they were possibly being created from nothing or returning to nothing which defied common sense. But have we been able to determine the position of these particles with accuracy (not a rhetorical question - a real concern of mine)? I think I read that at so small a level their position is represented as more of a probability than a direct position.
Quote:
Philosophy: I couldn't have said it better. The belief in anything takes faith in order to believe it
Demonstrably untrue. Take Descartes' classic maxim: "I think, therefore I am". We can posit at least one statement -- "I think" -- that appears to be true without any requirement of faith. From there, we can very easily add "I exist" to our list of faith-not-required statements
Ah. True! I was aware of that one, but I had forgotten it. :roll: Thanks for pointing it out. It is certain that I believe the way I do, but it is not certain to me that you believe the way you do or that any of this aside from me is real, etc. And some actions can fall under the category of instinct instead of faith.
Untrue - not all effects require a cause. Again, our studies of QM have demonstrably shown the existence of uncaused particles.
You mean of particles without any apparent cause. But if I am to assume that they are popping out of nothing - which I'm sure no human can currently understand how that is possible - then I would say, yes, this gives me somewhat of a reason to believe in the lack of a God, but it does nothing to disprove a God. Hmm. I do have one question though. If particles are popping out of nothing, then what's to keep a mass of something popping out of nothing right in front of you? If one particle can do it, can't more? Couldn't they just be merely displaced or unaccounted for? Wouldn't that seem more reasonable? At any rate, I think one of the articles covered this, but I forget.
Quote:
cannot be used to determine if the universe was created or is eternal, because if the universe is eternal then it had no cause but always an effect. Sorry, though, Logic, that rules you out, because now we must accept the continuity of the universe or multiverse by blind faith since we cannot prove the creation of a universe or multiverse by looking within this medium for evidence since all evidence would then be termed as possibly misleading.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Can you clarify?
Certainly (er I think :bday: )... Since we are defining the creation of the universe we cannot use what is inside the universe to define how all things (including the items we are drawing analogies between) were created or formed. Since the universe is the ultimate medium we reside in and must search for evidence in, we cannot do so because we cannot look inside the universe to define the beginning of the universe. Is this right?
Take everyone's favorite mathematical equation: 2 + 2 = 4. This statement is true because of the laws of mathematics...There is no empirical evidence to be found here, but I'm sure that doesn't stop you (or me) from believing this statement regardless.
This is an abstract concept related to empirical findings. I can tie 1 to an individual person. Then I can put them together and say 1 and 1 equal 2. If I represent i = 1, then ii = 2. Look familiar? The romans had the right idea.
It's simply abstract thought related to empirical data to allow us to understand it in such a way that we can more easily manipulate it. Now try to gesture that sentence out without the abstract concept of a language. :wink:
Who, other than god, would fake empirical evidence about his existence?
Who is saying that an individual would fake evidence for the sole purpose of ruling out a God? I was saying that empirical evidence can be faked (by whatever cause, power or person) to lead others to believe that there is no God. I'm not impressing upon you a conspiracy theory here.
It is philosophy that postulates scenarios like the Matrix.
True. I stand corrected.
Yes. But as you have recognized, this statement made by philosophy and faith is not a scientific one - science was not involved in reaching this conclusion.
The philosophy for or against a creator that I'm concerned with is related to science's findings (and therefore their philosophical consequences).
Quote:
Common sense is also reconciled with Science once one understands it.
I disagree. Go back to QM again. Some of the things that QM is saying are Really. Damn. Weird. I really recommend you read about it - practically everything that comes out of QM flies in the face of common sense.
Would you agree that philosophy, as the mother of the sciences, is a big determinant on whether a scientific find is a legitimate one? For example: If I worked on a Calc problem and came up with a different answer than the one in the 'back of the book' or solutions manual, then by my experience and the difficulty of the problem I would reason that maybe the answer in the book is right and I am wrong. On the other hand, if I worked on a problem
a * b = ab or on confirming the
T/F statement 1 = 2 and I came up with a different answer than the book had (knowing my level of experience) I would assume that the book was in error. This happened to me in Trigonometry and happens occasionally with people. My philosophy of examining the evidence determined that my answer was right and that the book's was wrong. It turned out that I was right.
faith and hope of what new discoveries in Science may bring, or if you have logic and common sense
nor are these positions mutually exclusive.
I do not mean to say that they are mutually exclusive. I mean to ask whether you had both faith and logic, just faith, just hope, just hope and faith, logic and hope, etc. I left out science for who knows whatever reason, but the only reason I wouldn't include it now is because it is found lacking to arrive at any certain conclusion. Therefore we must examine science using logic in my opinion.
Personally, I have noted (again, personally) a lack of evidence for a supreme being based on my experiences in this world. As such, I choose to lack a belief in a kind of god.
As a 'kind of god' do you mean one of the specific gods of any religion out there?
Evolution - there is no controversy on this subject among scientists.
Who are you referring to when you say 'scientists'? And what degree of evolution are you referring to?
Practically all of biology is built around the conclusion that not only has evolution happened, but it continues to do so.
Ah, so by evolution you mean natural selection, adaptation and mutation? What are your thoughts on the formation of life and is there any evidence to support this conclusion?
Panspermia - I don't think so.
There are some people who say that this is more plausible than believing that life was formed under the conditions it would have had to for it to form on the earth. I'm not saying that they're right or even that I agree, but that they probably have their reasons for believing the way they do.
I invite you to check Wikipedia (or the internet as a whole)
I do quite often.
