Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:17 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
If objects start falling away from the earth, gravity will be scrapped. If the code for the amino acid Alanine is totally different in another organism, the Theory of Evolution will be scrapped. So dependability, consistency, accuracy, simplicity, and common sense is your answer. Don


So, science works because it is dependable, consistent, accurate and so forht.
Which we all agree that real, true, science is.
But WHY is it that way?


This has already been explained. Don

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 7989
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby PaulSacramento » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:28 am

This has already been explained. Don


You're right, it has.

Did you know that there are particles in you that are also theoretically on the moon and part of someone else at the same time? Did you also know that 73% of the Universe is composed of Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter, 3.5% Hydrogen and Helium(stars), and guess what--all matter and us compose 0.O4% of the entire Universe. From these facts it would appear that we are only the accidental byproducts of the Universe(how's that for irony?). Don


Amazing how a universe that allows us to make statements like:
"And the ONLY reason the scientific method is even possible, is because of the incredible consistencies of their functionalities, processes, and parameters built into the universe", can produce such things by "accident".

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18466
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby RickD » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:34 am

Trulyenlightened wrote:
Are you suggesting that only a person that is smarter than Einstein and the other prominent scientist, would not recognize, "..the necessity of a God to explain what exists, their many amazing designs and functionality, who also recognize the hard limits of what non-intelligent, blind, deaf, mindless things can produce - and, BTW, no amount of time changes those incapabilities"? If this is true, then I am smarter. Based on the fact that 99.9% of the Universe is environmentally unsuitable for human life(stars, black holes, gas planets, Quasars, lack of oxygen and water, etc.), it would be impossible for life NOT to have evolved here.

Could you explain what you mean here? I thought evolution(biological) was what some people use to describe how life, WHICH ALREADY EXISTED, changes over time. You said it would be impossible for life not to evolve here, since 99.9% of the universe is unsuitable for life. If you're right about the 99.9%, and evolution is the mechanism by which life changes over time, earth would seem like the most suitable, if not the only viable place for life to exist, then evolve.

But, if 99.9% of the universe isn't suitable for life, how did life get here in the first place?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5710
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby Byblos » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:35 am

Your attempts at diversion are truly pathetic as you have not addressed a single point I raised. But let’s see what happens without any of the polemics.

trulyenlightened wrote: So is it Aristotle's logic that all objects falling to earth, merely YEARN to be a part of the Earth correct? Or, is it that objects slow down once in motion, not because of friction or gravity, but because they just get tired the correct answer? This 4th century logic may still be logical today for you, but it is still wrong today for me.


To put it as charitably as I possibly can, you are confusing Aristotle’s physics with his metaphysics. First, the fact that his physics turned out to be wrong does not follow that his metaphysics are also wrong. Second, no one has ever mentioned, no less used, Aristotle’s physics in any of the arguments here or elsewhere so why are you? I could venture a guess but I promised no polemics.

trulyenlightened wrote: The third alternative to any false-dichotomies is, "I don't know" or "unknown at this time".


But by that logic then any claim is made into a false dichotomy. Adding the alternative of “I don’t know” to any truth claim will take us nowhere but to extreme skepticism.

trulyenlightened wrote: You must first prove that no other possibility CAN exist, before you can claim that none does exist. You can't also make a truth claim, and then tell others to simply prove that your claim is false. You are the one with the burden of proof for your own claim. Try actually attending the philosophy class, to avoid this confusion in the future.


Lol, that’s really rich but anyway …

The PSR is a well-established principle which states a very basic truth: everything must have a reason. The principle, when properly applied, is all encompassing, covering not only truths, but also facts and events. Together with the principle of non-contradiction, they form the logical basis for reality. So how does one go about proving the principle ‘everything must have a reason’? Well, one way is to list every reason for every truth, fact, or event. Clearly that’s impossible (unless, of course, one is an eternal, immaterial, immutable, omnipotent entity). Another way is to disprove the PSR is by showing a truth, fact, or event without a reason. But that’s either self-contradictory or leads to a brute force fact, truth or event and, as we all know, brute force facts have no explanatory power whatsoever.
Might the alternative be ‘I don’t know’ to avoid a perceived false dichotomy? Assuming one exists, ‘I don’t know’ is no alternative as, the same with a brute force fact, it has no explanatory power and therefore can be rejected as an alternative.
If you have another alternative please provide it.

trulyenlightened wrote: It is amazing how you create the straw man, and then accuse me of using it, just to advance your own argument. This is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. Quote or demonstrate anywhere in my thread that I presented an argument that even included infinite regression, or that everything has a cause. Do you even know what a straw man argument really is? Obviously not.


Where did you say everything has a cause? Let me quote you (with links to the posts):

Here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=42195&start=15

trulyenlightened wrote:Where on my thread do I state that Aquinas said that EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE or that EVERYTHING MOVES? Spare me the straw man. But for your information EVERYTHING IS IN MOTION, moving at incredible speeds. And, all things DO have a cause. It is irrelevant who states these obvious facts. Don


Note the underlined.

And here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/posting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=230399

trulyenlightened wrote:Now this was my simple take on the arguments from Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas, Eddy, or anyone else who chooses to argue the existence of a Deity from ignorance, gap-filling, false equivocating, and making up false conclusions. Without objective evidence, the premises are statements that only sound good and sound logical. I also do not wish to continue arguing against the 4th century logic of the time. It would almost be intellectually insulting. Since I haven't read Eddy's take, maybe you can paraphrase or contrast his position. Your basic explanation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason should be, that everything must have a reason/explanation, and a cause. But close enough! Were you making some point, or just more editorializing? Don


Also note the underlined, which you added to my definition of the PSR precisely to make it look like everything must have a cause.
These are at least 2 instances where you clearly stated what you deny. I expect a retraction.

trulyenlightened wrote:And while you are trying to come up with another straw man to blame on me, maybe you can answer a simple question, O' wise one. Since motion is not an intrinsic property of matter, and all matter is in motion, and all motion is relative to the observer and a function of time, how is the infinite regression of motion even applicable? You have no idea do you? Do you know why light is not affected by motion from any reference point, or even what the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment imply? Of course not. Did you even read my explanation of how particles pop in and out of reality WITHOUT A CAUSE. Do you understand why matter do NOT create matter(its energy)? So why would I want you to restate your position???


Now you’re attributing to me the argument of infinite regression of motion when it is precisely that which I said is irrelevant to my argument? And whatever happened to your alternative of ‘I don’t know’? Evidently, you’ve now substituted it with ‘WITHOUT A CAUSE’. Either way though, no cause or no knowledge amounts to the same thing, no explanatory power, therefore, nothing is explained.

trulyenlightened wrote: A "prime mover" cannot exist because motion is NOT an intrinsic property of matter, relativity, and the fact that the entire Universe is in motion.


The fact that entire universe is in motion is irrelevant to my argument. In fact, I can stipulate not only that the universe is in motion, but also that matter and energy always existed, that there is the possibility this is one of an infinite number of universes or multi-verses extending back to infinity. That’s all stipulated. And yet it changes nothing with the argument from motion/change.

I’ve mentioned it many times already (contrary to what you claim) but here it is again: Aquinas’ first way concerns itself with essentially ordered causal series, in the here and now. A simple example would be you holding a stick and pushing a rock with it. The rock moves as a result of the stick striking it, the stick moves as a result of your muscles contracting, the muscles contract because of certain neurons firing in your brain, and neurons fire due to a conscious decision to do so. The entire series of events is a non-starter unless you actually pick up the stick and push the rock. That’s one example. Another would be a moving train with a number of cars. Without the engine car pulling all other cars the train’s motion would not even start. Every event in the series depends on every other event but unless there is a first cause the entire event doesn’t happen, making an infinite regress of causes impossible. If you notice, the argument here is a first cause is necessary, ergo no infinite regress, not the other way around.

trulyenlightened wrote: Even as a skeptic, I would expect more from any Christian. Don


It’s not your skepticism I have an issue with, I welcome it. It’s your willful ignorance. Don’t go running claiming ad hominim, I’m not trying to insult you but when you dismiss metaphysical claims because faulty physics that tells me not only you don’t know what you’re talking about, but worse, that you’re unwilling to learn.

trulyenlightened wrote: So, are you going to keep me in the dark, or hide behind some kind of exclusive knowledge? What special type of motion do you know that I don't? How does virtual particles popping in and out of reality lead to an infinite regression. Did you know that there are particles in you that are also theoretically on the moon and part of someone else at the same time? Did you also know that 73% of the Universe is composed of Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter, 3.5% Hydrogen and Helium(stars), and guess what--all matter and us compose 0.O4% of the entire Universe. From these facts it would appear that we are only the accidental byproducts of the Universe(how's that for irony?). Don


You can think all of this is an accident but you’ve not answered why it’s this accident and not some other, or why there is any accident at all to begin with. In other words, you’ve not satisfied the PSR. Now it is your prerogative to adopt a worldview with “I don’t know”s and without any fundamental explanation of reality. But if you do, please don’t go claiming true enlightenment. The two are mutually contradictory.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4250
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby abelcainsbrother » Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:42 pm

trulyenlightened wrote:
Byblos wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
Byblos wrote:Topic 0: I don't mean to be dismissive but I really have no clue where you're going with topics 1 thru whatever, except extreme skepticism, that is. So unless you want to admit extreme skepticism right now and save us all a boat load of time and effort, I suggest we follow a different track, one in which our senses and power of reason are reliable enough to discover the world around us.

As I mentioned in the other thread, if you think I will be arguing infinite regress, therefore uncaused cause, you could not possibly be more wrong. I just wanted to get that straight right off the bat, in case you're formulating your posts on that basis.

So from what perspective am I coming from with this PSR thing. First, the definition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason is pretty basic: Everything must have an explanation. You can't get more basic than that, really so if you disagree with that we might as well just quit the conversation now. If you do agree, let's move on.

If everything must have an explanation, there are two possibilities:
1. Either the explanation is extrinsic (outside of the thing it explains), or
2. The explanation is intrinsic (self-explanatory)

So we've gone beyond the definition to list all the possibilities and, again, I don't think there's a third option here.

Now what can we say about the explanations themselves?
There are two types of explanations:
1. Either the explanation requires an explanation extrinsic to itself, in which case it is contingent on that extrinsic explanation, or
2. The explanation is fundamentally self-explanatory and, therefore absolutely necessary (not contingent on any other explanation)

And once again those are the only two possibilities.

I'm going to stop here for now and let you comment or ask questions for clarification. We'll see how things develop from there.


The point of the first topic was to demonstrate that all things that appear inherently complex, is really based on many underlying layers of simplicity. These underlying layers are seen in all biological organisms. I was also trying to demonstrate that even the most complex biological processes are trapped in Nature's cycle of birth, growth, metabolism, catabolism and death. I then applied this cycle to the information we receive from our physical senses, and then to our brain's best-guess representation to our psyche. Any way, unless there was a specific question you have about the topic, let's just move on.


I have no issue whatsoever with the idea of simple-to-complex, considering one of the most fundamental premises for God is absolute simplicity.

trulyenlightened wrote:Speaking of skepticism, I am always skeptical of people claiming that everyone else makes the same mistake, except them. The red flag is immediately raised. Your perspective is obviously presuppositional, which clearly uses an argument from ignorance as your mantra. The flag also goes up whenever I hear that there are only two choices in any false dichotomy.


Right back at ya. You can raise all the red flags in Russia but they amount to nothing unless you back them up with a third choice, if you had one.

trulyenlightened wrote:Since I don't hear any specific objections or questions, I'll just give my own take again on Aquinas's proofs of the existence of a God. Please correct me if I stray to far from 400BC logic(Aristotle), as interpreted by a 13th century priest, doctor, and philosopher(Aquinas).


400BC logic and a 13th century logical interpretation of the 400 BC logic is still logical today and will always be logical unless you can show where the logic fails. And I assure you neither you (as enlightened as you are) nor anyone else has done so to this day.

trulyenlightened wrote: [b]The first argument from motion[/b]

"Nothing can move itself.
If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God."

From the "Michelson-Morley Experiments", we've learned that motion is NOT an intrinsic property of a thing. Just what exactly does this mean? First we learned that light is not affected by objects moving through the "aether", but is the same speed for any observers, from any reference point. Secondly, space is not a fixed substrate for existence. Finally, it was Einstein's Special Relativity that conclusively put this argument for motion to rest. Unfortunately for St. Thomas, relativity means that motion is no longer a property of one thing. Motion is a property of at least two things(the observer and the object). There can be no “unmoved mover” since all motion is now known to be relative to the observer, and not to some unmoving reference. Aquinas's starts with a false premise, since everything IS in motion, and there are NO stationary reference points. Let's move on.


No let's not move on, considering the only enlightenment that is evident is through the flashlight you hold upon your face. Once again, you're arguing a straw man for an infinite regress of motion, which is absolutely NOT what the argument is. Now either you want to enlighten yourself a bit more, if at all possible, or you want to keep bathing in your ignorance, in which case we can certainly move on.

In the remote chance you want to learn something, the argument from motion concerns itself with the here and now, with an essentially ordered causal series, i.e simultaneous events, not temporal ones. I will keep hammering this point until your either get it and stop the straw man arguments or you quit.


trulyenlightened wrote:Now this was my simple take on the arguments from Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas, Eddy, or anyone else who chooses to argue the existence of a Deity from ignorance, gap-filling, false equivocating, and making up false conclusions.


And your take is not only fallacious but so sophomoric that a philosophy 101 student could have poked holes in it the size of the universe. You disappoint.


trulyenlightened wrote:Without objective evidence, the premises are statements that only sound good and sound logical. I also do not wish to continue arguing against the 4th century logic of the time. It would almost be intellectually insulting.


To dismiss out of hand logic and reason and then claim enlightenment is the absolute height of both hypocrisy and
idiocy. I have a feeling this conversation will not last very long but I'm hoping you wake up from delusion.

trulyenlightened wrote:Since I haven't read Eddy's take, maybe you can paraphrase or contrast his position. Your basic explanation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason should be, that everything must have a reason/explanation, and a cause. But close enough! Were you making some point, or just more editorializing?


And yet again, you make am ignorant fool of yourself, or perhaps it is your wishful thinking that I restate the argument in terms of 'everything needing a cause'. Because then you will certainly fall back on the most idiotic straw man responses ever uttered, i.e. 'well if everything must have a cause, then who caused God?' Except it is not just a slip of the tongue or an attempt at avoiding such a response that the argument does not state 'everything must have a cause'. It is that an uncaused cause is the logical and necessary conclusion to a set of premises, not a presupposition or a claim. You have so much to learn grasshopper.

TE, do yourself a favor and take a step back because every sentence you wrote in your last post above proves beyond any doubt that you literally have no clue what you're talking about nor do you understand the subject matter. I am willing to spend the time to enlighten you but you must be willing to learn. I doubt you will but one can hope.


So is it Aristotle's logic that all objects falling to earth, merely YEARN to be a part of the Earth correct? Or, is it that objects slow down once in motion, not because of friction or gravity, but because they just get tired the correct answer? This 4th century logic may still be logical today for you, but it is still wrong today for me. The third alternative to any false-dichotomies is, "I don't know" or "unknown at this time". You must first prove that no other possibility CAN exist, before you can claim that none does exist. You can't also make a truth claim, and then tell others to simply prove that your claim is false. You are the one with the burden of proof for your own claim. Try actually attending the philosophy class, to avoid this confusion in the future.

It is amazing how you create the straw man, and then accuse me of using it, just to advance your own argument. This is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. Quote or demonstrate anywhere in my thread that I presented an argument that even included infinite regression, or that everything has a cause. Do you even know what a straw man argument really is? Obviously not. And while you are trying to come up with another straw man to blame on me, maybe you can answer a simple question, O' wise one. Since motion is not an intrinsic property of matter, and all matter is in motion, and all motion is relative to the observer and a function of time, how is the infinite regression of motion even applicable? You have no idea do you? Do you know why light is not affected by motion from any reference point, or even what the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment imply? Of course not. Did you even read my explanation of how particles pop in and out of reality WITHOUT A CAUSE. Do you understand why matter do NOT create matter(its energy)? So why would I want you to restate your position???

"In the remote chance you want to learn something, the argument from motion concerns itself with the here and now, with an essentially ordered causal series, i.e simultaneous events, not temporal ones. I will keep hammering this point until your either get it and stop the straw man arguments or you quit". I have no idea what all this self-absorbed gibberish even means, let alone what it is referring to. Also, "Except it is not just a slip of the tongue or an attempt at avoiding such a response that the argument does not state 'everything must have a cause'. It is that an uncaused cause is the logical and necessary conclusion to a set of premises, not a presupposition or a claim. You have so much to learn grasshopper". Still more rote learned, regurgitated, and parroted meaningless gibberish. Resorting to insulting, bullying, demeaning, distorting, misrepresentation, is the last actions of an intellectually drowning man. If your ego is this fragile, it might be best that you stick only to the other threads, and spare yourself any further grief or intellectual exposure. Because no matter how many times you beat your chest, manipulate the truth, or try and bully me, you will still be wrong. A "prime mover" cannot exist because motion is NOT an intrinsic property of matter, relativity, and the fact that the entire Universe is in motion. Either address those issues or move on. Either address the other issues I raised in the Aquinas's arguments, or move on. So spare me your sad and idle tantrums, and demonstrate why every word out of my mouth only proves that I don't know what I'm talking about? Instead of simply asserting it.

You are correct that this conversation will not last long. Especially if 90% of your post is devoted only to sarcasm, arrogance, false straw man accusations, or calling me a hypocrite and an idiot("To dismiss out of hand logic and reason and then claim enlightenment is the absolute height of both hypocrisy and idiocy"), or an ignorant fool("And yet again, you make am ignorant fool of yourself"), or just calling me delusional("I'm hoping you wake up from delusion"). I'm afraid that "huffing and puffing" and "bluff and blunder", is only a distraction to me, and says more about your character then it does about mine. Since I have never insulted you personally, I would appreciate that you afford me the same level of respect in return. Even as a skeptic, I would expect more from any Christian. Don



I think I see where you're going wrong. So to you when somebody presents an argument based on the reality around us,the facts of science also that confirms it true to,if you reject it,you are not required to give a rational,logical and evidenced based reason why you reject it? Because this is exactly what you're doing and it is to avoid the truth of the matter that you do this. You might discount Aquinas but know that since the 13th century nothing science has discovered has refuted it and as a matter of fact it has confirmed it correct,this is why this argument is used for evidence for God. It is not God of the gaps,it is evidence that an eternal God exists based on logic,reason,science and evidence.

Denying Aquinas was right and not giving a reason for why he is wrong is intellectual dishonesty in order to doubt God exists.And even if you say "I don't know" you still must have a logical,reasoned argument backed up by evidence as to why you think "I don't Know".You still must have a reason for why you claim you don't know otherwise you are playing dumb. You seem to know alot about science too from your former posts but suddenly when confonted with this argument all of that scientific knowledge is forgotten somehow.

Can you tell me what has been discovered by science that proves these facts wrong?
1.In our world all things have a cause.
2.All things that have a cause are caused by something else.(Notice that this only applies to things that have a cause)

If there is nothing in science that refutes these facts how can you then turn around and deny that based on these facts there must be an uncaused first cause or an eternal God like the God of the bible? If there is nothing in science that refutes this then you have no basis to reject this evidence in order to deny God exists.

I had atheists the other day tell me that radioactive decay has no cause,which is not true.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Nils
Recognized Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby Nils » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:28 am

Byblos wrote:So from what perspective am I coming from with this PSR thing. First, the definition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason is pretty basic: Everything must have an explanation. You can't get more basic than that, really so if you disagree with that we might as well just quit the conversation now. If you do agree, let's move on.

If everything must have an explanation, there are two possibilities:
1. Either the explanation is extrinsic (outside of the thing it explains), or
2. The explanation is intrinsic (self-explanatory)

So we've gone beyond the definition to list all the possibilities and, again, I don't think there's a third option here.

Now what can we say about the explanations themselves?
There are two types of explanations:
1. Either the explanation requires an explanation extrinsic to itself, in which case it is contingent on that extrinsic explanation, or
2. The explanation is fundamentally self-explanatory and, therefore absolutely necessary (not contingent on any other explanation)

And once again those are the only two possibilities.

I'm going to stop here for now and let you comment or ask questions for clarification. We'll see how things develop from there.


- What do you mean by "self-explanatory"? Please give some examples.
- What do you mean by saying that a self-explanatory explanation is "absolute necessary"?

Nils

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:36 am

Byblos wrote:Your attempts at diversion are truly pathetic as you have not addressed a single point I raised. But let’s see what happens without any of the polemics.

trulyenlightened wrote: So is it Aristotle's logic that all objects falling to earth, merely YEARN to be a part of the Earth correct? Or, is it that objects slow down once in motion, not because of friction or gravity, but because they just get tired the correct answer? This 4th century logic may still be logical today for you, but it is still wrong today for me.


To put it as charitably as I possibly can, you are confusing Aristotle’s physics with his metaphysics. First, the fact that his physics turned out to be wrong does not follow that his metaphysics are also wrong. Second, no one has ever mentioned, no less used, Aristotle’s physics in any of the arguments here or elsewhere so why are you? I could venture a guess but I promised no polemics.

trulyenlightened wrote: The third alternative to any false-dichotomies is, "I don't know" or "unknown at this time".


But by that logic then any claim is made into a false dichotomy. Adding the alternative of “I don’t know” to any truth claim will take us nowhere but to extreme skepticism.

trulyenlightened wrote: You must first prove that no other possibility CAN exist, before you can claim that none does exist. You can't also make a truth claim, and then tell others to simply prove that your claim is false. You are the one with the burden of proof for your own claim. Try actually attending the philosophy class, to avoid this confusion in the future.


Lol, that’s really rich but anyway …

The PSR is a well-established principle which states a very basic truth: everything must have a reason. The principle, when properly applied, is all encompassing, covering not only truths, but also facts and events. Together with the principle of non-contradiction, they form the logical basis for reality. So how does one go about proving the principle ‘everything must have a reason’? Well, one way is to list every reason for every truth, fact, or event. Clearly that’s impossible (unless, of course, one is an eternal, immaterial, immutable, omnipotent entity). Another way is to disprove the PSR is by showing a truth, fact, or event without a reason. But that’s either self-contradictory or leads to a brute force fact, truth or event and, as we all know, brute force facts have no explanatory power whatsoever.
Might the alternative be ‘I don’t know’ to avoid a perceived false dichotomy? Assuming one exists, ‘I don’t know’ is no alternative as, the same with a brute force fact, it has no explanatory power and therefore can be rejected as an alternative.
If you have another alternative please provide it.

trulyenlightened wrote: It is amazing how you create the straw man, and then accuse me of using it, just to advance your own argument. This is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. Quote or demonstrate anywhere in my thread that I presented an argument that even included infinite regression, or that everything has a cause. Do you even know what a straw man argument really is? Obviously not.


Where did you say everything has a cause? Let me quote you (with links to the posts):

Here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=42195&start=15

trulyenlightened wrote:Where on my thread do I state that Aquinas said that EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE or that EVERYTHING MOVES? Spare me the straw man. But for your information EVERYTHING IS IN MOTION, moving at incredible speeds. And, all things DO have a cause. It is irrelevant who states these obvious facts. Don


Note the underlined.

And here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/posting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=230399

trulyenlightened wrote:Now this was my simple take on the arguments from Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas, Eddy, or anyone else who chooses to argue the existence of a Deity from ignorance, gap-filling, false equivocating, and making up false conclusions. Without objective evidence, the premises are statements that only sound good and sound logical. I also do not wish to continue arguing against the 4th century logic of the time. It would almost be intellectually insulting. Since I haven't read Eddy's take, maybe you can paraphrase or contrast his position. Your basic explanation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason should be, that everything must have a reason/explanation, and a cause. But close enough! Were you making some point, or just more editorializing? Don


Also note the underlined, which you added to my definition of the PSR precisely to make it look like everything must have a cause.
These are at least 2 instances where you clearly stated what you deny. I expect a retraction.

trulyenlightened wrote:And while you are trying to come up with another straw man to blame on me, maybe you can answer a simple question, O' wise one. Since motion is not an intrinsic property of matter, and all matter is in motion, and all motion is relative to the observer and a function of time, how is the infinite regression of motion even applicable? You have no idea do you? Do you know why light is not affected by motion from any reference point, or even what the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment imply? Of course not. Did you even read my explanation of how particles pop in and out of reality WITHOUT A CAUSE. Do you understand why matter do NOT create matter(its energy)? So why would I want you to restate your position???


Now you’re attributing to me the argument of infinite regression of motion when it is precisely that which I said is irrelevant to my argument? And whatever happened to your alternative of ‘I don’t know’? Evidently, you’ve now substituted it with ‘WITHOUT A CAUSE’. Either way though, no cause or no knowledge amounts to the same thing, no explanatory power, therefore, nothing is explained.

trulyenlightened wrote: A "prime mover" cannot exist because motion is NOT an intrinsic property of matter, relativity, and the fact that the entire Universe is in motion.


The fact that entire universe is in motion is irrelevant to my argument. In fact, I can stipulate not only that the universe is in motion, but also that matter and energy always existed, that there is the possibility this is one of an infinite number of universes or multi-verses extending back to infinity. That’s all stipulated. And yet it changes nothing with the argument from motion/change.

I’ve mentioned it many times already (contrary to what you claim) but here it is again: Aquinas’ first way concerns itself with essentially ordered causal series, in the here and now. A simple example would be you holding a stick and pushing a rock with it. The rock moves as a result of the stick striking it, the stick moves as a result of your muscles contracting, the muscles contract because of certain neurons firing in your brain, and neurons fire due to a conscious decision to do so. The entire series of events is a non-starter unless you actually pick up the stick and push the rock. That’s one example. Another would be a moving train with a number of cars. Without the engine car pulling all other cars the train’s motion would not even start. Every event in the series depends on every other event but unless there is a first cause the entire event doesn’t happen, making an infinite regress of causes impossible. If you notice, the argument here is a first cause is necessary, ergo no infinite regress, not the other way around.

trulyenlightened wrote: Even as a skeptic, I would expect more from any Christian. Don


It’s not your skepticism I have an issue with, I welcome it. It’s your willful ignorance. Don’t go running claiming ad hominim, I’m not trying to insult you but when you dismiss metaphysical claims because faulty physics that tells me not only you don’t know what you’re talking about, but worse, that you’re unwilling to learn.

trulyenlightened wrote: So, are you going to keep me in the dark, or hide behind some kind of exclusive knowledge? What special type of motion do you know that I don't? How does virtual particles popping in and out of reality lead to an infinite regression. Did you know that there are particles in you that are also theoretically on the moon and part of someone else at the same time? Did you also know that 73% of the Universe is composed of Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter, 3.5% Hydrogen and Helium(stars), and guess what--all matter and us compose 0.O4% of the entire Universe. From these facts it would appear that we are only the accidental byproducts of the Universe(how's that for irony?). Don


You can think all of this is an accident but you’ve not answered why it’s this accident and not some other, or why there is any accident at all to begin with. In other words, you’ve not satisfied the PSR. Now it is your prerogative to adopt a worldview with “I don’t know”s and without any fundamental explanation of reality. But if you do, please don’t go claiming true enlightenment. The two are mutually contradictory.


"Truly Enlightenment" is only a tag, not a target. It has no subjective meaning or significance to me, any more than the tag "Byblos". So get over it and find another diversion to distract from the real issues. My quoting the comments made by Aquinas, to argue against, is certainly not the same as using my own words(straw man) and then arguing against it. Remember, this was about you accusing me of straw manning you. I did not make up these comments, they were quoted from the source of your argument(Aquinas 5 proofs...). Did you not even bother to look at the context of those words I used? Or, did you only care that the words were used, regardless of their context? More intellectual dishonesty. Of course, now the goal posts have been moved to include the metaphysical world to accommodate your position. I'm afraid once the metaphysical is invoked, all arguments can be right or wrong, or both, or neither at the same time. So let me save you more exercises in futility. I BELIEVE THAT ALL THINGS HAVE A CAUSE, AND I HAVE EXPLAINED WHY AND HOW AND WHAT THAT CAUSE IS(quantum vacuum). I ALSO BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE OF VIRTUAL PARTICLES POPPING IN AND OUT OF REALITY, THAT A "PRIME CAUSE" IS IMPOSSIBLE, ILLOGICAL, AND CERTAINLY IRRELEVANT. I BELIEVE, THAT BECAUSE OF A UNIVERSE IN MOTION, A TIME AND AN OBSERVER PERSPECTIVE, AND THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS THE SAME FROM ALL REFERENCE POINTS, THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A "PRIME MOVER" TO EXIST. I don't know how to make my position any simpler then this. If you wish to argue that virtual particles don't exist, or that light cannot be the same from multiple reference points, or that motion IS a property of matter then fair enough and let's have at it. But I believe that all metaphysical and Aristotelian arguments, should be exclusively reserved for erudites and pseudo-sophists, of which I am neither.

My thread is not about explaining the scientific perspective from any metaphysical perspective. I mainly want to focus my attention on providing 4-dimensional explanations to 4-dimensional phenomenon. Try the other threads for all metaphysical kinds of enlightenment or any need for approval. I was not talking about Aristotle's physics, since there was no true understanding of the physics we now know today. I was talking about his logic. You were the one that claimed that his 4th century logic was as valid today as it was back then. I simply disagreed, but you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. Although some of his premises were true, it was his conclusions(like yours) that let him down. But at the time, it was the only logic in town, and he had no real knowledge(facts) to work with. Or, do you still believe that Aquinas was METAPHYSICALLY CORRECT, in that all objects yearn to be part of the Earth, or that objects in motion slow down because they are tired?

Let's see if I understand this PSR, by Leibniz. PSR merely states that for every positive truth that exists, there is some sort of explanation(KNOWN or UNKNOWN) for its existence or cause. Is this correct, or are you going to bury me under the proper use of the correct semantics? We then must make the assumption that the Universe is not able to explain its own existence, or that we just don't understand its explanation(unknown cause). We then must make another assumption that to understand any positive truth of the present, we need to look at the series of regressive causes, that explains the present cause, until there is no cause left to explain. This would be the First Cause. For example, and I'm quoting(not my words), " Thus to explain the existence of one book by saying that it is copied from another or to explain your existence by saying that you were a child of your parents only gives a partial explanation. If there is going to be a complete or sufficient reason for the book or for your existence, we have to get back to something that does not depend on anything else – and this will be God". Leibniz claims that using an infinite regress to search for the original cause or the original of everything, would be impossible. So he simply concluded that "God" is the unmoved mover or the uncaused cause, and called it the only logical explanation possible. I think we can all see the glaring logical fallacy here. But from a purely scientific perspective(NOT METAPHYSICAL), I have a different take. Our Universe is composed mostly of empty space. In fact only about 0.0000000000000000000042% of our Universe contains all of our matter. The rest is just empty space. But this empty space is not totally empty(it has been measured). On the atomic scale, 99.9999999996% of an atom is space. Since the BB, our Universe has been bathed in the four basic fields propagating throughout spacetime. It is the Quantum Fluctuation that represents quantum interaction(popping in and out of existence) between these fields, and quantum particles(bosons, gravitons, electrons, quarks, or even "strings", etc.) that produces elementary particles, therefore matter itself. Sometimes these particles do not interact with these fields at all, or they simply annihilate themselves. But the percentage of these interactions that do survive, is the matter we see today. This is my response to any "prime mover" "or primary cause" argument. Not out of malice, denial, or obstinance, but based on the evidence and the logic. Let's move on.

Finally, let's look at your stick and moving train analogies for Aquinas's "prime Mover" proof. Especially, your ordered causal series of events. This is certainly not your best installment. PSR requires the complete information, not just partial information. You simple chose to start at the macro reality, and progress towards the micro and subatomic levels. Why didn't you go the other way, and eventually reach the beginning of life and the birth of the Universe? Reality is not based of a series of interconnected events. It is not a simple sine wave determined by ordered interdependent events. We are all the product and outcome of DISORDER, not order. We are the product of IMPROBABILITY, not probability. Did I mention the scale of our position in this Universe? A single event may require many different events to have occurred first, not just a single one and then another. Do you even include all the events that could not have happened(the rock was not too heavy)? If we were to consider all the events, non-events, and possible events that must have happened for us to exist, then the possibility of a Universe creating itself would pale in comparison. If a million people jump off the GG bridge, do you think that none will survive, some will survive, or all will survive? Now here is the real question. Those that survive, ARE THEY THE ACCIDENTS? Now apply this logic to the idea of a Multiverse, the Origin of the Universe, the formation of the Earth, and the Origin of Life. Do you even understand this equivocation?

You certainly WERE trying to insult me personally, including demeaning everything that comes out of my mouth. Any honest reader can see that at a glance. It is you that is being willfully ignorant, in denial, or just unable to accept responsibility for your own actions. I'm an Aussie. So, it will takes a lot to offend me. But my patience however is not unlimited. I only hope that your intellectual prowess is not a true reflection of the content of your character. We have evolved the most sophisticated language system of all creatures on the planet. It allows us the ability to self-reflect, self-examine, and to be consciously aware of our environment and existence. I suggest that we use this ability for personal discovery. Don

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:13 am

RickD wrote:
Trulyenlightened wrote:
Are you suggesting that only a person that is smarter than Einstein and the other prominent scientist, would not recognize, "..the necessity of a God to explain what exists, their many amazing designs and functionality, who also recognize the hard limits of what non-intelligent, blind, deaf, mindless things can produce - and, BTW, no amount of time changes those incapabilities"? If this is true, then I am smarter. Based on the fact that 99.9% of the Universe is environmentally unsuitable for human life(stars, black holes, gas planets, Quasars, lack of oxygen and water, etc.), it would be impossible for life NOT to have evolved here.

Could you explain what you mean here? I thought evolution(biological) was what some people use to describe how life, WHICH ALREADY EXISTED, changes over time. You said it would be impossible for life not to evolve here, since 99.9% of the universe is unsuitable for life. If you're right about the 99.9%, and evolution is the mechanism by which life changes over time, earth would seem like the most suitable, if not the only viable place for life to exist, then evolve.

But, if 99.9% of the universe isn't suitable for life, how did life get here in the first place?


The formation of our planet was the accumulative results of million of billions of positive events, over billions of years. Given an infinite amount of time, there will be an equal number of heads and tails tossed from a coin. In other words order out of chaos. This represents only two outcomes possible from one event over an infinite amount of time. Can you imagine the number of possible outcomes from billions upon billions upon billions of events, over billions of years? Wow! Think of it this way. If one person bets on lotto, his chances(odds) of winning are in the millions against. If the Universe had only one sun, one planet, and one moon, then i'd say that the odds of any life being able to form, would between extremely remote to buckley's. However, if a billion people bet on the same lotto(not the same numbers), the odds will move to near or beyond 100% certainty. If there are billions and billions, and billions of stars, galaxies, and planets and moons, do you not think that the formation of the Earth was nothing more than the evitable outcome from billions of near outcomes, over billions of years? Based on this level of probability, it would be near impossible for a earth-like planet not to form.

My comments was that if one must first belief that there must exist a necessity for a God to explain what exist, before one can scientifically determined it, then I must be smarter than these earlier scientists. I'm confused, because I totally agree with you. Do you think life would evolve in the sand domes or at the oasis in a desert? Do you think life would evolve on Jupiter or on the Earth?. My point was that life itself was the inevitable byproduct of chaos. And, only when the right conditions were met on this planet, only then could life begin. All of the event that were conducive to the creation of life were inevitable and statistically inescapable. There might be billions of planets with near misses elsewhere in the Universe. I will save evolution for another topic. Don

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:20 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
Byblos wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
Byblos wrote:Topic 0: I don't mean to be dismissive but I really have no clue where you're going with topics 1 thru whatever, except extreme skepticism, that is. So unless you want to admit extreme skepticism right now and save us all a boat load of time and effort, I suggest we follow a different track, one in which our senses and power of reason are reliable enough to discover the world around us.

As I mentioned in the other thread, if you think I will be arguing infinite regress, therefore uncaused cause, you could not possibly be more wrong. I just wanted to get that straight right off the bat, in case you're formulating your posts on that basis.

So from what perspective am I coming from with this PSR thing. First, the definition of the Principle of Sufficient Reason is pretty basic: Everything must have an explanation. You can't get more basic than that, really so if you disagree with that we might as well just quit the conversation now. If you do agree, let's move on.

If everything must have an explanation, there are two possibilities:
1. Either the explanation is extrinsic (outside of the thing it explains), or
2. The explanation is intrinsic (self-explanatory)

So we've gone beyond the definition to list all the possibilities and, again, I don't think there's a third option here.

Now what can we say about the explanations themselves?
There are two types of explanations:
1. Either the explanation requires an explanation extrinsic to itself, in which case it is contingent on that extrinsic explanation, or
2. The explanation is fundamentally self-explanatory and, therefore absolutely necessary (not contingent on any other explanation)

And once again those are the only two possibilities.

I'm going to stop here for now and let you comment or ask questions for clarification. We'll see how things develop from there.


The point of the first topic was to demonstrate that all things that appear inherently complex, is really based on many underlying layers of simplicity. These underlying layers are seen in all biological organisms. I was also trying to demonstrate that even the most complex biological processes are trapped in Nature's cycle of birth, growth, metabolism, catabolism and death. I then applied this cycle to the information we receive from our physical senses, and then to our brain's best-guess representation to our psyche. Any way, unless there was a specific question you have about the topic, let's just move on.


I have no issue whatsoever with the idea of simple-to-complex, considering one of the most fundamental premises for God is absolute simplicity.

trulyenlightened wrote:Speaking of skepticism, I am always skeptical of people claiming that everyone else makes the same mistake, except them. The red flag is immediately raised. Your perspective is obviously presuppositional, which clearly uses an argument from ignorance as your mantra. The flag also goes up whenever I hear that there are only two choices in any false dichotomy.


Right back at ya. You can raise all the red flags in Russia but they amount to nothing unless you back them up with a third choice, if you had one.

trulyenlightened wrote:Since I don't hear any specific objections or questions, I'll just give my own take again on Aquinas's proofs of the existence of a God. Please correct me if I stray to far from 400BC logic(Aristotle), as interpreted by a 13th century priest, doctor, and philosopher(Aquinas).


400BC logic and a 13th century logical interpretation of the 400 BC logic is still logical today and will always be logical unless you can show where the logic fails. And I assure you neither you (as enlightened as you are) nor anyone else has done so to this day.

trulyenlightened wrote: [b]The first argument from motion[/b]

"Nothing can move itself.
If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God."

From the "Michelson-Morley Experiments", we've learned that motion is NOT an intrinsic property of a thing. Just what exactly does this mean? First we learned that light is not affected by objects moving through the "aether", but is the same speed for any observers, from any reference point. Secondly, space is not a fixed substrate for existence. Finally, it was Einstein's Special Relativity that conclusively put this argument for motion to rest. Unfortunately for St. Thomas, relativity means that motion is no longer a property of one thing. Motion is a property of at least two things(the observer and the object). There can be no “unmoved mover” since all motion is now known to be relative to the observer, and not to some unmoving reference. Aquinas's starts with a false premise, since everything IS in motion, and there are NO stationary reference points. Let's move on.


No let's not move on, considering the only enlightenment that is evident is through the flashlight you hold upon your face. Once again, you're arguing a straw man for an infinite regress of motion, which is absolutely NOT what the argument is. Now either you want to enlighten yourself a bit more, if at all possible, or you want to keep bathing in your ignorance, in which case we can certainly move on.

In the remote chance you want to learn something, the argument from motion concerns itself with the here and now, with an essentially ordered causal series, i.e simultaneous events, not temporal ones. I will keep hammering this point until your either get it and stop the straw man arguments or you quit.


trulyenlightened wrote:Now this was my simple take on the arguments from Aristotle, Descartes, Aquinas, Eddy, or anyone else who chooses to argue the existence of a Deity from ignorance, gap-filling, false equivocating, and making up false conclusions.


And your take is not only fallacious but so sophomoric that a philosophy 101 student could have poked holes in it the size of the universe. You disappoint.


trulyenlightened wrote:Without objective evidence, the premises are statements that only sound good and sound logical. I also do not wish to continue arguing against the 4th century logic of the time. It would almost be intellectually insulting.


To dismiss out of hand logic and reason and then claim enlightenment is the absolute height of both hypocrisy and
idiocy. I have a feeling this conversation will not last very long but I'm hoping you wake up from delusion.

trulyenlightened wrote:Since I haven't read Eddy's take, maybe you can paraphrase or contrast his position. Your basic explanation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason should be, that everything must have a reason/explanation, and a cause. But close enough! Were you making some point, or just more editorializing?


And yet again, you make am ignorant fool of yourself, or perhaps it is your wishful thinking that I restate the argument in terms of 'everything needing a cause'. Because then you will certainly fall back on the most idiotic straw man responses ever uttered, i.e. 'well if everything must have a cause, then who caused God?' Except it is not just a slip of the tongue or an attempt at avoiding such a response that the argument does not state 'everything must have a cause'. It is that an uncaused cause is the logical and necessary conclusion to a set of premises, not a presupposition or a claim. You have so much to learn grasshopper.

TE, do yourself a favor and take a step back because every sentence you wrote in your last post above proves beyond any doubt that you literally have no clue what you're talking about nor do you understand the subject matter. I am willing to spend the time to enlighten you but you must be willing to learn. I doubt you will but one can hope.


So is it Aristotle's logic that all objects falling to earth, merely YEARN to be a part of the Earth correct? Or, is it that objects slow down once in motion, not because of friction or gravity, but because they just get tired the correct answer? This 4th century logic may still be logical today for you, but it is still wrong today for me. The third alternative to any false-dichotomies is, "I don't know" or "unknown at this time". You must first prove that no other possibility CAN exist, before you can claim that none does exist. You can't also make a truth claim, and then tell others to simply prove that your claim is false. You are the one with the burden of proof for your own claim. Try actually attending the philosophy class, to avoid this confusion in the future.

It is amazing how you create the straw man, and then accuse me of using it, just to advance your own argument. This is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. Quote or demonstrate anywhere in my thread that I presented an argument that even included infinite regression, or that everything has a cause. Do you even know what a straw man argument really is? Obviously not. And while you are trying to come up with another straw man to blame on me, maybe you can answer a simple question, O' wise one. Since motion is not an intrinsic property of matter, and all matter is in motion, and all motion is relative to the observer and a function of time, how is the infinite regression of motion even applicable? You have no idea do you? Do you know why light is not affected by motion from any reference point, or even what the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment imply? Of course not. Did you even read my explanation of how particles pop in and out of reality WITHOUT A CAUSE. Do you understand why matter do NOT create matter(its energy)? So why would I want you to restate your position???

"In the remote chance you want to learn something, the argument from motion concerns itself with the here and now, with an essentially ordered causal series, i.e simultaneous events, not temporal ones. I will keep hammering this point until your either get it and stop the straw man arguments or you quit". I have no idea what all this self-absorbed gibberish even means, let alone what it is referring to. Also, "Except it is not just a slip of the tongue or an attempt at avoiding such a response that the argument does not state 'everything must have a cause'. It is that an uncaused cause is the logical and necessary conclusion to a set of premises, not a presupposition or a claim. You have so much to learn grasshopper". Still more rote learned, regurgitated, and parroted meaningless gibberish. Resorting to insulting, bullying, demeaning, distorting, misrepresentation, is the last actions of an intellectually drowning man. If your ego is this fragile, it might be best that you stick only to the other threads, and spare yourself any further grief or intellectual exposure. Because no matter how many times you beat your chest, manipulate the truth, or try and bully me, you will still be wrong. A "prime mover" cannot exist because motion is NOT an intrinsic property of matter, relativity, and the fact that the entire Universe is in motion. Either address those issues or move on. Either address the other issues I raised in the Aquinas's arguments, or move on. So spare me your sad and idle tantrums, and demonstrate why every word out of my mouth only proves that I don't know what I'm talking about? Instead of simply asserting it.

You are correct that this conversation will not last long. Especially if 90% of your post is devoted only to sarcasm, arrogance, false straw man accusations, or calling me a hypocrite and an idiot("To dismiss out of hand logic and reason and then claim enlightenment is the absolute height of both hypocrisy and idiocy"), or an ignorant fool("And yet again, you make am ignorant fool of yourself"), or just calling me delusional("I'm hoping you wake up from delusion"). I'm afraid that "huffing and puffing" and "bluff and blunder", is only a distraction to me, and says more about your character then it does about mine. Since I have never insulted you personally, I would appreciate that you afford me the same level of respect in return. Even as a skeptic, I would expect more from any Christian. Don



I think I see where you're going wrong. So to you when somebody presents an argument based on the reality around us,the facts of science also that confirms it true to,if you reject it,you are not required to give a rational,logical and evidenced based reason why you reject it? Because this is exactly what you're doing and it is to avoid the truth of the matter that you do this. You might discount Aquinas but know that since the 13th century nothing science has discovered has refuted it and as a matter of fact it has confirmed it correct,this is why this argument is used for evidence for God. It is not God of the gaps,it is evidence that an eternal God exists based on logic,reason,science and evidence.

Denying Aquinas was right and not giving a reason for why he is wrong is intellectual dishonesty in order to doubt God exists.And even if you say "I don't know" you still must have a logical,reasoned argument backed up by evidence as to why you think "I don't Know".You still must have a reason for why you claim you don't know otherwise you are playing dumb. You seem to know alot about science too from your former posts but suddenly when confonted with this argument all of that scientific knowledge is forgotten somehow.

Can you tell me what has been discovered by science that proves these facts wrong?
1.In our world all things have a cause.
2.All things that have a cause are caused by something else.(Notice that this only applies to things that have a cause)

If there is nothing in science that refutes these facts how can you then turn around and deny that based on these facts there must be an uncaused first cause or an eternal God like the God of the bible? If there is nothing in science that refutes this then you have no basis to reject this evidence in order to deny God exists.

I had atheists the other day tell me that radioactive decay has no cause,which is not true.


Firstly, how do I reject reality, and the science that explains it? I certainly accept what is real and have survived quite well in my reality, thank you. Why would I need to produce any rationale, evidence or logic, for what I accept and already believe in? I think what you really mean, is that if I don't agree with your position, then I must be irrational and unable to accept your reality. I don't understand how you can say that I have not presented a viable argument after reading my post. Did you expect physical evidence of a prime mover or a first cause? Did you expect video evidence? You stated that "all things have a cause" and "all things that have a cause are caused by something else", Wouldn't this mean that ALL THINGS ARE CAUSED BY SOMETHING ELSE? Since as you say, ALL things do have a cause. I'd say that All things were caused by quantum fluctuations within a quantum vacuum, and its statistical probability.

You are correct, there is nothing in science that can change what people want to believe in. Science only explains, it does not prove. There are still people that believe in a flat earth. There are people that still believe in Odin and Thor. There are even those that believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old, even though there are dog breeds older. Belief is not based on facts, it is based on faith alone. I have only one thread here, and as a scientist, my thread is devoted to the explanation of reality from a scientific perspective only. Don

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5820
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby Philip » Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:27 am

TrulyE: Can you imagine the number of possible outcomes from billions upon billions upon billions of events, over billions of years? Wow! Think of it this way. If one person bets on lotto, his chances(odds) of winning are in the millions against. If the Universe had only one sun, one planet, and one moon, then i'd say that the odds of any life being able to form, would between extremely remote to buckley's. However, if a billion people bet on the same lotto(not the same numbers), the odds will move to near or beyond 100% certainty.


The obvious problem with the analogy of a billion people betting on the same lotto is that A) They first must exist, B) recognize there is something to bet on, C) have an intelligence to choose, D) they recognize the options ramifications and thus desire a certain outcome. But blind, random things can do none of those things! They don't think, choose, analyze, strategize, recognize advantages, nor have anyway of desiring them. They are non-living things without any awareness of themselves or anything else – and yet you would assign them magical powers.

TrulyE: If there are billions and billions, and billions of stars, galaxies, and planets and moons, do you not think that the formation of the Earth was nothing more than the inevitable outcome from billions of near outcomes, over billions of years? Based on this level of probability, it would be near impossible for a earth-like planet not to form.


Same deal – massive complexity is built upon a immense number of blind things requiring intelligence.

TrulyE:You stated that "all things have a cause" and "all things that have a cause are caused by something else", Wouldn't this mean that ALL THINGS ARE CAUSED BY SOMETHING ELSE? Since as you say, ALL things do have a cause. I'd say that All things were caused by quantum fluctuations within a quantum vacuum, and its statistical probability.


First, these things would have to have a way of coming into existence by themselves. And we don't see, in the macro world, such things just “popping” into to existence – not ANYWHERE! And even if things at the quantum level could simply appear without an Engineer behind them, they could not organize in ways that only an intelligence could. Merely existing or coming into existence, doesn't explain the intelligence required to plan, orchestrate, design, etc. So, what you believe in is a inexplicable intelligence that is eternal and self aware, and aware of what it is producing and knows how to. There is absolutely nothing random about this. And you go on about billions of years as if that solves your problem. It does not – because blind, non-intelligent rocks don't, billions of years later, suddenly know how to do calculus, or build astonishing things. So, you are inputting time itself as if that helps your contentions.

TrulyE: I have only one thread here, and as a scientist, my thread is devoted to the explanation of reality from a scientific perspective only. Don


And science cannot explain what exists, nor how it could. Things cannot create themselves. Blind things can't become or develop intelligence. Chaotic things cannot self organize. In fact, these things are the exact opposite of chaos – because they have capabilities that all take an intelligent creator. Not to mention, what are the odds that JUST the right things needed to build a universe happened to come into existence within mere moments? Note they didn't need billions of years to develop their designs or operational sophistication. Look again at the first three minutes of the universe beginning – only a belief in pure magic could believe there wasn't an massively Intelligent Designer of great power and purpose that INSTANTLY produced exactly what was required to produce our universe, to eventually allow life, and that showed astonishing designs and functionality in just three minutes of beginning.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 7989
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby PaulSacramento » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:30 am

My point was that life itself was the inevitable byproduct of chaos. And, only when the right conditions were met on this planet, only then could life begin. All of the event that were conducive to the creation of life were inevitable and statistically inescapable
.

On that, I think we ALL agree.
Hello goal-orientedness, glad you could stop by.

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:18 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:
This has already been explained. Don


You're right, it has.

Did you know that there are particles in you that are also theoretically on the moon and part of someone else at the same time? Did you also know that 73% of the Universe is composed of Dark Energy, 23% Dark Matter, 3.5% Hydrogen and Helium(stars), and guess what--all matter and us compose 0.O4% of the entire Universe. From these facts it would appear that we are only the accidental byproducts of the Universe(how's that for irony?). Don


Amazing how a universe that allows us to make statements like:
"And the ONLY reason the scientific method is even possible, is because of the incredible consistencies of their functionalities, processes, and parameters built into the universe", can produce such things by "accident".


I'm afraid that it is Language, not the Universe, that allows us to write any statements Paul. Unless you want to fall victim to a composition fallacy(protons allow us to run). Language was no accident, it was the inevitable and unavoidable outcome of a sudden larger brain in early humans. This genetic accident happened 200,000 years ago, when a sudden mutated change in the brain of "Mitochondrial Eve", which caused a dramatic increase in the size of the brain in all her descendants. After that it was "new knowledge" that became the "fuel food" for this new brain. Using up to 25% of all the body's energy, its hunger is always to be inquisitive. It was only through learning the patterns in our environment, learning the advantage of cooperation, and our self-awareness of an emerging sense of self, that made language simply the inevitable outcome of this inquiring mind. I'm sure you can see that even language is evolving, with each passing generation. But this is for another topic.

I'm afraid goal orientedness can be more of a curse than a blessing. But it helps me to stay focussed. Don

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9025
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby Kurieuo » Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:38 pm

Don, I'm afriad science has debunked that the size of brain has a direct correlation to intelligence. Indeed, a correlation between some physical "brain" element and consciousness isn't known. Throw in the fact our brains have been mapped, then it seems there is in fact no correlation between such. Fact is, no scientist can say, "Ah-huh! Here is that dooby-wacky thing in the brain that allows consciousness to emanate -- that creature has consciousness whereas this creature is merely mechanical."

While we have a story for how physical features evolved, there is no evolutionary theory to describe the evolution of consciousness. In fact, spiritual expression and the like just seems to burst onto the scene from nowhere. There is no correlation with anything physical that we can point to and say, "this is why humans are more spiritual, or self-reflective, or manipulate their environments to suit their lives, or bury their dead, or are creative, or have morality and what-have-you.

So then, given the PSR, the foundational explanation for such likely lay elsewhere.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:40 am

Philip wrote:
TrulyE: Can you imagine the number of possible outcomes from billions upon billions upon billions of events, over billions of years? Wow! Think of it this way. If one person bets on lotto, his chances(odds) of winning are in the millions against. If the Universe had only one sun, one planet, and one moon, then i'd say that the odds of any life being able to form, would between extremely remote to buckley's. However, if a billion people bet on the same lotto(not the same numbers), the odds will move to near or beyond 100% certainty.


The obvious problem with the analogy of a billion people betting on the same lotto is that A) They first must exist, B) recognize there is something to bet on, C) have an intelligence to choose, D) they recognize the options ramifications and thus desire a certain outcome. But blind, random things can do none of those things! They don't think, choose, analyze, strategize, recognize advantages, nor have anyway of desiring them. They are non-living things without any awareness of themselves or anything else – and yet you would assign them magical powers.

TrulyE: If there are billions and billions, and billions of stars, galaxies, and planets and moons, do you not think that the formation of the Earth was nothing more than the inevitable outcome from billions of near outcomes, over billions of years? Based on this level of probability, it would be near impossible for a earth-like planet not to form.


Same deal – massive complexity is built upon a immense number of blind things requiring intelligence.

TrulyE:You stated that "all things have a cause" and "all things that have a cause are caused by something else", Wouldn't this mean that ALL THINGS ARE CAUSED BY SOMETHING ELSE? Since as you say, ALL things do have a cause. I'd say that All things were caused by quantum fluctuations within a quantum vacuum, and its statistical probability.


First, these things would have to have a way of coming into existence by themselves. And we don't see, in the macro world, such things just “popping” into to existence – not ANYWHERE! And even if things at the quantum level could simply appear without an Engineer behind them, they could not organize in ways that only an intelligence could. Merely existing or coming into existence, doesn't explain the intelligence required to plan, orchestrate, design, etc. So, what you believe in is a inexplicable intelligence that is eternal and self aware, and aware of what it is producing and knows how to. There is absolutely nothing random about this. And you go on about billions of years as if that solves your problem. It does not – because blind, non-intelligent rocks don't, billions of years later, suddenly know how to do calculus, or build astonishing things. So, you are inputting time itself as if that helps your contentions.

TrulyE: I have only one thread here, and as a scientist, my thread is devoted to the explanation of reality from a scientific perspective only. Don


And science cannot explain what exists, nor how it could. Things cannot create themselves. Blind things can't become or develop intelligence. Chaotic things cannot self organize. In fact, these things are the exact opposite of chaos – because they have capabilities that all take an intelligent creator. Not to mention, what are the odds that JUST the right things needed to build a universe happened to come into existence within mere moments? Note they didn't need billions of years to develop their designs or operational sophistication. Look again at the first three minutes of the universe beginning – only a belief in pure magic could believe there wasn't an massively Intelligent Designer of great power and purpose that INSTANTLY produced exactly what was required to produce our universe, to eventually allow life, and that showed astonishing designs and functionality in just three minutes of beginning.


Your first paragraph is absolute nonsense. It is a total hosh posh of unrelated, unnecessary, and irrational conditions placed on the simple act of betting on lotto. Applying these conditions on just ONE person going to the newsagent, and having a go, seems to me a bit odd. It is obvious that you didn't clearly understand my point. Let me try it another way. What are the chances of winning lotto if I could bet on every combination? The chances are 100%. Therefore if a Billion people bet on lotto, what do you think the odds would be that at least one of these people would get the correct combination? Between certainty and 100% certainty. I would bet the house on it. Even if all the punters were blind, or wearing blindfolds, and simply told the officials their particular combinations, it would make no difference to the outcome. This simple logic also applies to the billions upon billions, upon billions of stars, galaxies and planets. Even by accident or out of blind random chance, these undirected, unguided, unintelligent, unliving things, would still be able to produce an Earth-like planet. In fact, it would be near impossible for them not to. Have you any idea what part of the Universe that we represent? We are the inevitable outcome from billions of possibilities, from billions of other outcomes. My one Universe, one sun, one planet analogy should have made this very clear. Certainly you can understand these relatively simple analogies, without the unnecessary embellishments and added irrelevant conditions? Is it not blind random chance that your parents, their parents, their parents, their parent....., decided to "bump ugly" to eventually produce you? Of course not! We are all the results of blind and random chance. Given that we are all composed of the same basic elements of the Universe, might just be a spoiler-alert. This is why our time among the living should be accepted, respected, and acknowledged for what it is. A journey of self-discovery, social enlightenment, and personal freedom. Let's move on.

You are obviously not very well acquainted with Quantum Mechanics. No Engineering is required since the Quantum level allows for the temporary violation of the Conservation of Energy. This allows virtual particles to pop in and out of existence, and interact with the four basic fields that propagates throughout spacetime. Their properties and consequences are well understood and are well established. Even the strong nuclear force between quarks is the result of their interactions with virtual gluons. You are correct that we can't see virtual particles. Any ideas as to why not, other than they are just too small? No, it is because virtual particles are not really particles at all. Virtual particles is the generic name used by physicists to distinguish between real particles and virtual particles. Virtual particles produce a generalize ripple when they interacts with the fields, and real particles produce a specific and nice ripple when they interact. Remember also that quantum particles are not real physical things like a small solid ball, they are extremely tiny pockets of discrete energy(Quanta), with specific properties. I will also present this discussion in a new topic. Hopefully this site might bring you up to speed in your quest for understanding. https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... icles-rea/

Rocks do not possess genes, although minerals can evolve and diversify(volcanoes, erosion, water, wind, etc.). But they can never mutate or develop intelligence or sight. So spare me your false analogies and equivocation errors. Stick with examples of things that are at least biological organisms. And time is extremely important to evolution. Learning itself is based on the principle of time. Going from the simple to the more complex takes time. Claiming billions of years of time only adds weight to my contentions, not diminishes it.

There is always order in chaos, for those that are not under the blinding influence of presupposition, cognitive dissonance, or just closed mindedness. Just look into the eye of a hurricane or a tornado, and you'll find order. Just look at the elegance of protein synthesis, or the growth of a rose from its bud, and you'll find order. But above all, look at the birth of a child. Have you any idea of the chaos inherent in the differentiation of stem cells? Have you any idea of the "controlled" chaos that is inherent in the creation of a beautiful and health new life, during all phases of its development? It is you that is trying to represent the marvels of all creations, as only a planned, organised, and designed gift from an intelligence. I not only can enjoy the beauty of creation, but I can also explain the beauty of its simplicity of composition. There is no "who" in the description of natural phenomenon, from a scientific perspective. That falls in the area of Belief and Faith. Again, wrong thread. Don

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:29 am

Kurieuo wrote:Don, I'm afriad science has debunked that the size of brain has a direct correlation to intelligence. Indeed, a correlation between some physical "brain" element and consciousness isn't known. Throw in the fact our brains have been mapped, then it seems there is in fact no correlation between such. Fact is, no scientist can say, "Ah-huh! Here is that dooby-wacky thing in the brain that allows consciousness to emanate -- that creature has consciousness whereas this creature is merely mechanical."

While we have a story for how physical features evolved, there is no evolutionary theory to describe the evolution of consciousness. In fact, spiritual expression and the like just seems to burst onto the scene from nowhere. There is no correlation with anything physical that we can point to and say, "this is why humans are more spiritual, or self-reflective, or manipulate their environments to suit their lives, or bury their dead, or are creative, or have morality and what-have-you.

So then, given the PSR, the foundational explanation for such likely lay elsewhere.


Mate, I never stated that a correlation does exist between the size of the brain and the level of intelligence. In fact it is the number of gyri and convolutions in the brain that seems to indicate levels of intelligence. My point was that 200,000 years ago Mitochondrial Eve experienced a mutated rapid increase in the size of the brain. This was passed onto her evolutionary progenies.This size provided more room to accumulate more sensory data about the human condition. It allowed for the development of higher language skills, to accommodate for more social interactions, thus a species advantage. The increased brain capacity made it possible for humans to exploit many other advantages necessary for its survival. It is only the evolution of language skills that produced the mentally constructed byproduct we call consciousness and self awareness. Just ask a newborn that has been isolated from others for years, what he/she is thinking.

I will also do a topic on consciousness and the evolution of consciousness soon. Suffice to say, that we DO know where the centers of consciousness and intelligence are(medulla, cerebellum, cerebrum and the thalamus) in the brain. We DO know how and why it evolved. The reasons why people are spiritual, is the inherited genes they received from their ancestors, social conformity, and that all spiritual answers satisfy this level of consciousness. Conscious awareness and the internal dialog, can only occur when the brain is idle. Spiritual expression has also evolved from the most simplest of beliefs to the more complex of beliefs. Based on the archaeological digs and artefacts, these expressions seem almost certainly culture-specific. I'm afraid that nothing in science can stand up to the scrutiny and accuracy of the PSR, so I won't even try. Don


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests