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.
User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18455
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 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:57 am

TE wrote:
Good, it is certainly far better to be skeptical than gullible any day of the week. Although I don't remember claiming that time is infinite, maybe you can explain how this rewrites modern cosmology?


You mentioned infinite time, and used infinite time, for your argument here:
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.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=230518#p230518
It rewrites modern cosmology because modern cosmology says that time is finite, time began at the Big Bang.

In our Universe, I do believe that time IS infinite. But I don't see its relevance here, other than being necessary for change to occur. My claim is the logical claim that the FIRST life came as a result of the chance set of circumstances involving just the right combination of luck, time, and the right non-living chemicals and minerals. The logic is, WE ARE HERE AND ALIVE, and there was NO LIFE on the primitive early Earth. So unless aliens came to early Earth and bumped ugly with rocks and volcanoes, I can't see any other rational explanation

So, chance, luck, time, etc., is more logical to you than God creating life?

Look, if you want to believe in that, and deceive yourself into calling it logical, then feel free. But it's not science.

Anyway, what evidence do you require? Maybe you can present your OWN evidence that suggest that life was NOT created from nonliving materials(non-life)? That is, without committing a fallacy of composition.

I happen to believe, and would not try to prove scientifically, that life was CREATED from non life, by a creator. Not by blind luck, non existing infinite time, and chance.

So, I actually have a rational reason for believing that life was CREATED from non life.

Are you open to the possibility in your mind, that God could exist? Or are you just completely shut off to that possibility?
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

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 100
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 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:35 am

RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:So, in a nutshell, you're saying life came from non-life, from chaos?


There is an unimaginable number of events that led to enough time for order to come out of chaos. This was more than enough for life to begin. The first life was probably started by the first replicating molecule. This would have led to, over time, the formation of different molecules including the precursor to the RNA molecule. This would, over time, form the blueprint to allow different molecules to perform different functions. Over more time and trial and error, these functional units became more energy efficient, as they worked as a collective. The energy consumed by these units, provided enough energy for specialisation, and later the formation of systems. As more energy was consumed, these systems became more compartmentalized. The first life would have been microscopic and simple. Over time these simple organisms would have evolve to more complex organisms. This pattern of life is what we see recreated throughout nature. Newborns are not born as adults. They start as microscopic simple organisms, and over time become more complex.

But on a simplistic level YES, the first independently functioning organic life form, was originally formed from non-living chemicals. Unless you think that living organisms were already here and created themselves, what other explanation do you propose? Don

Originally formed from non-living chemicals? Formed by whom?


With all due respect, that is a nonsense question. Are lightning bolts formed by a WHOM? Are newborns formed by a WHOM? Are the seasons, the Earth, the Sun formed by a WHOM? Is the DNA molecule formed by a WHOM? Is there any natural phenomenon you can demonstrate, that is formed by a WHOM? From a scientific perspective, the answer is obviously NO. These events are explained by a series of natural cause and effect, time, and the statistical probability of them occurring. From a Belief perspective, the answer would be YES. You can affix any "whom" label you want. Of course the WHOM label will have no explanatory or practical value. And, any of thousands of WHOMS can be substituted, and they would all have equal weight.

Any appeals to tradition(fallacy), must be supported by evidence alone. And just assuming the fact(s) in your question to be true(assumption that somebody actually did form something), is intellectually dishonest and a logically flawed. Therefore, NO single THING is responsible for the formation of the chemicals that formed life. Unless, of course you can prove what that thing is. That is, to apply the same standard of evidence that you expect and require of science. Don

Aha,

I think you're starting to win me over to this "skeptic" position you are touting.

You rewrite modern cosmology by claiming time is infinite. Then you make a claim with no science to back it up, that life comes from non life.

You've won me over! I'm officially a skeptic!
:clap:


The best you could do is misrepresent my comment on infinite time. I was stating that IF given an infinite amount time all COIN tosses would result in an equal amount of heads and tails. Is this true? Of course it is. Do we have an infinite amount of time? Of course not. Whether we have an infinite amount of time was not the point, duh. The point was that given enough time random events can produce order. You guys seem to be grasping at the straws of irrelevancy. You gaggle over the use of words, and ignore the central idea. You ignore the central theme and thought, and wallow in the simplistic and obvious. I guess my lotto analogy was also a waste of intellectual time.

I put a lot of time and effort in my topics, I expect more than, "we don't have an infinite amount of time". WOW! Don

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18455
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 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:09 am

trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
There is an unimaginable number of events that led to enough time for order to come out of chaos. This was more than enough for life to begin. The first life was probably started by the first replicating molecule. This would have led to, over time, the formation of different molecules including the precursor to the RNA molecule. This would, over time, form the blueprint to allow different molecules to perform different functions. Over more time and trial and error, these functional units became more energy efficient, as they worked as a collective. The energy consumed by these units, provided enough energy for specialisation, and later the formation of systems. As more energy was consumed, these systems became more compartmentalized. The first life would have been microscopic and simple. Over time these simple organisms would have evolve to more complex organisms. This pattern of life is what we see recreated throughout nature. Newborns are not born as adults. They start as microscopic simple organisms, and over time become more complex.

But on a simplistic level YES, the first independently functioning organic life form, was originally formed from non-living chemicals. Unless you think that living organisms were already here and created themselves, what other explanation do you propose? Don

Originally formed from non-living chemicals? Formed by whom?


With all due respect, that is a nonsense question. Are lightning bolts formed by a WHOM? Are newborns formed by a WHOM? Are the seasons, the Earth, the Sun formed by a WHOM? Is the DNA molecule formed by a WHOM? Is there any natural phenomenon you can demonstrate, that is formed by a WHOM? From a scientific perspective, the answer is obviously NO. These events are explained by a series of natural cause and effect, time, and the statistical probability of them occurring. From a Belief perspective, the answer would be YES. You can affix any "whom" label you want. Of course the WHOM label will have no explanatory or practical value. And, any of thousands of WHOMS can be substituted, and they would all have equal weight.

Any appeals to tradition(fallacy), must be supported by evidence alone. And just assuming the fact(s) in your question to be true(assumption that somebody actually did form something), is intellectually dishonest and a logically flawed. Therefore, NO single THING is responsible for the formation of the chemicals that formed life. Unless, of course you can prove what that thing is. That is, to apply the same standard of evidence that you expect and require of science. Don

Aha,

I think you're starting to win me over to this "skeptic" position you are touting.

You rewrite modern cosmology by claiming time is infinite. Then you make a claim with no science to back it up, that life comes from non life.

You've won me over! I'm officially a skeptic!
:clap:


The best you could do is misrepresent my comment on infinite time. I was stating that IF given an infinite amount time all COIN tosses would result in an equal amount of heads and tails. Is this true? Of course it is. Do we have an infinite amount of time? Of course not. Whether we have an infinite amount of time was not the point, duh. The point was that given enough time random events can produce order. You guys seem to be grasping at the straws of irrelevancy. You gaggle over the use of words, and ignore the central idea. You ignore the central theme and thought, and wallow in the simplistic and obvious. I guess my lotto analogy was also a waste of intellectual time.

I put a lot of time and effort in my topics, I expect more than, "we don't have an infinite amount of time". WOW! Don

It certainly wasn't my intention to misrepresent your argument. I thought when you wrote this:
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.

You were using it as the basis of your argument for order out of chaos. You do realize that while billions of years is a lot of time, it's no closer to infinite time than one-one millionth of a second.

So, instead of infinite time, your argument is that billions of years equals life, just by chance and luck, is created(funny how you use that word) from non-life? Is that more accurate?

And don't forget to answer this as well:

Are you open to the possibility in your mind, that God could exist? Or are you just completely shut off to that possibility?
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
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9016
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 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:49 pm

Today's skepticism has more in common with either Nihilism, or if a person goes another route, a post-modern "the world is what you make it" than anything else. It often isn't at all healthy or as intellectually honest as many self-proclaiming skeptics would think.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5817
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 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:34 pm

K: Today's skepticism has more in common with either Nihilism


Elaborate a bit on that comparison, please.

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 100
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 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:32 pm

trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:Topic 3: The Truth Surrounding the Big Bang

Prior to the instant of the Big Bang, our tools for understanding this event are scientifically useless. Since all math and physics principles break down at the level of the Planck Unit(Planck energy, Planck time, Planck length, Planck mass, and Planck temperature). By analyzing the results on the Graviton experiments at CERN and the LHC, we hope to discover new scientific tools to enable us to probe further into the origin of the Universe. The math and physics break down at the Planck Scale because of Quantum Fluctuation and the Uncertainty Principle. This is a phenomenon that appears in the Quantum Field Theory, and the Standard Model(the equations that are used to predict the behavior of the known elementary particles and their forces). Since gravity on a macro scale is necessary to explain the behavior of macro objects, it is theorized that Quantum Gravity is necessary to explain Quantum Flux, or maybe circumvent the Uncertainty Principle. There are several candidates supporting the consistency of the theory of Quantum Gravity. They are, String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Quantum Spacetime, Quantum Vacuum, and others. However, to test these models is extremely difficult, considering the extremely small scales that are involved. But it is not impossible, since science also employs inductive and deductive reasoning. The most promising approach to experimentally probing for the existence of Quantum Gravity, is to look for small imprints left by Planck-scale physics, in the inflationary CMB, and their subsequent structure formation. These imprints have already been predicted and calculated. I won't go into the approach that I favor more(Loop Quantum Gravity), or its advantages over the others. Suffice to say, we ARE on the verge of many new discoveries at this level. Let's move on.

The Earth is over 13.8 Billion light years away from the beginning of the BB(based on the calculations of CMBR). That same spot is now 46 Billion light years away. This means that the diameter of the entire Universe is 92 Billion light years across. Remember, all that has happened, or will happen, exist within the distance of 92 Billion light years. Or do you even understand the significance of why time is only relative? Also remember, that our Universe began from a Quantum vacuum, caused by Quantum fluctuation, at the Planck scale of reality. It is also important to know that everything that we know about our Universe began at T= Zero.

After the moment of T = Zero, space and time were born. This is what we call the BB. It was an unusual and counterintuitive event, that was not really an explosion. It was an accelerated expansion of not only space and time, but also set the stage for all PHYSICAL LAWS. At the initial instance of the BB, light and space did not exist. There was no outside of the BB, there was only the inside. It was just a very tiny and ultra hot fog of energy. This Universe at T= Zero was very tiny and very strange, and all standard concepts of time and space did not really apply. Then the Universe did something strange, IT SUDDENLY EXPANDED. From smaller than an atom, to the size of an orange, in less than a trillionth of a second. In the first Billionth of a second the strong and weak forces became distinct from other elementary particles. Remember if it were not for there being more matter particles than antimatter particles in the Universe, we would not be here today(just 1 out of every Billion survived). In the next one hundred seconds it was as big as our solar system, and trillions of miles across. To cut to the chase. It took over 300,000 years before hydrogen and helium atoms could capture an electron, to form a stable atom. It was after a 100 million years of Dark Age, before the first star could shine, and herald in the Stellar Age. 600 Millions years later, the first Galaxy was formed. New galaxies formed over billions of years later. Around 4 Billion years later the first population of stars formed. Around 4 Billion years later Earth and our sun were forming. Over 4 Billion years later life began here on Earth. 1 Billion years from now our Sun will be 10% larger, and will raise the temperature of the surface of the Earth. This will evaporate our oceans and extinguish most if not all life on the planet. No one will be around in the next 4-5 Billion years to witness the collision of our Milky Way Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy, racing towards each other at 250,000 mph. So, whether you believe in the big Rip(Dark Energy) or the big Freeze(infinite expansion) in the next 10's of Trillions of years, NO LIFE WILL EVER EXIST AGAIN IN THIS UNIVERSE. This Heat-Death of the Universe is because energy will be spread out so thin throughout the Universe, that there won't be enough of it to perform any work at all.

This truth surrounding the BB is only from a scientific perspective. My personal opinion is, that life is incredibly precious and special. It would be such a terrible and tragic waste of life, not to experience every precious moments we do have. But I could be wrong, and science could also be wrong. I truly want to be wrong! Don

What does this post have to do with the PSR?


It's a different topic Rick, we have moved on. There are a few topics that I really want to get to. Did you have a specific question about PSR, or just fishing? I think I have already addressed it, but let's hear your specific question. Don


Thank you, but truly unnecessary. My last topic was merely one of 3 topics, that also relates to scepticism, reason, truth, science, and rationality. I have said that I will limit myself to only one thread, thus effectively isolating myself from all other threads. I will not be responding in any other thread on this forum. Effectively isolating myself from all other discussions. If no one wants to converse or dialog with me, then my thread becomes mute. My thread explains current natural phenomenon from a scientific, and skeptical perspective. But I am certainly opened to the logic and the evidence from other points of views, or other positions. Hopefully I will be allowed to continue on my single thread without further actions, constraints, or some latent agenda. Don

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9016
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 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:42 pm

Kurieuo wrote:Today's skepticism has more in common with either Nihilism, or if a person goes another route, a post-modern "the world is what you make it" than anything else. It often isn't at all healthy or as intellectually honest as many self-proclaiming skeptics would think.

Philip wrote:
K: Today's skepticism has more in common with either Nihilism


Elaborate a bit on that comparison, please.

Many who call themselves skeptics don't often seem to realise the distinction between a moderate skepticism (like I'd say the scholostacs had with their critical thinking processes) and extreme skepticism. The latter extreme skepticism is often applied to beliefs to do with God and/or those who'd believe in God's existence, which if consistently applied would lead a person into a state of epistemological nihilism - rejecting any/all knowledge.

Yet, many extreme skeptics when it comes to God aren't normally consistent with their skepticism and standards of justification. This is apparent when they chose to adopt another route, one that I see lowers skepticism to a very low level which allows them to embrace whatever beliefs they prefer as though such are just winners by default and need no justifying. Such I see is akin to post-modern thought which elevates the beliefs of a subject to be just as good as any other. So they enter into a similar post-modern haze where the world is ultimately just what they want it to be.

Did I elaborate clearly enough?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 100
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 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:27 pm

RickD wrote:
TE wrote:
Good, it is certainly far better to be skeptical than gullible any day of the week. Although I don't remember claiming that time is infinite, maybe you can explain how this rewrites modern cosmology?


You mentioned infinite time, and used infinite time, for your argument here:
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.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=230518#p230518
It rewrites modern cosmology because modern cosmology says that time is finite, time began at the Big Bang.

In our Universe, I do believe that time IS infinite. But I don't see its relevance here, other than being necessary for change to occur. My claim is the logical claim that the FIRST life came as a result of the chance set of circumstances involving just the right combination of luck, time, and the right non-living chemicals and minerals. The logic is, WE ARE HERE AND ALIVE, and there was NO LIFE on the primitive early Earth. So unless aliens came to early Earth and bumped ugly with rocks and volcanoes, I can't see any other rational explanation

So, chance, luck, time, etc., is more logical to you than God creating life?

Look, if you want to believe in that, and deceive yourself into calling it logical, then feel free. But it's not science.

Anyway, what evidence do you require? Maybe you can present your OWN evidence that suggest that life was NOT created from nonliving materials(non-life)? That is, without committing a fallacy of composition.

I happen to believe, and would not try to prove scientifically, that life was CREATED from non life, by a creator. Not by blind luck, non existing infinite time, and chance.

So, I actually have a rational reason for believing that life was CREATED from non life.

Are you open to the possibility in your mind, that God could exist? Or are you just completely shut off to that possibility?


Unless it is determined that Dark Energy has some new properties, or changes the properties that we do know, TIME WILL CONTINUE INDEFINITELY. It's been at least 13.8 Billion years so far, from our perspective. Do I think time had a beginning? Of course I do, and have stated this before, considering that no time or space existed before the BB. So why all the false epiphanies to my comment about time being infinite? Do you think that time will somehow stop in the future? If you don't then what is the point you are trying to make? If you do, let's hear it. What does the Cosmological Argument have to do with time being continuous, and will continue towards infinity? Moving on.

I am certainly open to the possibility of a Deity, I am only skeptical of the evidence supporting its existence. I am skeptical of the logic defining and describing the nature of a Deity. I am perplexed that there seems to be thousands of Deities that are culture-specific, which by definition of a Deity cannot exist. If we could just discover that another reality exists, any rational or logical proof supporting Belief, any objective evidence suggesting that miracles exists, any independent evidence that the power of prayer works, or any objective evidence left over by any interaction with the supernatural, I would then be opening my own Religious Forum, and become its most outspoken proponent. I am certainly aware of the positive psychological, social, and emotional effects inherited in any Belief system. Is my position more clearer now? Don

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9016
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 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:07 pm

trulyenlightened wrote: I am certainly open to the possibility of a Deity, I am only skeptical of the evidence supporting its existence. I am skeptical of the logic defining and describing the nature of a Deity. I am perplexed that there seems to be thousands of Deities that are culture-specific, which by definition of a Deity cannot exist.

I'd encourage you to read over this post and thread here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=40148&start=196
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 100
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 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:51 am

RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
RickD wrote:Originally formed from non-living chemicals? Formed by whom?


With all due respect, that is a nonsense question. Are lightning bolts formed by a WHOM? Are newborns formed by a WHOM? Are the seasons, the Earth, the Sun formed by a WHOM? Is the DNA molecule formed by a WHOM? Is there any natural phenomenon you can demonstrate, that is formed by a WHOM? From a scientific perspective, the answer is obviously NO. These events are explained by a series of natural cause and effect, time, and the statistical probability of them occurring. From a Belief perspective, the answer would be YES. You can affix any "whom" label you want. Of course the WHOM label will have no explanatory or practical value. And, any of thousands of WHOMS can be substituted, and they would all have equal weight.

Any appeals to tradition(fallacy), must be supported by evidence alone. And just assuming the fact(s) in your question to be true(assumption that somebody actually did form something), is intellectually dishonest and a logically flawed. Therefore, NO single THING is responsible for the formation of the chemicals that formed life. Unless, of course you can prove what that thing is. That is, to apply the same standard of evidence that you expect and require of science. Don

Aha,

I think you're starting to win me over to this "skeptic" position you are touting.

You rewrite modern cosmology by claiming time is infinite. Then you make a claim with no science to back it up, that life comes from non life.

You've won me over! I'm officially a skeptic!
:clap:


The best you could do is misrepresent my comment on infinite time. I was stating that IF given an infinite amount time all COIN tosses would result in an equal amount of heads and tails. Is this true? Of course it is. Do we have an infinite amount of time? Of course not. Whether we have an infinite amount of time was not the point, duh. The point was that given enough time random events can produce order. You guys seem to be grasping at the straws of irrelevancy. You gaggle over the use of words, and ignore the central idea. You ignore the central theme and thought, and wallow in the simplistic and obvious. I guess my lotto analogy was also a waste of intellectual time.

I put a lot of time and effort in my topics, I expect more than, "we don't have an infinite amount of time". WOW! Don

It certainly wasn't my intention to misrepresent your argument. I thought when you wrote this:
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.

You were using it as the basis of your argument for order out of chaos. You do realize that while billions of years is a lot of time, it's no closer to infinite time than one-one millionth of a second.

So, instead of infinite time, your argument is that billions of years equals life, just by chance and luck, is created(funny how you use that word) from non-life? Is that more accurate?

And don't forget to answer this as well:

Are you open to the possibility in your mind, that God could exist? Or are you just completely shut off to that possibility?


When one poster implies that non-living, non-life is the same as Chaos, I don't semantically nit-pick him. I know what the poster is really trying to say. I do not seek to exploit or focus only on the specific words that are used, in order to advance my position. I try to keep an open mind, and when something is said that is intellectually sound, I will learn from it. I am more interested in the idea rather than the semantics. I don't expect, or want people to worry about their syntax, composition, or what the proper words they should be using. I believe in the freedom of speech and expression. I may expect it from my students, but certainly not from my adult peers.

It has taken Billions of years for the Earth to produce Humans from its natural resources. It is very true that Billions of years is not anywhere near infinity, but look at all the things that non-near infinity has produced(oceans, mountains, continents, sand on beaches, planets, suns, etc.). It is amazing what small changes over time can produce.Think of what even more time could produce? The chance and luck are the opposite of the entire point of my coin example(inevitable order from disorder). Even if the odds of winning lotto are millions to one, one person could still win on the first go. Therefore luck and chance ARE relevant, and should not be dismissed or trivialized. Therefore, it is irrelevant whatever the probability of life forming from non-living materials(chemicals, minerals, air, or whatever). As long as it is not impossible. It may happen on the first go, or over a few Billions years, but it certainly did happen. Otherwise, we are not really here, are we? :) Don

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 100
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 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:26 am

Kurieuo wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote: I am certainly open to the possibility of a Deity, I am only skeptical of the evidence supporting its existence. I am skeptical of the logic defining and describing the nature of a Deity. I am perplexed that there seems to be thousands of Deities that are culture-specific, which by definition of a Deity cannot exist.

I'd encourage you to read over this post and thread here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=40148&start=196


Thank you, and I have read the entire page, since I couldn't find any specific post numbers. I sometimes suffer from acute hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, so I try to avoid non-technical terms that have more than three syllables. I do not like labels that sound better than their meaning. Labels tend to provide a false sense of security to hide behind, whether they are accurate or not. I don't believe that there are limits to human knowledge or understanding, therefore I am not a nihilist. Although I don't know the distinction, I am a skeptic because I have a healthy sense of curiosity. Extreme skepticism would only produce anxiety, conflict, and endless doubt. This would not be healthy to the human condition. So I'm not an extreme skeptic. I do not believe that all events are completely determined by a preexisting cause, therefore I am not a true determinist. However, I may believe that free-will is just an illusion, but it is "free-won't" that is the real choice. I am certainly an epistomologist regarding science, but apply a more relaxed standard towards Belief. I also consider myself an existentialist and a materialist. Therefore, I am not influenced by dogma or unsupported bandwagon rhetoric. I am an idealist only in the sense that I am trapped in my own subjective reality. None of these labels really matters, since others will label you in any way they see fit. My hero's are Mark Twain(Sam Clemens), and Isaac Asimov.

This is why my thread does not not label people with superlatives and tags. No one is purely one label or another. They merely LEAN more in one direction than another. My thread is to avoid multiple interpretations, by appealing to simple logic. I try to keep my claims as intuitive as I can, and avoid evoking the spiritual. If you wish to postulate that a Deity put into motion all of the science that we know today, you will have no argument from me. I only try to explain the motion that was put into place. A Deity has no explanatory value, but what was put in place, does. This is what my thread attempts to focus on. Don

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9016
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 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:37 am

:scratch:
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

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 15, 2017 11:08 pm

After reading through this thread I have noticed some things that bother me about skeptics.First off they usually have alot of scientific knowledge as with this skeptic and they take their scientific knowledge and use it while adding in irrational arguments to it and yet it can seem so convincing because of their scientific knowledge.But the Devil is in the details.

I mean this skeptic laid out in this thread in a very scientific way how over billions of years that all things have a cause and all things that have a cause were caused by something else and yet when it is brought up that Thomas Aquinas stated this in the 13th century and that it is evidence for an eternal God,it is ignored.

This skeptic lays it out explaining how over billions of years all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,yet this goes out the window and unscientific assumptions are made when it comes to the vaccum or them particles in it that pop in and out of existence.Suddenly it has no cause like everything else does over billions of years eventhough everything else did over billions of years and it always comes down to random,blind chance or nothing that is irrational and is not based on reality and the evidence.Based on the facts of how science has confirmed the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas correct and that yes there must be an uncaused first cause which is eternal God.
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.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18455
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 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:57 am

Topic 4: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Started a new topic here:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=42220
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

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 100
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 17, 2017 12:46 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:After reading through this thread I have noticed some things that bother me about skeptics.First off they usually have alot of scientific knowledge as with this skeptic and they take their scientific knowledge and use it while adding in irrational arguments to it and yet it can seem so convincing because of their scientific knowledge.But the Devil is in the details.

I mean this skeptic laid out in this thread in a very scientific way how over billions of years that all things have a cause and all things that have a cause were caused by something else and yet when it is brought up that Thomas Aquinas stated this in the 13th century and that it is evidence for an eternal God,it is ignored.

This skeptic lays it out explaining how over billions of years all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,yet this goes out the window and unscientific assumptions are made when it comes to the vaccum or them particles in it that pop in and out of existence.Suddenly it has no cause like everything else does over billions of years eventhough everything else did over billions of years and it always comes down to random,blind chance or nothing that is irrational and is not based on reality and the evidence.Based on the facts of how science has confirmed the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas correct and that yes there must be an uncaused first cause which is eternal God.


I can only give you my point of view, based on the evidence from physics, natural laws, and the existence of virtual particles. I don't know how science confirms Aquinas's argument, since it is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. From a logical perspective, it is only an argument from ignorance. Or, merely a stop-gap, using a Designer to fill the gap as the uncaused cause, or the unmoved mover. This seems a way of avoiding the obvious question, of who created the creator, and so on. This seems a matter of Belief, not science. Maybe you can demonstrate the FACTS that science uses to validate Aquinas's argument. Not just assert that it does. Don


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests