Truly: Everything that we see in Nature, has a cause. Everything in Nature that is caused has a reason WHY it is caused. Just genius!
No, just what has exhaustively been observed to be true.
Truly: Some causes may be a collection of causes that produce a single cause. Effects can have one or many causes. We make this assumption because we see them happening everywhere. We have no reason to speculate about what is self-evident.
We certainly can speculate - but the reality we all observe reveals ALL things need a cause. We know of nothing that doesn't. I don't believe in what I can't observe or know of. Reality has a pretty good track record of showing the need for causes, and the absence of uncaused things. And the total absence of new intelligence randomly appearing or developing in non-thinking things.
Truly: Not only are things from our subjective perspective causal in nature, but the process that creates ideas and concepts in our mind, is also causal in Nature. Even the Mathematics that transcend objective and subjective reality is the result of infinite causality created by the BB. So, there is no need to convince me about causality. I am not saying that the BB was not the beginning of our Universe. I'm saying that it may not be "THE" beginning of our Universe.
And so, for all things that exist, whether the BB was their beginning or not, SOMEWHERE/SOMEHOW there had to be a beginning Cause/derivative. So, IF the BB was merely part of some causal chain, it merely kicks the ultimate solution and question further back down the cosmic road.
Truly: Let's begin to highlight how you avoid, restate, misrepresent, and ignore the issues I raise.
NO! I'm only asserting that all things must have a cause and that all you are going on about are already-existing things and processes. And you've admitted that science cannot know anything beyond those things - as it is not equipped to measure them. And I totally agree. If you can tell me of anything ever existing that didn't require a cause, I'm open to hearing about it.
Truly: Science DOES NOT "look to see if there is any evidence appearing to show necessary causes for contingent things, evidences for intelligence and design per things that came into existence - things that pure time and chance don't seem capable of coming close to explaining". This statement is intellectually dishonest.
No need to falsely assert dishonesty! If you'll pay close attention, your realize I didn't say SCIENCE seeks out the metaphysical - things it cannot measure or discern, as they aren't physical - but my contention is that WE, as humans, can and do search for these things. We can ask ourselves, does time - even infinite time - allow blind, non-thinking things to organize in such a way to appear intelligently so - to the degree where we can scarcely understand what has happened, or how. And I say that is impossible, because such things have NO potential - they do not have the necessary attributes, and NO amount of time can produce them. I say, the belief that they can is unmerited belief in magic. Such things or some source had to ALREADY and eternally have these attributes, as they couldn't be developed. Time is no solution to what is asserted. But science most certainly does and long has analyzed the mechanics and designs it sees across the world and universe. As for whether science is looking for a non-physical Cause outside of them - sure it does - perhaps not as in looking for an Intelligence, but in looking for a built-in ability or intelligence that is just naturally occurring, as science has long pondered the whys and hows of the universe. But for arguments sake, let's say that their WAS an intelligent, thinking Source for the universe - would we say that science could not provide clues for that - IF it was true?
Science looks for ANY evidence that explains any NATURAL phenomenon, period. Science does not look for evidence of Intelligence or a personal Designer in any natural phenomena. And I never said such was the goal of SCIENCE.
Truly: Science does not look for evidence to show the inherent necessity of causality in natural phenomena.
Science might not look for the NECESSITY of causality, but it certainly operates the scientific method as if there IS causality behind things - as it assumes there are answers and thus causes. What it does not do is try to pre-suppose a label or identity to unknown causes, or even an ultimate Cause.
Truly: Finally, since reality exists, it is irrelevant and silly, to claim that blind chance and probability cannot account for its existence.
That's circular reasoning - that would mean that no matter the existing components, designs, mechanisms or functionalities in whatever reality, then blind chance MUST be able to account for its existence. Not to mention, you have no observation that this is possible. Why? A) Because science cannot go there and B) we know of not one thing that demonstrates this - and it is irrelevant to speak of processes already in place - as you cannot determine their origin or reasons for functioning as they do. As for things just existing - well, if the universe is eternal, things could just exist - but that doesn't explain their apparent designs and sophisticated functioning, our DNA, what instantly occurred at the beginning of the BB, etc. - these things show immense sophistication, functionality, engineering, etc. And so, time, no matter how much of it, cannot explain these things, unless the astonishing intelligence this would require was/is eternal in whatever, original, non-living things. I think you need to make a list of what non-intelligent things can accomplish, first beginning with how they even exist, and then what capabilities are possible with them. AND, you must explain how the processes came into existence that would have been possible. Also, how they jumped from a reality pre-existing the physical/material universe, into the physical one.
Truly: What earlier Scientists pondered about is irrelevant, it is only their scientific achievements that are pertinent. Making an appeal to Authority in an argument is fallacious, and intellectually dishonest.
And yet YOU refer to their "irrelevant" observations and analysis? "Intellectually dishonest???" I'm not the one who tried to insist that "people of the 21st Century have no reason to ponder Metaphysical and Ecclesiastic questions at all" - as some of the most brilliant minds amongst us have done so, and still do - and yet YOU think that is irrelevant? And as the fact that these giants of science SCIENTIFIC analyses only strengthened what these people have concluded about the need for a Creator - you think their collective testimony and beliefs about this matter are irrelevant, and yet yours ARE? You are beyond arrogant in stating such. You're a mental giant compared to Einstein's foolish theist conclusion? So, please, don't ever refer to anyone's research, analysis or conclusions, if they disagree with you one theism.
Truly: How brilliant they are has nothing to do with what they believe in.
Of course not - they can be wrong. But it is your assertion that they have "no reason to ponder Metaphysical and Ecclesiastic questions at all." Says WHO??? YOU???!!! That shows me your thinking has a filter switch set to not consider anything that conflicts with your present conclusions, as if what you think you know is definitive.
Truly: Read my statement again Philip, "..people of the 21st Century have no reason to ponder Metaphysical and Ecclesiastic questions at all". Although I meant compared to needs necessary for survival, this still does not mean that I somehow know that all people do not, ponder on these questions at all! Did you really think that I would know what all people of the 21st Century would not ponder on?
What you fail to realize is that MANY scientists either came to theistic or Christian beliefs BECAUSE of what learned through science. And yet, you would have it that science has no clues as to what is behind the amazing aspects of the universe, earth and life. That's binary thinking - that our knowledge base of such things doesn't have crossover implications. Look at 1996 Nobel Prize winner and chemist Dr. Richard Smalley (the "Father of Nanotechnology") - a longtime agnostic and believer in naturalism. It was what he learned via science that convinced him of the existence of God, and of his conclusion that life would have been otherwise impossible. And this is true of countless others who hold science, it's methodologies and research in very high esteem.
Truly: After the BB, the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets, there is no need to "speculate". All scientific models are consistent and well understood.
Even "after" doesn't explain how or why.
Truly: The exact nanosecond when the first related causality occurred that contributed to the formation of life, can never be known.
True. But we do know that SOME such Cause with extraordinary intelligence and abilities had to exist.
Truly: It is NOT "speculative" that the cumulative effects of an infinite string of events and variables, is what led to the creation of life.
I AGREE that these many things and their effects made life possible - but as to why or how they exist - THAT is the question science cannot touch.
Truly: It is you that expect science to answer all of your impossible, absolute, and unreasonable questions, but use "special pleading" to exclude your own position from being scrutinized or validated by science.
I don't expect science to hand me a video per what you already say it cannot show. What science DOES show is that all contingent things have a cause. We don't see non-intelligent things developing and exhibiting intelligence. Period!
Truly: It is you, that try to keep critical thinkers at bay, by denying and dismissing anything relevant
Oh, you mean dismissing science facts that don't disprove God? Or speculations built upon such analysis (that can't touch the question)? Plus, it is very much BECAUSE I immensely value scientific facts and its methodologies that have only immensely re-enforced by belief in God. But it's only one line of evidences - but they are extremely powerful to me. I'm merely challenging you to utilize something that can touch the question - and science you admit cannot do so - that ain't gonna do it. But it can reveal probabilities and things we've never seen occur without contingent, already-existing things - which are very important.
And it is YOU who simultaneously insist that science can show us the lack of necessity for God, that blind things can produce astounding things we have absolutely no reason to rationally believe possible without an incredible intelligence, and then you prattle on with conjecture of what MIGHT have been possible per already existing things and processes without explaining their cause or existence. But then you say science cannot answer the question of theism. Endless science talk when you have repeatedly admitted that science cannot explain the Source/sources and Causality we see necessary for all existing things. You only talk about things and processes already existing. That is pointless in your attempts to refute God is necessary, when science cannot go there. So, science talk cannot explain what many want to know.
Truly: So when it comes to being speculative, at least I use clearly defined existing physical things.
Which I appeal to as well - as such things have extraordinary attributes which I contend that random blind, non-physical things cannot explain. And you've no such evidence of such non-intelligent things having such capabilities - other than your magic words: "infinite time."
Truly: Describe ONE thing that completely falsifies the ToE?
IF true, TOE is irrelevant to the question, as it would have been an entirely contingent series of extraordinary, statistically improbable things that are WAY after the fact of what must be explained. As evolution COULD have been God's process - and many believe that. But whatever it's source and how it could have been possible, its reality would have been contingent upon what FIRST came into existence 10 BILLION YEARS before, that if such necessary things had not come into physical reality, governed by highly precise laws evident from the beginning of the BB (laws don't create themselves), then NO building blocks or conditions would have existed to have made evolution possible. So, TOE takes you to nowheresville on the argument against the necessity of an Intelligent Creator!
Truly: Maybe you can prove why a non-contingent, non-intelligent, non-improbable blind chance, COULD NOT have been the cause of our reality(instead of implying it)?
Do I need to prove something that has NEVER been observed before - as there is nothing known to man, that doesn't have a previous thing or cause enabling it. There has never been evidence of a blind, random thing showing sophistication, intelligence, or that wasn't impacted by some already-existing thing or process. So, go isolate some rocks and set up surveillance - get back to me in a few billion years.
My biggest questions are, WHY are you here? Why do you care so much to try to discredit people's belief in God?
Why are you angry over such belief? So antagonistic? When someone says you can't explain what exists without an intelligent cause, you babble irrelevant science facts that you, yourself admit cannot touch that question. So why all the effort? It looks to me that you are trying VERY hard to not believe God could be a reality? I don't get it. So, all my friends believe in Zeus - they're nice people, their belief in Zeus causes no harm, actually, they do much good in the name of Zeus - and yet I'm gonna get on a website and do a daily dissertation on how they are fools who don't understand science. That's pure whacko!
Don, if there IS a God, would you want to know about Him?[/quote]
Let's me address your PSR comment first. PSR is a philosophical principle, NOT a scientific principle. It cannot be violated from a scientific perspective. PSR is based on 2 basic ideas. One is internal or self-contained(a triangle is a triangle because it is by definition), and Mathematical facts and principles. The second is external, which include objects and events that must have a reason for their existence. PSR depends on
1.There is an explanation why every fact is so, and not otherwise.
2.Therefore, there are no facts
that are so and can be otherwise
3.But if there are contingent facts
, then there ARE
facts that are so and can be otherwise
4.Therefore(from premises #2 and #3), it follows that there are no contingent facts, there are only necessary facts
Not only does PSR prove an extreme form of determinism(necessitarianism), but the standard notion of contingency is refuted on the basis of PSR. The notion that things can be otherwise then what they are is absurd. Even Leibniz and Spinoza recognized this absurdity. Both now conclude that, "it is the nature of reason to regard things as necessary, and not contingent". Maybe you can explain WHY you state, "the utter incoherence and self-defeating nature of such an argument", or, was this more "bluff and blunder". Until there are further discoveries at CERN and LHC, we can't be certain of the origin
of all the different quantum fields. But there is no question of their existence. And, "I don't know" or "that's the way it is", is infinitely better than, "God did it". Let's move on.
Are you saying that the only things that you know, are only the things that you can observe("I don't believe in what I can't observe or know of")? That is not the same reality that I live in. Do you think that I believe that all things and events, do NOT
have a cause? So spare me watching you arguing with your own straw man. Since my position on cause and effect was clearly stated, I have no idea the point you are trying to make. Also, making up your own self-serving logic, doesn't mean that your conclusion is correct. Because we don't see something(or the "absence of something"), doesn't mean that we can conclude that it doesn't exist. That is another fallacy(ignorance). Whether than go through all of your equivocation fallacies, let me just ask you about the mantras you keep parroting.
1. What is an example of something that is blind(can't see) and unthinking?
2. What is the criteria that you measure the appearance of intelligence, that is not
3. What are these attributes of creation that no amount of time could allow for? And, how do you know this?
4. What is an example of something that is un-designed, or a design failures(vestigial organs)?
5. What objective tools would you suggest science use to investigate a non-physical cause? Or miracles?
6. Name me anything that is metaphysical or supernatural in nature?
Stating that because life is here in spite of the odds IS NOT
circular reasoning. If I tell a lotto winner that he couldn't have won because the millions-one odds make it almost impossible, is this circular reasoning? Of course not, since he has already won! You were implying that the odds are so great that life could not have began. This is clearly false, unless you would like to provide an alternative explanation that explains why life exists today? If I claimed that the reason you exist, is because you exist, THAT WOULD BE CIRCULAR. Matter itself has no intelligent properties, unless you can demonstrate one property of matter that is intelligent. Intelligence is a subjective label, used to explain the way all organisms acquire and apply knowledge. The less knowledge, the lower the intelligence. We know that matter is created from the interaction of particles with the different quantum fields. This isn't speculation, no matter how you reduce it to "just known things". All matter must obey the laws of quantum Mechanics. Did you know that there are atoms in you that have been to the moon and back? Did you know that some of atoms exist in your past and your future at the same time? We are all part of the quantum world, whether we like it, believe it, or not.
Can you ever stop misrepresenting what I say. I said, "What earlier Scientists pondered about is irrelevant, it is only their scientific achievements that are pertinent". Making an appeal to Authority in an argument is fallacious, and intellectually dishonest". You responded with, "And yet YOU refer to their "irrelevant" observations and analysis
? "Intellectually dishonest???" Where do I state this? I was saying that YOU were using the notoriety and brilliancy of famous scientist, to give your argument more credibility and importance. This is an appeal to Authority, which is a logical fallacy, and intellectually dishonest. I repeat it is irrelevant what they were pondering(what their beliefs are). It only matters what their scientific contributions were. Period! I was also not talking about, "their collective testimony and beliefs about this matter" either, so stop straw manning me as if I was. You DO KNOW that Einstein was not a Theist don't you? He was at best a Pantheist. Are you a Pantheist?
My thread is not here to challenge anyones beliefs. It is here for those who want to hear about science from a scientific perspective. If your understanding of science is, "immensely re-enforced by belief in God", then that is good for you. Are you suggesting that since science can't provide evidence of the existence or non-existence of God, that I should challenge myself, and find novel ways to convince myself that God does or does not exist? Philip, if you tell me that you believe that God created everything because this is your Belief, we would not have an argument. But if you tell me that God created everything and science proves it, then we will have a discussion. I have only one thread on this entire forum, and all I can promise you is intellectual honesty and respect. If your arguments are fallacious, inconsistent, contradictory, or just plain false, I will point this out as well. If you don't want this, then I suggest that you visit a different thread.
Everyone has access to the internet. You don't need any scientific background(although it helps), to access and understand any information that I've presented. There are video sites, web sites, libraries, bookstores, multi media channels, that can highlight this information better than I can. Anyone that wants to learn can. I think that the problem is, that you just don't want to know. You have acquired a certain set of rules, principles, and beliefs, that have shaped your cognition, and defined the nature of purpose for you. You are correct, science cannot explain why only 3.08e-58% of the entire Universe is occupied by a planet where 99.9% of all species have gone extinct. It can't explain heaven or hell, or if there is life after death. It cannot explain if clairvoyance, mysticism, telepathy, ghosts, or any other paranormal activities is true or false. But what science can do is try and give you the best explanation to describe a natural phenomena, based on the evidence. It does this sometimes out of necessity(Aids, Plagues, War, etc.). Sometimes by accident(X-rays, Nuclear Fission, Dynamite, Anesthesia, etc.). But mostly it seeks answers to describe observed natural phenomena. But I know of no scientific discoveries that were the result of the metaphysical, or derived from the supernatural.
If there IS
a God, I would certainly want to know him. I have a lot of questions. Don