Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
581

[quote]pat wrote:

You had to have some plan to put together the parts to make a motorcycle. It doesn’t matter if the plan was stagnant, or fluid
and came along as the parts started to come together…The idea still happens before the assembly. The idea of the motorcycle would be the form.

When conducting the “experiment” if you actually could, it is a difference that has to be noted. For instance if the two “beings” did not act the same as predicted they should, the location and space problems would have to be taken in to account as a possibility as to why.

If they acted the same in every way, the differences would then be dismissable.
The results would dictate how much occupied space would matter. In the case of gun parts of car parts, it doesn’t really matter. Biological engineering, it could be a huge difference.
[/quote]

I don’t believe I’d need a plan, I’d just put the pieces together in the way they would fit. Kinda like putting a puzzle together with the pieces face down.

I hadn’t considered this, but I do agree.

582

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:

Even suggesting that the big bang, a theory backed by well accepted physics and observation, is on the same evidential level as creationism is absurd. Show me the observation, laws of physics, and models that predict creation, and i’ll concede.

This is a nice explanation of how science works, and it’s apparent limitations, thanks.

However, The big bang was not observed, so stating the theory is based on observation is not accurate. Observation of other properties or natural phenomenon and then applying that to the big bang is assumption and conjecture. Reasoned conjecture, but conjecture all the same.

And as any scientist knows, even in very controlled studies there is still wide variability. So applying anything to other than the actual time, place, event, etc that it was observed or occurred is conjecture at best.

Disproving the big bang “model” is not a fair request. You are setting the rules and then saying we have to disprove the theory without disturbing or changing the rules, when in fact, it is these very rules that hold up the model.

Without these rules or theoretical framework the model has little meaning. So in essence you are saying; “try to knock over this chair without touching or disturbing the position of the legs that support it”

Within the “rules” set by creationists, the model has just as much “observation” and theory as the big bang, the rules are just different. And within the context of the human experience, it is just as valid.

For example; show me the positive effect that a belief in the big bang has had on someone’s life. How it has helped the person recover from illness, deal with difficult circumstances, help their fellow man, etc.

Show me how it has help society and bettered mankind on an individual level and I will concede that the big bang model is valid.

Are you following my point?
[/quote]

I follow your points.

First, you don’t quite understand how the big bang was derived or how deduction works in axiomatic theory construction. all of science beyond observation is not merely “conjecture” as you claim. (of course some things are, but, this is another topic) I’ll give you a simple example.

Say that one day you are walking down the road, and you stop just in time to see a man falling to his death. you pull out your handy stop watch and time the man as he falls past the ground floor of a building.

From this information (you now know the height of the ground floor and how long it took him to fall past it) you calculate the velocity that the man hit the ground with. Now, you have just observed and measured an event–you see that a man has fallen to his death and measured his final velocity as such and such a speed. but, you remembering your physics, remember newton’s definitions for acceleration and his law of gravitation.

Now, to sum up to this point, you have physical observation which you know to be true, you also have physical laws that you know to be truth.

Finally, you being a good mathematician, also know about deductive inference. You know that the laws of mathematics are truth preserving. that is, if you start with a true statement, and apply mathematical inference, you will end with a true statement. (this is demonstrated in basic algebra as well).

Then you realize that if you apply newton’s laws to your observation and use some mathematics, that you can figure out how how the person was when they jumped (this is a short calculation: v^2=vi^2+2ad).

Thus, applying a simple mathematical model to observation through implication from physical laws leads you to a new fact–that the man jumped from such and such a height. now, if further investigation turns up that your wrong, and that the man jumped from another floor, you must go back and find what factors you missed. (perhaps the man fell through an awning on his way down, etc…)

anyway, the “big bang” is little different. we have observable data–we observe the propagation of light throughout the universe–and we have physical laws governing the propagation of light.

Through the same sorts of inference from these two things, physicists conclude that at one point all the visible light in the universe was concentrated at a single point, and at some point began expanding outwards.

The key feature now is that this deduction is just like the falling man situation. the observable data is unquestionable, the laws of the propagation of light are considered universally true, and the mathematical inferences that lead to the big bang are truth preserving.

This is not assumption and conjecture like you claim. while of course the big bang itself was not observed, it is directly supported by physical evidence and universal laws.

You may of course argue at this point that what i say is true, but just like in the example of the falling man where the observer forgot to take into account the awning, so too are there factors that scientists today have missed. This though is a hard argument to make with this theory.

I am no astrophysicists, but on my understanding the models that produce the big bang are quite simple (comparatively). Also, the model is all but universally accepted–generally things so well accepted in physics don’t change (without perhaps dramatic paradigm shift).

583

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

This is a nice explanation of how science works, and it’s apparent limitations, thanks.

However, The big bang was not observed, so stating the theory is based on observation is not accurate. Observation of other properties or natural phenomenon and then applying that to the big bang is assumption and conjecture. Reasoned conjecture, but conjecture all the same.

And as any scientist knows, even in very controlled studies there is still wide variability. So applying anything to other than the actual time, place, event, etc that it was observed or occurred is conjecture at best.

Disproving the big bang “model” is not a fair request. You are setting the rules and then saying we have to disprove the theory without disturbing or changing the rules, when in fact, it is these very rules that hold up the model.

Without these rules or theoretical framework the model has little meaning. So in essence you are saying; “try to knock over this chair without touching or disturbing the position of the legs that support it”

Within the “rules” set by creationists, the model has just as much “observation” and theory as the big bang, the rules are just different. And within the context of the human experience, it is just as valid.

For example; show me the positive effect that a belief in the big bang has had on someone’s life. How it has helped the person recover from illness, deal with difficult circumstances, help their fellow man, etc. Show me how it has help society and bettered mankind on an individual level and I will concede that the big bang model is valid.

Are you following my point?
[/quote]

He didn’t say anyone observed the big bang, just that observations of the universe around us suggest the Big Bang happened.

It’s impossible to disprove the big bang, but asking that you come up with an alternate explanation that better fits the available evidence before you discount the big bang is a fair request. He’s not creating the rules, they have been established by observing the universe around us. What other set of rules would you have us use for this evaluation?

Requiring that the big bang have helped mankind somehow before you’ll believe in it isn’t logical. Cancer hasn’t bettered mankind in any way, but it’s still part of reality. You wouldn’t say that my great great grandpa didn’t die of cancer (I don’t actually know, this is just an example) because cancer didn’t better mankind.

584

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Disproving the big bang “model” is not a fair request. You are setting the rules and then saying we have to disprove the theory without disturbing or changing the rules, when in fact, it is these very rules that hold up the model.

Without these rules or theoretical framework the model has little meaning. So in essence you are saying; “try to knock over this chair without touching or disturbing the position of the legs that support it”

Within the “rules” set by creationists, the model has just as much “observation” and theory as the big bang, the rules are just different. And within the context of the human experience, it is just as valid.

For example; show me the positive effect that a belief in the big bang has had on someone’s life. How it has helped the person recover from illness, deal with difficult circumstances, help their fellow man, etc. Show me how it has help society and bettered mankind on an individual level and I will concede that the big bang model is valid.

Are you following my point?
[/quote]

Now, with all that said above about models and deductive inference, you should see why asking the creationist to “disprove” the model without “changing the rules” is a fair request. the “rules” in this case happen to be mathematical inferences and basic rules of deductive logic.

There are no “fancy” or overly biased “rules” supporting the theory, unless you think modern mathematics is biased.

In theory, creationsts could disprove the big bang by following the “rules”. all they would have to do is show where the model goes wrong (just like someone else could show that i missed the awning in my computation), or point out what factors the physicists missed. this is a reasonable request–something that any competing theory must do in reputable science.

585

[quote]Within the “rules” set by creationists, the model has just as much “observation” and theory as the big bang, the rules are just different. And within the context of the human experience, it is just as valid.

For example; show me the positive effect that a belief in the big bang has had on someone’s life. How it has helped the person recover from illness, deal with difficult circumstances, help their fellow man, etc.

Show me how it has help society and bettered mankind on an individual level and I will concede that the big bang model is valid.

Are you following my point?
[/quote]

finally,

you’ll have to forgive me for this tongue and cheek remark, it really is made in good spirit :), but, one could just as easily ask from the christian to show what positive effects a belief in creation has had. there are many people on both sides of this argument, it is not a “give in” that religious belief leads to positive moral affects, while a secular mindset leads to only evil.

while i don’t want to have this argument, the point is that this isn’t even a “give in” for the christian.

586

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
He didn’t say anyone observed the big bang, just that observations of the universe around us suggest the Big Bang happened.

It’s impossible to disprove the big bang, but asking that you come up with an alternate explanation that better fits the available evidence before you discount the big bang is a fair request. He’s not creating the rules, they have been established by observing the universe around us. What other set of rules would you have us use for this evaluation?

Requiring that the big bang have helped mankind somehow before you’ll believe in it isn’t logical. Cancer hasn’t bettered mankind in any way, but it’s still part of reality. You wouldn’t say that my great great grandpa didn’t die of cancer (I don’t actually know, this is just an example) because cancer didn’t better mankind. [/quote]

exactly. this is probably a better summary then what i gave.

587

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
wirewound wrote:
‘Love’ is not a chemical reaction, it is LINKED to a chemical reaction. No one ever says ‘I feel like I’ve got an abundance of serotonin and norepinephrine.’ They say, ‘I’m happy.’ There’s a qualitative difference between the two.

Consider Tibetan monks who, through years of ‘metta’ practice, have actually increased the size and activity of the pleasure centers of their brains.

The two are linked, but one cannot be reduced to the other.

Nobody says that because it sounds nerdy… that’s not proof of anything.

The monks aren’t proof of anything in particular. If the parts of their brain they use the most get bigger, then I’d say that makes the brain similar to muscles. The ones that get the most work, get the biggest.

I think still think the chemical reaction is the emotion.
[/quote]

That’s just a chemical reaction talking.

588

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

I don’t believe I’d need a plan, I’d just put the pieces together in the way they would fit. Kinda like putting a puzzle together with the pieces face down.

[/quote]

You have to think it before you do it. Otherwise everything is just random.

589

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
pat wrote:

That wasn’t exactly what was discussed. It wasn’t the big bang vs. creation…It was the big bang as the first cause was what was argued.

Ah, I’ll throw something else out there too then.

In philosophy the distinction is often made between questions that are internal and questions that are external to a language system. It’s generally accepted that different ways of talking or different language systems are fairly ontologically “contained” (if i can put it that way).

Each language has its own specific sets of meanings and rules. For example, the technical language of physics has its own set of meanings and rules, separate from that of common English.

Take a word like “time” for instance. the meaning of the word “time” and the rules for its use in the technical language of physics differ from that of common English. The main point is that different language systems are not coextensive and that translatability between them is limited.

Given these different language systems, Carnap points out that one can ask internal and external questions. An internal question is a question that is framed inside the language system about an object in the system itself.

An external question is a question that is framed from outside the language system about an object inside the system. For example, an internal question about the language of physics might be what the definition of acceleration is. Perhaps a more interesting internal question in the language of physics would be whether “power” exists.

For this question, the answer would be yes, power exists. In the formal language of physics, power is a meaningful term, and thus as far as technical physics is concerned, power is just as real as mass or matter.

An external question on the other hand might be framed in common English, and be a question about whether the conception of “power” in physics is true or corresponds to reality. Lastly, Carnap points out that these external questions are largely senseless. would could it even possibly mean to ask whether power (or anything) “exists” outside of the technical language of phsyics. (hopefully this makes sense)

Now, onto some application.

while you might disagree with Carnap’s (and the positivists in general) conclusion that the external questions are senseless, the differences between language systems and internal/external questions are important.

When you ask whether the big bang can suffice as a “first cause”, you have in effect confused language systems and asked a senseless external question. The “big bang”, though it has been popularized and explained in layman’s terms, is a technical theory formulated in the language of physics.

Asking such a question would require interpretation–of either what a “first cause” would mean in the language of physics, or what the “big bang” really means in terms of common English. The approach is normally to do try and do the latter.

Even so, the point is that one must be careful when trying to compare different language systems. You must be aware of the ontological difficulties involved in asking “external” questions of a system. [/quote]

My counter argument was simply this. If you are to accept either hypothetically or literally that an uncaused-cause or a prime mover exists. You have to consider what properties an uncaused-cause must have in order to be what it is by definition. Uncaused-cause, cannot be caused and therefore sits outside the causal chain. Also, it must contain an element that can be a cause which would be some form of a “will”, which also means that “It” cannot be made of matter alone, it must have metaphysical properties. Third an uncaused-cause must be eternal. The Big Bang cannot be the uncaused-cause, because it itself was an effect. Something had to bring the ‘filament’ into existence and make it go boom, whether it is the uncaused-cause that did it, or a prior event to the Big Bang. What we do not know about the Big Bang, is if it was the first event in the universe or just a continuation of a long series of events where there may have been many Big Bangs and many universes prior to our current existance.

590

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:

anyway, the “big bang” is little different. we have observable data–we observe the propagation of light throughout the universe–and we have physical laws governing the propagation of light.

Through the same sorts of inference from these two things, physicists conclude that at one point all the visible light in the universe was concentrated at a single point, and at some point began expanding outwards.

The key feature now is that this deduction is just like the falling man situation. the observable data is unquestionable, the laws of the propagation of light are considered universally true, and the mathematical inferences that lead to the big bang are truth preserving.

This is not assumption and conjecture like you claim. while of course the big bang itself was not observed, it is directly supported by physical evidence and universal laws. [/quote]

Boy, I’m sure glad that science doesn’t use this process for medical research!

In actual research, controlled research, deductive reasoning has been proven over and over to be inaccurate or not accurate enough. The fact is that even in laboratory controlled experiments there is enormous variability that both deduction and mathematically models could not and did not predict.

I realize that medical science has the advantage of measuring, as much as possible, current events at the time they occur, while trying to predict past events with the available tools is much less precise.

But I would suggest that taking lessons learned from medical research would demonstrate that the universe is no different than the human body as we are all part of the same system, and as you say, all came from the same initial matter. And if we can agree upon that then you should ask yourself how deduction and mathematics fail when actually observed at the time of the event and yet you believe this approach is accurate when not observed directly?

So IMO, the reality is that the current model of the big bang is true in terms of our current model (rules) and our ability to measure it. But in light of actual controlled studies of concurrent events, it is probably not very accurate.

591

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:

anyway, the “big bang” is little different. we have observable data–we observe the propagation of light throughout the universe–and we have physical laws governing the propagation of light.

Through the same sorts of inference from these two things, physicists conclude that at one point all the visible light in the universe was concentrated at a single point, and at some point began expanding outwards.

The key feature now is that this deduction is just like the falling man situation. the observable data is unquestionable, the laws of the propagation of light are considered universally true, and the mathematical inferences that lead to the big bang are truth preserving.

This is not assumption and conjecture like you claim. while of course the big bang itself was not observed, it is directly supported by physical evidence and universal laws.

Boy, I’m sure glad that science doesn’t use this process for medical research!

In actual research, controlled research, deductive reasoning has been proven over and over to be inaccurate or not accurate enough. The fact is that even in laboratory controlled experiments there is enormous variability that both deduction and mathematically models could not and did not predict.

I realize that medical science has the advantage of measuring, as much as possible, current events at the time they occur, while trying to predict past events with the available tools is much less precise.

But I would suggest that taking lessons learned from medical research would demonstrate that the universe is no different than the human body as we are all part of the same system, and as you say, all came from the same initial matter. And if we can agree upon that then you should ask yourself how deduction and mathematics fail when actually observed at the time of the event and yet you believe this approach is accurate when not observed directly?

So IMO, the reality is that the current model of the big bang is true in terms of our current model (rules) and our ability to measure it. But in light of actual controlled studies of concurrent events, it is probably not very accurate.
[/quote]

Pure deduction where there are no problems or gaps that lead to a conclusion is far more accurate than empirical experimentation. The reason for that is that every piece of matter has an infinite amount of variables. We can control only the most obvious ones, but the others still influence. So it is possible to repeat any experiment 100 times and get 100 different results even with all possible variables controlled.

The Big Bang deduction is no different. The deduction is made based on gathered empirical data which is inherently flawed because of the infinite variable problem. It also relies on the theory that matters of science, motion, chemistry, etc. functioned under the same laws and principals at the beginning of the universe as they do now. So taking everything we know now, which is admittedly incomplete, and projecting it backwards 15 billion years, your bound to miss the exact mark, but we can get a ball park idea which is remarkable in itself.

592

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Boy, I’m sure glad that science doesn’t use this process for medical research!
[/quote]

first, you are making a bad comparison. why would the methods used in medical research, which amounts to applied biology, have anything to do with the methods of theoretical physics? the former involves a science–biology–with a young, underdeveloped theoretical basis. the later involves a science with a strong, proven theoretical basis.

no offense, but what do you know about “actual, controlled research”? while in medical research deductive reasoning based on theory is often “not accurate enough” (if you say so, i no nothing about medical research), the same is not true in physics. In more basic physics, the error involved is often not even measurable.

i’m not quite sure what your point is here, but, retro-dicting events in physics is just as precise and accurate as predicting events. its all about the mathematics.

Again, i’ve mentioned how different medical research and theoretical physics are. Your suggestion that theoretical physics should take a lesson from medical research shows you do not understand the differences between them. It also makes it sound like you are desperately trying to discredit a theory you don’t understand.

next, i’m not sure what you mean by "all came from the same initial matter. you are arguing that:

  1. medical research progresses in such and such a way
  2. both biology and physics study the same physical matter
  3. therefore, physics should study things in the same way as medical research.

in response to this truly astounding argument,

first, i’ve already talked about the huge difference between applied biology and theoretical physics.

Second, no one holds that everything came from the same matter… obviously, there are different types of matter (there is that thing called the periodic table). but anything, i have no idea what this has to do with anything

third… oh forget it, i’ve said enough.

Finally, i’ll help you actually articulate your final point better. you seem to be giving this argument:

  1. the same laws of nature apply to all matter
  2. these laws of nature cannot reliably predict results in medical research
  3. therefore, these laws of nature cannot possibly retro-dict any events.

while this argument isn’t quite as bad as your other one, it is equally unsound and invalid. while premise 1 is correct, premise two is false. the laws of physics COULD accurately predict results in medical research IF all the relevant variables were known. the fact is that there are many unknown variables involved in medical research. to claim then that the deductive nomilogical model fails in some sciences is silly… the fact that there isn’t enough information to apply it doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Next, as i’ve said three times now, the jump from medical research to theoretical physics cannot be made. just because so and so is true in medical research doesn’t mean the same is true in physics. in physics, almost all of the relevant information IS known in physics, thus allowing the deductive nomilogical to be applied. the argument thus is unsound because premise 2 is false, and invalid because your inference to the conclusion cannot be made.

so IMO, you need to rely less on christian apologetics books and books on ID and more on learning actual science yourself.

the fact is that in light of actual, controlled studies the models of macro events predicted by modern relativity physics are accurate. basic examples of just how accurate relativity physics is at predicting astronomical events include gravitational lensing (including the existence of “Einstein rings” and the observation of star shift around the sun during eclipse), the relativity of time (including the “slowing” of time observed at high velocities), the perihelion of mercury, and the displacement of spectral lines towards the red (the “red shift” of moving light). all of these things are phenomenon that were first predicated purely by theory, and only later confirmed by observation.

so in sum, when it comes to astronomical events, physics has quite a good tract record…

593

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Boy, I’m sure glad that science doesn’t use this process for medical research!

first, you are making a bad comparison. why would the methods used in medical research, which amounts to applied biology, have anything to do with the methods of theoretical physics? the former involves a science–biology–with a young, underdeveloped theoretical basis. the later involves a science with a strong, proven theoretical basis.
[/quote]
You are correct, medical research is not much theory and mostly application. Which means it can be actually proven to a much greater degree than theoretical physics, which has too many holes in it to be safely applied to humans.

It is amazing to me how the theoretical sciences differ from applied sciences. For example, physic states that electricity runs (moves) in a certain direction (I’m sorry I can’t remember which if it was + to -, or the other way around. In any case, electricians and electrical engineers actually work with and design functional circuits and devices on a premise that current follows in the opposite direction from what physicists state.

So I suspect our conflict is an age old conflict between theory and application.

I’m sure that it plays out fine in mathematics, but often the application or reality is much different.

Since the comparison is to an applied science and not theory, you might want to hold off on telling people they don’t understand something before you actually understand it.

In theory, I’m sure it does. However, in terms of application, not so much.

In closing I would like to say that you seem to lack understanding in regards to the enormous amount of variability there is in any system. Believing that you can apply a theoretical model, which holds true within itself, to actual events that are not controlled in the slightest is very naive. You and your models really have no idea what the environment was like at the time of the big bang, what matter was present, what energy was present, if it was part of a chain of events, or a single spontaneous event, if the properties of matter changed after this event, the confines of the system that allowed these events to occur, etc, etc… But of course you have theories behind these ideas that just happen to fit your model, so it all works out very nicely. But in the real world of application things never work out that nicely. Mathematics are nice and tidy, the actual world we live in however is quite messy.

594

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

You are correct, medical research is not much theory and mostly application. Which means it can be actually proven to a much greater degree than theoretical physics, which has too many holes in it to be safely applied to humans.
[/quote]

are you actually trying to say that physics cannot be proven? the fundamental claims of modern physics can be confirmed to an extend much greater then anything in medical science. For example, every time I drop an object and measure its acceleration it will accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 when close to the earth’s surface. there are no claims in medical science that hold every time. This is ridiculous though, i cannot believe someone is actually trying to argue that modern physics theory is “unproven” and that it cannot be demonstrated.

first of all, you speak about theoretical and applied science as if there is some fundamental difference. there is no fundamental difference between the two. as the names imply, applied science is merely application of theory. even medical science, and biology in general, are based on extensive theory (which, you might be aghast to know, is ultimately based on physics).

second, your example of electricity is totally off base. it is not true that theoretical physics posits that electricity flows in one direct and that more applied areas, such as electrical engineering, know better. while it is true that the name given to the direction of electric current is “backwards” (that is, what is called positive current is actually the flow of negatively charged elections), this means nothing. this is merely a naming convention that started in the early days of electricity before the nature of electricity was understood. while early theory on electricity was wrong (as is any early theory), modern theoretical physicists know perfectly well that the name is actually backwards.

the name was merely kept out of convention. when it comes down to the actual technical theory on electricity, there is no difference between physics and electrical engineering… they all work under the same theory and they all agree on whats happening. it is not like theoretical physicists think that electricity is actually the movement of protons, and that electrical engineers know that it’s actually the movement of electrons. in sum, are you totally wrong.

in trying to make this point through this example, you are showing your ignorance of both actual theory in physics (even a freshman physics student would understand this point in electrical theory) and of scientific theory in general. That is, you have completely missed the point that this is a mere naming convention.

you again have totally missed the point. you do not understand.

first, i do not follow you. are you saying that the “big bang” is part of an “applied science”. considering it is a purely theoretical result inside of physics, this seems incorrect.

second, after your example of the flow of electricity in physics, i am sure that i understand physics, mathematics, and science in general far better then you. tell me, just what sort of background do you actually have in physics and mathematics? from your electricity example, i hardly believe you passed high school physics.

in closing, i would like ask you what sort of possible understanding you have regarding the “enormous amount of variability” in systems. I assume of course that you are well versed in modern probability theory and that you have actual experience in these fields.

sadly though, my guess is that you have no knowledge of modern probability theory, nor do you have any real experience in either the fields of medicine or physics.

Furthermore, as you attempt to lecture me on the naiveness of attempting to model physical events with mathematics (something standard since the time of the presocratics and the Pythagoreans), i hope you yourself have studied axiomatics, model theory, and as relevant for physics–calculus and differential equations. if you don’t have the least bit of background on these subjects, beyond your own intuitive guesswork, i am at a loss to see how you could possibly come to any conclusions about them. In much simpler terms, how can you judge something that you don’t understand?

Finally, regarding your last comments about how things don’t workout nicely in the real word…

in your entire response, you have not addressed any of my actual counterpoints. For instance, on this very point of whether the physics models workout in the “real world”, i have shown you that they do. I gave you several examples of how the more advanced parts of relativity theory (the same parts that the big bang theory depend on) do in fact “work out” in the real world. there have been many observations that confirm that the current models in physics are accurate. how you have just ignored my examples contradicting this point you so desperately try to make is amusing. really, i’d love to hear your educated opinion on these examples.

i’ll end with this. look, basically, you are trying to make the point that the models in physics are inaccurate because they don’t account for all the variables. that is a fine point to make, BUT, if you are going to make it, you need to SUPPORT it. you have not, and cannot, support it. it is one thing for the creationist to say “well, the models might be wrong because there might be variables that were not taken account in the model”, and its a whole different thing to actually show this.

basically, you are making a ridiculous straw man argument. you are saying, “HA!, you cannot PROVE that you have taken into account every possible variable, therefore your theory and model are WRONG! HA HA HA”. no one in physics claims the theory is absolute truth, and no one claims there arn’t any problems. of course there are problems, and of course at some point the model will be revised. scientists are revisionists. you are attacking claims that arn’t made, about a theory you don’t understand, and you have nothing better to say on the topic.

595

[quote]pat wrote:

My counter argument was simply this. If you are to accept either hypothetically or literally that an uncaused-cause or a prime mover exists. You have to consider what properties an uncaused-cause must have in order to be what it is by definition. Uncaused-cause, cannot be caused and therefore sits outside the causal chain. Also, it must contain an element that can be a cause which would be some form of a “will”, which also means that “It” cannot be made of matter alone, it must have metaphysical properties. Third an uncaused-cause must be eternal. The Big Bang cannot be the uncaused-cause, because it itself was an effect. Something had to bring the ‘filament’ into existence and make it go boom, whether it is the uncaused-cause that did it, or a prior event to the Big Bang. What we do not know about the Big Bang, is if it was the first event in the universe or just a continuation of a long series of events where there may have been many Big Bangs and many universes prior to our current existance.
[/quote]

a couple quick points:

(1) i like your approach of analyzing what properties an uncaused-cause must have. i wonder though if your own examination shows the idea to be contradictory. you say that an uncaused-cause cannot be caused, and thus sits outside the causal chain–BUT, that it must contain an element that must be a cause. On this point, one might ask how it is possible for something that is outside the causal chain to ever cause anything (which would require that it be in the causal chain). you neatly tuck in the word “element” there, and say that it must have an “element” in the causal chain, but, if it has an element in the causal chain, is it not then in the causal chain?

in sum, you must make sense out of how something can be uncaused, and thus outside of the causal chain, but at also cause.

curiously, this is actually a problem that dates back to Plato and his theory of forms. obviously the details are a little different, but, the same problem occurs for Plato’s theory of forms. you can find a discussion of this particular problem in the Parmenides (unfortunately, plato has no answer in the book). I’m sure though that other authors address this problem, as its a common one (for some classics, say like ibn Sina and Augustine).

(2) why must an uncaused-cause be eternal?

(3) like i said, i think its best to keep talk of the big bang out of this. as you point out, it couldn’t even really “fit the bill”, and as i tried to point out, it ends up being a mistake of confusing internal and external questions.

still though, in some ways i think the first point i made about the apparent contradiction is interesting. it suggests that the idea of a “first cause” is contradictory. if this is so, it would lend support to my original suggestion that an infinite regress of causes isn’t impossible.

to be honest, though my thoughts on this topic arn’t developed, i really do think the infinite regress of causes possibility is the best bet. i think that there are too many inherent problems with trying to even make the notion of an “uncaused” thing, let alone an “uncaused-cause” make any sense. with our given knowledge of philosophy, logic, and physics, it is possible to talk about infinite regresses in causal chains. i really think this is where attention should be spent.

596

Organised religion and true belief in God are incompatible. Religion demands that you accept the existence of God sans proof. Only someone who has direct experience of God should believe in God.

597

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
pat wrote:

My counter argument was simply this. If you are to accept either hypothetically or literally that an uncaused-cause or a prime mover exists. You have to consider what properties an uncaused-cause must have in order to be what it is by definition. Uncaused-cause, cannot be caused and therefore sits outside the causal chain. Also, it must contain an element that can be a cause which would be some form of a “will”, which also means that “It” cannot be made of matter alone, it must have metaphysical properties. Third an uncaused-cause must be eternal. The Big Bang cannot be the uncaused-cause, because it itself was an effect. Something had to bring the ‘filament’ into existence and make it go boom, whether it is the uncaused-cause that did it, or a prior event to the Big Bang. What we do not know about the Big Bang, is if it was the first event in the universe or just a continuation of a long series of events where there may have been many Big Bangs and many universes prior to our current existance.

a couple quick points:

(1) i like your approach of analyzing what properties an uncaused-cause must have. i wonder though if your own examination shows the idea to be contradictory. you say that an uncaused-cause cannot be caused, and thus sits outside the causal chain–BUT, that it must contain an element that must be a cause. On this point, one might ask how it is possible for something that is outside the causal chain to ever cause anything (which would require that it be in the causal chain). you neatly tuck in the word “element” there, and say that it must have an “element” in the causal chain, but, if it has an element in the causal chain, is it not then in the causal chain?
[/quote]
The point is to establish “will”. By definition, an uncaused-cause must both be uncaused itself, and be able to cause. That doesn’t meant the totality of “It’s” existance is required to be a cause, just that some part of it is has the ability to cause, or to bring things into existance.
Also, for “It” to bring things into existance, it had to will it. For that will to take place it had to decide, etc…All leading to the idea that the uncaused-cause also has consciousness.

I would also argue, though, that what ever and uncaused-cuase causes, the resultant effect will also contain some property of it’s causer.

[quote]
in sum, you must make sense out of how something can be uncaused, and thus outside of the causal chain, but at also cause.

curiously, this is actually a problem that dates back to Plato and his theory of forms. obviously the details are a little different, but, the same problem occurs for Plato’s theory of forms. you can find a discussion of this particular problem in the Parmenides (unfortunately, plato has no answer in the book). I’m sure though that other authors address this problem, as its a common one (for some classics, say like ibn Sina and Augustine).

(2) why must an uncaused-cause be eternal?

[quote]
Because, if not, it would have been brought into existance. Something brought into existance is caused and hence could not then be uncaused. It has to sit out side the temporal realm as it cannot be a slave to time as that was created as a result of putting “things” in to motion. If time is the measure of movement and change, then the “thing” that caused it all would not be bound by it.

The problem with that is in the end it is still an infinite regress which is still a logical fallacy. The resultant argument is that “things exist, because they exist”. It has two major problems in that it does not actually answer the question “Why do things exists?” and the reasoning is circular.
I haven’t bought into the notion that just because it’s hard to think in infinite terms that infinity applies to all things we cannot conceive. I certainly haven’t heard a convincing enough argument that existance is the result of an infinite regress. Though I will listen to any that are solid.

598

[quote]pat wrote:
The point is to establish “will”. By definition, an uncaused-cause must both be uncaused itself, and be able to cause. That doesn’t meant the totality of “It’s” existance is required to be a cause, just that some part of it is has the ability to cause, or to bring things into existance.
Also, for “It” to bring things into existance, it had to will it. For that will to take place it had to decide, etc…All leading to the idea that the uncaused-cause also has consciousness.

[/quote]

the problem though is that the definition you yourself gave of an uncaused-cause looks incoherent. how can something be uncaused (and thus out of the causal chain), but yet caused (and thus inside the causal chain)?

you of course argue that this isn’t a contradiction because only part of the “uncaused-cause” has to be able to cause–but this doesn’t really clear anything up. of course if an uncaused-cause is to be uncaused, yet caused, then part of it must be in the causal chain and part of it out of the chain. just how does this work though? just what are the constituent parts of an “uncaused-cause”?

you do give a partial account of these constituent parts–you mention that the part that does the causing must have a will in order to cause. why? you state this like it deductively follows from the fact that part of the caused-cause causes, but this does not follow for the simple reason that there are other ways to “cause” things. For instance, a falling rock has no will, but yet it can cause a great many things (like a crater).

what I’m saying is that i don’t see how it follows from the fact that an “uncaused-cause” must have a causal part that this causal part operates by will.

your argument seems to be the following:

  1. assume there exists an “uncaused-cause”
  2. then, by definition (or by appeal to our intuitive understanding), this “uncaused-cause” must have both a part that is uncaused, and a part that can cause.
  3. Consider next the part of the “uncaused-cause” that can cause, or the causal part.
  4. then, for some reason, this causal part must operate by will.
  5. therefore, from steps 1-4, and “uncaused-cause” must have consciousness.

as you can see from my layout of the argument, i do not know the reason for the jump from step 3 to step 4. (hence why i say “then, for some reason…”)

anyway… hope you understand what i’m asking for.

599

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:

are you actually trying to say that physics cannot be proven? the fundamental claims of modern physics can be confirmed to an extend much greater then anything in medical science. For example, every time I drop an object and measure its acceleration it will accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 when close to the earth’s surface. there are no claims in medical science that hold every time. This is ridiculous though, i cannot believe someone is actually trying to argue that modern physics theory is “unproven” and that it cannot be demonstrated.

[/quote]

And if that object is in a vacuum? Hummmm?

“Oh, but that was not the situation, you are throwing in a variable”. Right, one of the many variables that are not considered in physics models.

It is true that physics is more “proven” than medical science. But that is because it attempts to address real life variables that physics ignores. That is why you do 100 different medical observations and get 100 different outcomes.

600

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:

are you actually trying to say that physics cannot be proven? the fundamental claims of modern physics can be confirmed to an extend much greater then anything in medical science. For example, every time I drop an object and measure its acceleration it will accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 when close to the earth’s surface. there are no claims in medical science that hold every time. This is ridiculous though, i cannot believe someone is actually trying to argue that modern physics theory is “unproven” and that it cannot be demonstrated.

And if that object is in a vacuum? Hummmm?

“Oh, but that was not the situation, you are throwing in a variable”. Right, one of the many variables that are not considered in physics models.

It is true that physics is more “proven” than medical science. But that is because it attempts to address real life variables that physics ignores. That is why you do 100 different medical observations and get 100 different outcomes.

[/quote]
If and object is dropped close to the earth’s surface, it will fall at 9.8m/s^2… even in a vacuum.

A better question for you to ask would have been: “what about a feather?” That would have at least forced conversation about other variables. I’m not sure what kind of a point you think that proves… but at least you could have opened the door without letting everyone know you don’t know anything about physics.