Peter,

We could shorten the argument to, "I don't know, and neither do you."

Physics has both uncaused events and the spontaneous generation of matter, (as long as it follows the conservation of energy). Did these properties of physics cause the Big Bang and our universe? I dunno. And neither does anyone else. But there is no compelling reason to stick a god of any sort into the equation.

"I don't know and neither do you" is just textbook agnosticism. But for dealing with things like the "Cosmological Argument," I don't think the problem is whether we know or can know anything. Instead, the problem is: Assuming we know something, should it affect our attitude toward ideas about the supernatural?

For someone who says, "You should believe in God because of the Cosmological Argument," I don't think a response of "I don't know and neither do you" really addresses their position because it assumes an experiential perspective. But the Cosmological Argument is not an experiential argument; it is a logical argument. And the problem for people who trust too easily in things that have the form of logical arguments is that the content of the premises that are organized by the rules of logic must itself have a meaningful basis. That basis includes both the experience of being and the body of knowledge obtained by methodological naturalism. Since the Cosmological Argument requires us to assume that several premises matter and ignore other premises that might matter, it does not allow us to bring our full experience to bear on the question.

That is why I think that that reframing the problem does more to reveal the flaws in the Cosmological Argument than does staying within the argument as framed and simply asserting agnosticism and challenging the premises given (e.g., necessary causation for all phenomena). Even if we did know what was on the other side of the Big Bang and even if we could assert necessary causation for all phenomena, it would have no effect on the experience of being. And the Cosmological Argument, despite being clothed in physics, is only seriously offered by those who would have us alter our behavior in response to a particular experience of being, i.e., the "experience" of "God."

"I don't know and you don't know either" is the classic view of the agnostic. But we can rephrase it slightly to bring better accuracy to the positions actually held:

"I don't know and unlike you I do not pretend to". This form addresses the proponent of the Cosmological Argument (CA), while maintaining the agnosticism of the speaker. It places the burden of proof upon the CA completely.

But is the proponent of the CA pretending, or do they have a foundation they can claim is knowledge? As Peter notes, the CA is a logical argument, that may or may not have the support of experience. The first part of it seems to: everything we know of (the objects) has a cause (the Big Bang). This knowledge fits the CA. But not everything that happens (the algorithms that act on the objects and changed them) require a cause (Brownian motion, for example).

And there is a third category: "things": neither objects or algorithms; that exist, and are measurable, but are neither matter nor actions upon matter: space and time. This quantities possess neither cause nor action. They are completely arbitrary and dependent upon one's frame of reference. At Einstein famously noted: "Time is what you read on the clock on the wall". We can add "Distance is what the odometer on your car tells you". Time and space have a beginning and an end, and experience tells us they exist and are real. But they have no cause in the sense of the First Cause, and the CA has no experiential accounting for these objects.

Lacking deductive support of any real meaning, the proponent of the CA could turn to inductive logic. For this we can define the inductive CA as follows:

The basis: No thing can cause itself.
The recursive rule: All things are caused by something (interestingly, as limited by space and time!)
The recursive stopping point: The first thing is caused by the first cause.
The conclusion: There must therefore be a First Cause.

Logically consistent I think, but as one expects from Godel: incomplete. Note that neither time or space, the very thing that makes up what we call reality, are addressed. That is why one must always end a logical proof with the statement: "And nothing else!" --- all logical arguments are consistent only within the boundaries created by the argument. In this case, the CA concerns itself only the the "objects" and the "algorithms", it is only for these elements that it can remain consistent.

The proponent of the CA may argue that the First Cause created space and time by creating the objects and the algorithms. But this is an abuse of the meaning of "create". Space and time are a result independent of either the objects or the algorithms -- matter did not create space or time, and conversely, matter is not defined by space or time (though is limited by it). The proponent of the CA is in the same trap as that of the Archer in Zeno's Paradox. Logically, he may insist the arrow will never reach the target, but reality, as defined by space and time, will prove him wrong in the end.

So what do we have: a logical proof that is neither deductively or inductively up to the task of making a positive argument on the subject of the First Cause. The best it can muster is a negative argument: we cannot conclusively solve the paradox of the First Cause, as some things appear to be beyond the available definitions. Into this uncertainty, the proponent attempts to insert the concept of God. What begins as a statement of true knowledge (a logical proof), becomes instead a statement of received knowledge. Privileged knowledge, for which only acceptance is required, offered without evidence or proof.

The theologies take this even farther, giving attributes and functions to this new object, created merely from imagination; its only boundaries: like Douglas Adam's famous puddle, it fits whatever hole it finds itself in, amazed at its own perfection.

Will the proponent of the CA (usually the theologist) take any of this into account? Probably not. While they use the tools of logic (and science) in attempts to convert the skeptics to their position, in reality they have at their core a disdain for such methods. Their certainty in the supernatural leads them to believe that they are not bound by the natural, its logic, and its laws.

For them, pretending to know, is the same as knowing.

First, yes I have been accused of being aloof and nonchalant. It’s more a patience issue (I’d much rather be having this discussion in public). For that I apologize.

Additionally (thanks Semp and Ryazaki) I’m not going to get offended or “hurt” by any of these discussions, but some may—kudos to invitational rhetoric.

Remember, I am not here to prove God. Only that we’re all silly. I’m more interested in the consequences of frameworks than their validity.

On being a smarty-pants:

"One of the problems that the religious seem to have with "academics" is that there is a clear correlation between the amount of education a person receives, and their tendency to be atheistic. As a person attains higher levels of education, especially in the sciences, they tend to be less religious.
Religious people are understandably concerned about this trend. It seems to be more evidence that leads to the conclusion that science and religion are mutually exclusive."

1. My first emotion was to challenge you to a drinking contest ☺.
2. I will concede this within a field dependent scientific framework. However, I’m not sure about the “evidence” of other fields. I would also posit that some academics would take offence to being excluded from the barbeque cause’ of a belief system. It’s the reason Agamben will not teach at an American University (see apartheid).
3. Lets assume your “right.” I take this knowledge (as you do) to the court system to expose religious oppression within legal and state sponsored educational structures. I go to a stone building. I sit in my pew. I appeal to the person dressed in robes. I debate interpretation of the scripture (law that I have assigned value). Finally, because of my “belief” in the Rule of Law, I WIN the debate. Essentially, you take a “factual and scientific” premise to a uniquely western “moral compass.” “Separation of church and state” has exactly the same socially or logically constructed premise as the “church.” To assume you operate in a truly “atheistic” framework is problematic at best. You have just assigned your deification to another, more popular and acceptable vehicle. My faith/need of a God has no logical or scientific difference than your faith/need of the Law. The nature of science cannot be assigned value under it’s own, field specific, framework. Honestly, you would probably have to be a Berkmanian Anarchist (an agnostic/anarchical political structure) to escape the contradiction. My assignment of supernaturalism does help me escape the contradiction however. I may just be wrong, but I’m consistent.

On the Apartheid stuff:

"I guess I still don't understand. What forms of science are being excluded from "American Science"? What "others" don't have access to science in America?"


"First, it carries distracting emotional baggage. Most people associate "apartheid" with race relations in South Africa, which is a deeply emotional topic. Carrying that emotion into a discussion about the validity of the scientific method (and that is what I think this is) only clouds the issue. . ."

Gonna put these two together. . .

Under the “be smarter and you’ll get this” idea, I would suggest reading Chomsky, Kato, Yamamoto, Zizak, Agamben and many more. Most would posit that our framework of hypo testing essentially IS apartheid; from vaccines, techno-aid packages to baby formula. We operate under the “We know and have, thus you should take and use”--- “otherizing.” See my post above. It’s impossible to use knowledge for any purpose with applying a socially constructed moral compass (under the naturalist and postmodern frameworks). There is a significant amount of research on this---it’s not something that I”ve created for an emotional appeal. Your ability to dismiss IS uniquely scientific and arguably, American.



On Peter’s and Ruyaki’s numerous posts. . . well articulated. I have no interest in using the cosmological argument to “prove” anything. I am more interested in responding to its criticism. Irony, I know.
P1. The more knowledge (observable/scientific) you gain, the less a “God” can exist.
P2. We do not know about origin.
C1. Therefore origin exists but is unknowable, but is scientific.

Or

P1. Origin occurred.
P2. Origin is linked to Macroevolution
P3. Origin is not known.
C1. Macroevolution is true, but origin is unknown, but related.

MODALITY in science?

Most scientists accept the Alien “move” possibility.
P1. Alien is unknown.
P2. God is unknown
P3. One unknown cannot have more value than another unknown.
C1. Alien and God are equally unknown.

I would suggest the latter is both valid and sound.

Peter it’s simple. If you are “right,” that’s cool. But once you decide it’s “important” for someone else, you operate in contradiction. Naturalism cannot have a moral compass or assign “value.”

"Evolution is a fact."

1. Even I understand there are several “types” of evolution and surrounding theory.
2. What I find interesting is how you guys get all excited about a discovery of the fact. “Missing link found in Paraguay” or “Cell transition replicated at UC, Davis.” It’s all part of the supernatural aspect of science. I still can’t find the “Zinc discovered in Fresno”—proving the table of elements. Or the “Bird dies in air and falls. . gravity proved.” I especially love the “scientific theories are more valuable than other field’s theories.” If it’s fact, who cares? Why the need to “convince” us? Does believing have scientific value?

Very poor logic, here:

P1. Alien is unknown.
P2. God is unknown
P3. One unknown cannot have more value than another unknown.
C1. Alien and God are equally unknown.

Alien is not "unknown" -- Alien is bound by the Laws of Physics, and is, and can only be a variation upon the prescribed probabilities. God by definition is not bound by the Laws of Physics -- this is leads to false equivalence in the statement P3, otherwise known as the false analogy, that by which the reasoning of all religious argument rests. (If someone has a religious argument that does not contain a false analogy, I would love to see it)

If your basis is incorrect, the logic that follows may also be, rendering the conclusion without value.

"Lets assume your “right.” I take this knowledge (as you do) to the court system to expose religious oppression within legal and state sponsored educational structures. I go to a stone building. I sit in my pew. I appeal to the person dressed in robes. I debate interpretation of the scripture (law that I have assigned value). Finally, because of my “belief” in the Rule of Law, I WIN the debate. Essentially, you take a “factual and scientific” premise to a uniquely western “moral compass.” “Separation of church and state” has exactly the same socially or logically constructed premise as the “church.” To assume you operate in a truly “atheistic” framework is problematic at best. You have just assigned your deification to another, more popular and acceptable vehicle. My faith/need of a God has no logical or scientific difference than your faith/need of the Law. The nature of science cannot be assigned value under it’s own, field specific, framework. Honestly, you would probably have to be a Berkmanian Anarchist (an agnostic/anarchical political structure) to escape the contradiction. My assignment of supernaturalism does help me escape the contradiction however. I may just be wrong, but I’m consistent."

It is difficult to make much sense of this, but it appears to be a contrived argument, in which debate is taken not to the "sciences" but the "courts" -- a court in which Bayesian logic has been replaced with that of Aristotle.

I suppose you can always win if you let no one else play.

If taken before science as a judge, we will achieve a quite different result. Science is completely independent of any belief system. Science is a set of objective measurements, meaning all observers following the same protocol obtain the same result, within a predetermined statistical variation. If the protocol is followed, belief or non-belief in the measurements will have not effect on their validity.

And science doesn't care about winning and losing. Science only cares about what can be proven to work.

"My faith/need of a God has no logical or scientific difference than your faith/need of the Law."

I think you mean "my faith/need for a God is not logically or scientifically different than your faith/need of the Law. (Apologies is the re-phrasing is incorrect)

I disagree. The "law" is the human codification of the communal behaviors all communal species on the planet adhere to (admittedly taken to more advanced level, thanks to human intelligence). The "law" exists because evolution has found it advantageous for species that live in close proximity: they must negotiate the sharing of resources and function as a team in order to survive and pass on their genetic information to the next generation. The "law" is therefore a something that can be measured and evaluated by science, just as any other behaviour can. Their is no faith (i.e. belief without evidence) that is required for the law. It is merely another part of the natural world.

Religious faith, while an evolved behavior, is not present in the other species (we can safely assume this, I think). It specifically involves accepting that for which their is no evidence, in order to fill a human need. It is not necessary (since all other species thrive without it, including humans). It is not scientific (it specifically defines God as an unmeasurable object). And it is not logical or rational (except for the absolute pantheist, the religious individual rejects all Gods other that their own using the same criteria that would lead to rejection of their own God, if applied).

"You Guys" are not the ones who are getting excited about a new finding. The people who get excited, and who often create confusing, misleading, or plain Yellow headlines are the (mainstream) media.

If General and Special Relativity were announced today, the headlines would scream, "Einstein Disproves Newton! Scientists Puzzled!" But in the world of science there would be little, if any, puzzlement - only the excitement of a new tool that expands the explanation of an older theory.

To put it into layman's terms, it would be as if a headline screamed, "Fuel Injection Disproves Carburetors! Auto Mechanics Mystified!" And from that layman's understanding, I could stand off to one side and aloofly proclaim that "Automotive Science" is merely a bunch of theories and should not have any more relevance than my own personal beliefs on what makes a car go. Of course it would be beneath my efforts to actually prove my own beliefs or theories.



Thank you for this. Apparently I'm still not smart enough to understand what you mean. You seem to be using language to obfuscate, not clarify. Until you can be clear and direct in your words, I have to assume that your premise is poorly founded.

Maybe you can "dumb it down" for me? I can read and understand the writings of Bertram Russel, J.S. Mill, and Jefferson and Franklin. Maybe you can dumb it down to their writing level.

Calladus pondered the following quote --



I ignored this, because it says absolutely nothing. I suspect Plotinus is merely rehearsing a prejudice here, and forgetting that communication with the voices in someone else's head is rather difficult.

I did respond to some of the more cogent points.

RC#1

Why is Alien bound by physics? Logically, it's unknown. If it's bound by physics, then it's known and observed. We were bound by newtonian physics 15 years ago. The syllogism is sound, may not be valid, but sound. I love the "ad hom" as evidence of a fallacy. . . "if someone has a religious. . . "

RC#2

Your appeal to the "evolution of the law" is poetic, but there are some problems. The law, human rights, codification of social progress coexisting with the progress of species is nice, but it doesn't answer the narrative for two reasons:
1. Most legal behaviors can be cross sectioned with religious ones. Thus the scriptural analogy. An analogy is NOT a fallacy unless the two are dissimilar in all properties. The Constitution has no physical reference, as a God has none. So to say that one is "higher" at an intellectual or evolutionary level, is sort of silly, considering your framework.
2. Any environmental scientist must concede that Malthusian population control is the "best" defense against viruses, bacteria, resource management, warming etc. Wouldn't the survival of species choose the best policy? Or would they choose Human Rights, Rules of Law and a moral imperative to protect life, all life. Those choices are absolutely NOT logical NOR scientific.

(and i didn't need the re-write)

Calladus

I agree with the media stuff. . . Got a little Bill Maher on you. . . guy has a straw man factory in his studio.

Why is it that when I appeal to something your unfamiliar with I'm obfuscating. I don't speak to that, I assume your references and summaries are legit and not appeals to ignorance. Sorry for the abruptness, but let's put a stop to that (apply this to your accessing thread). I appreciate points of clarification, but not the assumptions. Anyway, here are some examples (from the authors I presented):

1. Early 90's Hawaii: Environmental scientists tell state leadership that sugar cane "cropping" is going to destroy farmlands and do other various damages. A significant change in the farming methodology occurred. The Kanaka Maoli (native Hawaii groups) that farmed those fields could not adapt and thus displaced.
2. Mid 90's Congo: Tech Scientists offered several policy aid packages for early warning systems for volcanic eruptions at 14k speeds. Aid packages went away, Congo scientists depended on the US provided infrastructure. Eventually lost both electronic and manual detection systems, 2002 eruption occurred with zero warning. Speaks to sustainable development.
3. Kyoto Protocol 97. US scientists hail the treaty as a "world saving policy." US has green tech infrastructure, saves credits, sells credits to developing countries. . Apartheid.
4. Apartheid (science, academic or political) is de-humanization at any level. If I don't agree with you, I'm less. Now, the first step is your other thread--access. There are very few Christians in this community that could hold their own in a debate with you guys. If I ever engaged with you all, I wouldn't try to be right and prove God, I would simply argue the cost of believing you is too great. . .
5. Agamben won't work at a US university, simple because of the contractual agreement to promote certain values. He would argue that allegiance to truth is inherently oppressive. It is the root of all discrimination and forces us into Bio-Politics (see sugarcane and Kyoto examples).
6. Could I take the Whole Foods parking lot and transpose it to all of your driveways? You are questioning access and membership in your other thread, so I will only say kudos and good luck with that.

I do NOT ascribe that academia is inherently discriminatory, but I will "borrow" from the theory to advance justice and progress, as I suspect you do. See, we share stuff.

RC#3 Did the Ad Hom get removed from inferential logic? Did I miss that article?

I agree with the others that this is just a bunch of pseudo-academic babble:



And to the others' comments I must add that to "suggest reading Chomsky, Kato, Yamamoto, Zizak, Agamben and many more" is no substitute for having read them yourself, digested them yourself, and cogently explaining what you believe to be their argument--yourself. If you cannot clearly restate the arguments by these other thinkers, and those arguments are essential to your point, then either you should not be invoking their writings, or you should not be trying to make that point.