To Erasmus

You have an interesting concept of "most likely explanation." It really just comes down to a matter of parsimony. You yourself say that naturalism could be the case. So, it is not difficult to imagine a state of affairs in which everything is exactly the same as it is now, except God does not exist. So, what's the better explanation, a world in which there exists a God or a world in which no God exists? Both theories are empirically adequate. So, why posit an extra entity?

What is it that you see that is orderly that isn't man-made? To answer with any sort of natural phenomenon only begs the question. And what else is there than that which is man-made and that which isn't?

Yeah, I've heard this entropy argument before. All I can say in response is that physics is not biology.

I know that we face the exact same problem, and of course I don't know the answer and anyone that claims to is bullshitting. However, there's still the possibility that the universe is eternal. It's not that hard to conceive of because I don't see how there could be time in an empty universe. But for all it's flaws, the idea still seems more reasonable than God. Besides, if God is the answer, then there's still the problem of where God came from. This is a problem I don't think either side can satisfactorilly answer.

 

Unfortunately I have to live with the fact that most things of working order and information are man-made.
An argument can be made here for observing a Beaver dam or a Nest, in which case I again see an 'ID' which causes that working device in the first place.
Thats why Im not positing an ID but I have to start with that whether or not I even like it or not as the 'most likely' or even just 'default' cause.

In the case of Entropy I have to say this much - Physics may not be biology but Biology sure as hell has to answer to it (to put it that way).
Sure, I can occasionally see situations where some erosion happens to make a dam which happens to relieve the hillside of further erosion.
Something like that.
However, over and over and over when the bag of marbles is thrown down the hill - they just begin to disperse and degenerate more and more - and certainly not any signs they begin to assemble into something more orderly complex or informative.
So if Im seeing all things as equal (and nothing verifiable) I still have to go with some sort of ID as my 'default' and really Im 'removing' a Diety to go the other way.

 

Maybe I should have said "animal-made," but in any case, I can still see a beaver. And I wouldn't use the example of the behavious of beavers as a metaphor for the entire universe.

I don't think that biology can necessarily be reduced to physics only because Newtonian physics cannot be reduced to quantuum physics. If we are to believe both, then things work very differently at a sub-atomic level than they do at a macroscopic level, even though, of course, all macroscopic things are made up of microscopic things. Reductionism is a philosophical position that has, in fact, gone the way of the dinosaurs in recent years.

 

.. and this astonishing insight into the world of quantum physics and the sub-atomic level (heck.. just the atomic level) is exactly one of the main reasons I see 'Naturalistic Atheism' a thing of the past.
I can understand how someone like Darwin would be excused (although I recall he always stayed a Theist?) but the point is that a Huxley or someone is living in an era where they think that somethng like a cell is basically 'Jello'.
That this arm is just ultimately 'basic stuff'.
The rock is the end of it all.
The last century and now we not only know that 'stuff' is not just 'stuff' but we are talking astonishing power and the real authority is in fact, unseen, intangible forces.

I shared this story before but it always says it all for me - a few years ago a young student fancied himself an 'Atheist' and was determined to show the Science Prof that he was all about 'no bullshit' and how foolish this whole 'Theism' business was.
[sorry to interject but 40 years ago it would have been the Prof challenging the Theistic student btw.]
Anyways..
After going over half the things we are in this thread the student and Prof carry on in a debate after class.
The would-be Atheist was becoming increasingly frustrated and nearly furious as the Prof rebutted or matched him point by point.
Finally the young man loses it and just about in a rage SLAPS his hand down as hard as possible on the wooden desk shouts "THIS!"
Then he STOMPS the Floor and says "THIS.. THIS is FACT! See this STOMP.. THIs is What I believe IN. ..Stomp! I believe in REAL COLD HARD FACTS Stomp!"
He looks at the Professor who says to him this (ok better than Im putting it)...

"Oh really.. So you think that is 'Cold Hard Reality' do you?"
"Well that 'Solid Fact' you are stomping on is not exactly as 'hard' as you think and in fact its really a tremedous group of Molecules all held together by a mysterious force actually... in fact they are made of Atoms and Atoms are held there by Electrons and in fact everything you are 'STomP!' so convinced is cold and hard and 'real' is in fact a sea of enery that, if the charge was simply reversed... something so small and 'unreal' that we dont even consider it a 'thing' but an invisible intangible and 'unreal' force... in a split second this 'STOMP' Floor you believe in would instantly.... fade away into ether and you right through the hole"

Anyways.. the Prof put it better than that but the end result was that the young guy was rather dejected over the whole thing when he realised that in 2006 we really do know 'enough' to say that it really is the unseen, 'unprovable' invisible forces that everything else is answering to in the first place.
This is a lot different from the 'Heyday' of Naturalists enjoyed 150 years ago when the limited understanding (a little knowledge is dangerous) of the world around us and what exactly is fundamental and what is not.

Pizza in the oven.
Comment away..

 

exactly... check out his opinions in the gay forum..definitely not outdated..

 

If you could keep your attempts to derail threads to just one category that would be appreciated.
Thnx

 

Well, to call atoms "unseen" is a little off. Of course, they are invisible to the naked eye, but there now exists technology that enables us to see atoms. The same could be said of cells and bacteria before the invention of the microscope. Besides, to infer that God exists from the existence of electrons and such is not a good inference.

 

I cant find it now but Libertine just demonstrated this with a comment along the lines of 'Oh yeah.. and you believe in unseen forces eh?'
Well the point being, Atoms are bound together by exactly that 'Unseen' and really 'Intangible Forces'.
This IS where we are at in Science and to state that everything we can talk about touching, feeling, stomping our foot on and testing is ultimately being held together by unseen forces.

Thats why I say that Science is 'Catching up to Religion' in the sense that we are far enough along now to agree with the idea that its really 'Spiritual' that dictates and authorises the 'Material'.
Now I realise that people dont like to use the word 'spiritual' do describe the invisible 'forces' which powerfully bind atoms but I would ask people to consider just how much difference is there now?

btw.. yes I do agree the same could be said of Cells and Bacteria (your previous post) and Ive made that point myself.

I do think you can make 'some' inference that an Unseen Force can be behind unseen forces.
If we already understand all matter is subject to the control and power of an electronic force which is not really 'a thing' or 'matter' anyways - then we are not outside any realm of rationale to think a God can most certainly exist and have power.
150 years ago we wouldnt be saying that but now we can.

 

But you still face the problem of explaining why an orderly universe implies God's existence. It's the exact same problem, except now we're dealing with very small things instead of things that can be seen with the naked eye.

You're right, I do object to the use of the word "spiritual" to refer to what you're talking about. Scientists today are not like to the Greek atomists, who thought that the world was made of tiny, plenum particles that latched onto one another to form compounds. These forces are not "spiritual" or "psychical," they are physical because they still operate according to the laws of physics, in this case quantum physics. Besides, if you call atomic bonds "spiritual," then you must do the same for other invisible forces such as gravity or electro-magnetic fields, which is not the case.

While that certainly is conceivable, why would anyone make such an inference when there is no direct, empirical evidence to support such a hypothesis? Why not cut out the extra entity, when everything will work just fine without it?

 

Ok, by that rationale Im pretty sure I can ask why you would remove the Diety instead of taking the default which works out just fine?
Without direct empirical evidence you want to choose the least fitting explanation - that unguided and 'random' forces directed eveything into complex working order?
Something we do not see in our microcosms.
If Im going to take one or the other as my 'default' Im going with the one that, at least bares out in examples in which I can observe the cause.

 

No, you can't. The idea is that a universe without God is more parsimonious than a universe with God. It's Ockham's Razor.

Such as what, other than beaver dams and man-made things? Take the fact that is it raining out right now. I know what's causing the rain. It has to do with water evaporation, wind patterns, and many other things. Does that mean that it is raining out right now for any particular reason? No. Why should anyone think that? Because of an analogy about the world being to God as a watch is to a watchmaker? But the world is not a watch. So, whose inference is best?

 

I dont agree with you but I think that really takes it down to the real controversy of it all.
I suggest its the other way around and Im happy the conversation lands on this issue because its the one I want to put more thought into.

Agreed that the Earth and in particular the life on it is infinitly more complex than a Watch.
Much more than Windows XP and quite frankly there is nothing which has the complex working order of just a single cell.
Even still - the Watchmaker analogy holds (despite new internet rumours to the contrary heh).

 

You're right. This is the real heart of the matter. The trouble is that, to my knowledge, no philosopher has yet built a set of criteria for determining which non-deductive, non-inductive inferences are better than others. Of course, most people can spot a good or bad inference a mile away. The trouble is that it has never been formalized and that there is no way to compare the merits of two inconsistent inferences that both appear valid. If such a system is formalized, then it will be applicable to a wide variety of topics, including the existence of God but also to other fields, like the natural sciences, for example. So, I suppose we all have a lot of thinking to do.