An Interesting Quote;

[peter]

Peter, wouldn't you agree that a theory that "aliens did it" or "god did it" should, at minimum, be pursued by scientists with the same rigor and integrity as any other theory? If so, then would you not say that, if there is no evidence of any kind implicating such culprits, then they are not a suitable hypothesis?

The problem with Aliens and Gods is, you can always claim they are a possibility with no evidence at all to suggest it. Because they are always capable of all things. You can never NOT rule it out. Like you can never rule out Magic. That's why they call these theories "magical thinking" - because they require no evidence of actuality to be posited.

Aliens and Gods can always be a theory, but theories need supporting evidence to be valid, and if you hold out for theories with no supporting evidence, you're not being a scientist. Just as you would not be a scientist if there was actual evidence and you discounted it because it leads to aliens or God.

Imagine yourself starting from zilch, faced with the world before your eyes and equipped with the brain you have today. It seems that given two ideas that you may come up with to account for yourself and the place you find yourself in, that the one that posits that some entity has made you and all of this wins hands down over the one that it all fell together by chance. This idea is surely an example of inductive reasoning (well - put like this anyway); you gather the evidence of order before your eyes, and you induce (Intuit?) that something must be responsible for that order. You then test this by further examination of this order, going deeper and deeper, getting more and more complex - and each successive revelation is taken of yet further evidence of the original Ordering Principal (the Prime Mover if you like). But suddenly you change tack; you decide that your accruing evidence, rather than pointing toward the existence of your intuited Ordering Principal, instead points away from it. And further, that the OP must always be relegated to the bottom of the pile in any explanatory framework you care to construct. Now you have achieved (the) enlightenment.

What changed; Certainly not the (existent or otherwise) Ordering Principal.

[Zarathustra]

One thing I'd been planning to get to is that there is no testable or falsifiable theory about the origin of the universe. We can have a theory, based on what we see. The Big Bang is based on everything moving away from everything else; the background radiation; etc. A ton more evidence might be found over time that also supports the BB, and maybe nothing that contradicts it. But it's still not testable. We can't reproduce the Big Bang. (If we managed to, we would, of course, be eradicated in a smaller amount of time than we've ever managed to measure.)

Just because we can't recreate a BB doesn't mean we can't test the theory. The theory implies things that would not be true if the universe didn't come into being in this way. If there were no background radiation, you just falsified the theory. If there were no galaxies moving away from each other, you just falsified the theory. If we look way out and find that galaxies don't keep speeding up, you just falsified the theory.

We can't recreate a star, but we can recreate fusion that runs stars. In particle accelerators, we recreate the conditions of the BB (or close to it) on a micro scale. All of this is testable.

And even the Big Bang might need a cause. We don't know that it can happen without cause. We can't much look into the idea, because, if anything existed prior to the BB, the BB eradicated all evidence of it.

This is not necessarily true. I've read several theories about the BB that predict traces of its origin in how the universe unfolds from there. Also, you don't necessarily need a cause given quantum mechanics, because we know that particles spontaneously spring into existence in the vacuum of space. The universe was once the size of quantum scale, so quantum cosmology could hold the key to explaining its origin.

On another note... Consciousness can't be defined. At least I haven't been able to find a definition. And it can't be detected. It is not (or so you convinced me) reducible to the properties of particles and laws of physics. We don't understand much of anything about it, afaict. It exists in the natural world, yet, as though it was supernatural, it is not subject to scientific study. Now, to make it even worse, Nagel wants us to come up with theories about how it exists. Theories that will be even less testable and verifiable than consciousness itself it.

I think you've misread Nagel. He is proposing that we develop new theories of matter that start from the perspective that matter can become conscious. This avoids problems of reductionism, because consciousness wouldn't be reduced to unconscious matter/laws, but would instead be comprised of elements that are in some sense "pre-conscious" or mental from the beginning. He's saying that the view that consciousness happened at the end, instead of being in some sense being part of the universe all along, doesn't make sense. We know that mind and body interact. There must be some basis for this interaction. So, in breaking down the strict conceptual divide between "mind" and "body," there must be room for the idea that mind and matter aren't really existentially separate.

Not only must we do this in the ontological sense of "substance 1" and "substance 2" (i.e. dualism: mind + matter), but also in the historical sense, i.e. how consciousness evolved from matter. The whole issue is problematic on both levels. Based on reductionism, neither of these issues make sense.

But this only means that we must give up reductionism, not science. I think that smart people could come up with theories that would be testable based on this new non-reductive paradigm.

[Vraith]

What's the difference between "Science says it's definitely not..." and "Scientifically proven not to be." You can't say "definitely" unless there is no possibility otherwise. That is, proof that it cannot be.

Sure I can say definitely. Like this:
I cannot DISPROVE your claim that 1+1=3.
But I CAN prove that normal addition of whole numbers has one, and only one, correct answer.
And I can prove that 1+1=2. Which means it definitely can't be three, and does so without doing any work on your claim at all.
Some would say that's a distinction without a difference...and for purely abstract/mathematical things, it might be. But in the concrete/existence, it does make a difference.
If you are a fundamentalist Christian who says God created Adam and Eve as fully human, evolution is false...well I can't disprove god. But I CAN show evolution and age and DNA showing how humans really came to be. Which excludes your particular god, definitely, even though god has no part in the science...no presence/influence/concern/connection. Totally absent from consideration. You either have to change your beliefs or your description of god and origins [which is the same thing, really, in many cases/senses] [[or ignore/deny the evidence, of course]]

That relates a bit to this, as well:

that there is no testable or falsifiable theory about the origin of the universe

That's not true. The BB, and other assorted theories ARE falsifiable. [[some aren't, at least not yet---but these ones are]] Because they don't only address the past---they make claims about what can and what MUST exist if true, AND the make predictions about what will happen if....
If something must exist but doesn't, or must happen but doesn't, then it is falsified.

Oh, peter...hi...about this:

It seems that given two ideas that you may come up with to account for yourself and the place you find yourself in, that the one that posits that some entity has made you and all of this wins hands down over the one that it all fell together by chance.

Does that REALLY make sense, that judgment/intuition? It seems a common thing/starting point....
but...
When the first intelligent people looked around, they didn't see a wholly, or even mostly, ordered world. Or one full of made things. They saw a world overflowing with variety, diversity, randomness---stuffed full of NON-MADE things...things just "there," [including themselves]. Doesn't it make more sense that they glommed onto the idea of a "maker," not because they were amazed by the natural order, but because they were awed---or maybe terrified---by the chaos?
Perhaps they leapt to "order," because it was RARE, not because it was omnipresent. And later, followed order because it was easier, not because it was true. In a way that's till true---the math that covers "ordered" things is way the fuck easier than the approaches to chaos. Though of course we now know there's a bit of order in all chaos and a bit of chaos in all order. [[to spout an only semi-true pearl of modern wisdom]]

[Fist and Faith]

One thing I'd been planning to get to is that there is no testable or falsifiable theory about the origin of the universe. We can have a theory, based on what we see. The Big Bang is based on everything moving away from everything else; the background radiation; etc. A ton more evidence might be found over time that also supports the BB, and maybe nothing that contradicts it. But it's still not testable. We can't reproduce the Big Bang. (If we managed to, we would, of course, be eradicated in a smaller amount of time than we've ever managed to measure.)

Just because we can't recreate a BB doesn't mean we can't test the theory. The theory implies things that would not be true if the universe didn't come into being in this way. If there were no background radiation, you just falsified the theory. If there were no galaxies moving away from each other, you just falsified the theory. If we look way out and find that galaxies don't keep speeding up, you just falsified the theory.

We can't recreate a star, but we can recreate fusion that runs stars. In particle accelerators, we recreate the conditions of the BB (or close to it) on a micro scale. All of this is testable.

And even the Big Bang might need a cause. We don't know that it can happen without cause. We can't much look into the idea, because, if anything existed prior to the BB, the BB eradicated all evidence of it.

This is not necessarily true. I've read several theories about the BB that predict traces of its origin in how the universe unfolds from there. Also, you don't necessarily need a cause given quantum mechanics, because we know that particles spontaneously spring into existence in the vacuum of space. The universe was once the size of quantum scale, so quantum cosmology could hold the key to explaining its origin.

Excellent stuff! Thanks!

I question that "particles spontaneously spring into existence in the vacuum of space", however. Not that it happens. I'm sure it does. What I question is whether or not the vacuum of space is an actual void. I had an idea that, if String Theory is right, elementary particles are strings vibrating in specific ways. I thought there might be a whole bunch of strings out there in the vacuum. For whatever reasons, which we are not currently able to understand (if they exist, we can't even detect strings), a certain string starts to vibrate in a certain way, and now we detect a photon, or whatever.

A brief search was almost immediately over my head. But it seemed to tell me that 1) my idea isn't even mentioned, much less considered likely, and 2) the vacuum of space isn't an absolute void, a true nothing within which something spontaneously comes into being without cause.

(I'm going to move the rest of your post to the thread you started for Nagel.)

[Fist and Faith]

What's the difference between "Science says it's definitely not..." and "Scientifically proven not to be." You can't say "definitely" unless there is no possibility otherwise. That is, proof that it cannot be.

Sure I can say definitely. Like this:
I cannot DISPROVE your claim that 1+1=3.
But I CAN prove that normal addition of whole numbers has one, and only one, correct answer.
And I can prove that 1+1=2. Which means it definitely can't be three, and does so without doing any work on your claim at all.
Some would say that's a distinction without a difference...and for purely abstract/mathematical things, it might be. But in the concrete/existence, it does make a difference.

We might be able to ... directly prove X is false. But if you prove X and Y cannot both be true, and you prove that Y is true, you have effectively proven X is false. Yeah?

If you are a fundamentalist Christian who says God created Adam and Eve as fully human, evolution is false...well I can't disprove god. But I CAN show evolution and age and DNA showing how humans really came to be. Which excludes your particular god, definitely, even though god has no part in the science...no presence/influence/concern/connection. Totally absent from consideration. You either have to change your beliefs or your description of god and origins [which is the same thing, really, in many cases/senses] [[or ignore/deny the evidence, of course]]

There you go. You've just effectively proven that fundamentalist Christian story God creating Adam and Eve as fully human is false. Definitely.

But you said "definitely" not ANY god now or historically defined/described/"known". You have a lot of work to do! Are there a million? Well, they can probably be put into a much smaller number of categories, each of which can be directly or effectively proven false. Still, that's a lot of work. (We'll ignore the many gods that have been forgotten. You've already got enough on your plate. )

That relates a bit to this, as well:

that there is no testable or falsifiable theory about the origin of the universe

That's not true. The BB, and other assorted theories ARE falsifiable. [[some aren't, at least not yet---but these ones are]] Because they don't only address the past---they make claims about what can and what MUST exist if true, AND the make predictions about what will happen if....
If something must exist but doesn't, or must happen but doesn't, then it is falsified.

Well... Yeah, I worded that poorly. What I mean is, we can't make more Big Bangs, and see if a universe results. (And we would know if we did, since we'd all be eradicated in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.) Z just said "In particle accelerators, we recreate the conditions of the BB (or close to it) on a micro scale." Is the BB supposed to have been the result of things colliding? Not that I'm aware of. We can't cause a collision, and say we've recreated the BB, even on a micro scale.

That's the kind of testing we can't do. We cannot reproduce events that cause universes to come into being. (Although, if we did, we would have proof of a universe coming into being because of intelligent design. Lol) Even the vacuum of space, where particles spontaneously spring into existence is not the absolute void that we think preceded our universe.

And if we don't think it was an absolute void, then that's not when our universe began. The 15 billion years we're familiar with is just the most recent chunk of a longer stretch of time.

[Skyweir]

mmm..

We might not literally be able to recreate a B.B. ... and sit back and observe the evolution of new galaxies, worlds and life forms .. well thats kinda ludicrous I suppose but that doesnt imply we cant or wont understand the principles that affect such developments.

A thought occurred to me that in concrete terms x and y may not be able to coexist as conflicting components but in conceptual terms they may. But only if you entertain subjectivity .. as valid ... and how could that be a defensible rationale

And it is irritating to me to even thought that .. actually. lol

Its also jarring from a conceptual perspective that gods and that whole paradigm continues to be presented as an objective fact when it is utterly a subjective one.

Perhaps .. lol .. mmm .. not helping

[Fist and Faith]

We might not literally be able to recreate a B.B. ... and sit back and observe the evolution of new galaxies, worlds and life forms .. well thats kinda ludicrous I suppose but that doesnt imply we cant or wont understand the principles that affect such developments.

We can gather sufficient evidence to be certain the BB took place. Then, yes, we can understand the principles that we believe resulted in the BB. But we can't test it. We might be wrong, but we'll never know. There are plenty of scientific principles we were sure we understood, then tested them, only to learn we had not understood them after all. We will never know if this is the case with the BB. We may think we understand what is necessary to make a BB, but we won't know if we're right or wrong.

[Skyweir]

On the face of it that makes complete sense.

But we know how humans evolved despite not being able to replicate the evolutionary process. Science has identified the process through DNA evidence, the fossil record etc. Not a scientist

But what does any of this mean

Maybe Im missing something. Well tbh besides a science degree, a scientific mind or .. well everything else lol

Is this an argument to demonstrate science cannot prove the non existence of a god .. and intelligent design

If so V covered off on that very well already .. ok I may be behind the 8 ball

[peter]

(Interesting {to me at least } little aside; I came across a brief reference recently, the first time I think I've heard this argument from a cleric - Archbishop Rowan Williams possibly, I forgot actually who - that God does not exist! At least not in the conventional sense. The argument ran, and surely puts it outside the realm where science can comment on it at all, that God cannot be thought of as existing or not existing, because he is outside that which we understand as being or otherwise. Thus the usual terms of reference do not apply. I'm not sure if this isn't just taking the argument one step back {seems like it could be} - but it does provide one with food for thought as to how we define and think of existence.)

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

(Interesting {to me at least } little aside; I came across a brief reference recently, the first time I think I've heard this argument from a cleric - Archbishop Rowan Williams possibly, I forgot actually who - that God does not exist! At least not in the conventional sense. The argument ran, and surely puts it outside the realm where science can comment on it at all, that God cannot be thought of as existing or not existing, because he is outside that which we understand as being or otherwise. Thus the usual terms of reference do not apply. I'm not sure if this isn't just taking the argument one step back {seems like it could be} - but it does provide one with food for thought as to how we define and think of existence.)

Truth told, that goes back to St Thomas Aquinas and beyond. This sort of thinking (whether in a Thomistic mode or not) is actually mandated by the structure of Catholic dogmatics.

Just sayin'.

[peter]

Hi Wos! I'm guessing that this position is not one that will cut much ice with the scientists - but to the more philosophically minded .........

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Hi Wos! I'm guessing that this position is not one that will cut much ice with the scientists - but to the more philosophically minded .........

Hey Pete! Depends on the scientist, I s'pose. And not all philosophers are on board with that, either. It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

[Skyweir]

+JMJ+

(Interesting {to me at least } little aside; I came across a brief reference recently, the first time I think I've heard this argument from a cleric - Archbishop Rowan Williams possibly, I forgot actually who - that God does not exist! At least not in the conventional sense. The argument ran, and surely puts it outside the realm where science can comment on it at all, that God cannot be thought of as existing or not existing, because he is outside that which we understand as being or otherwise. Thus the usual terms of reference do not apply. I'm not sure if this isn't just taking the argument one step back {seems like it could be} - but it does provide one with food for thought as to how we define and think of existence.)

Truth told, that goes back to St Thomas Aquinas and beyond. This sort of thinking (whether in a Thomistic mode or not) is actually mandated by the structure of Catholic dogmatics.

Just sayin'.

mmm.. Catholicism mandating that god does not exist .. or mandating that humans are incapable of knowing of god .. if so isnt that just rehashing biblical claims that all things of god are a mystery to man

1. Does this imply that humans will never know in any definitive sense unless they each themselves become gods

I have read the views of John Dominic Crossan .. he actually makes a lot of sense to me. He very much argues a non literal interpretation of the Bible, questions the historical Jesus. I find him and his views quite interesting .. hes like an evolved ideologist.. there are others.

But I have also read theology that does not hold with literal deity either.

Interesting isnt it .. it is from an atheist oerspective, tryingvto maje sebse of the world. Nice to see you in the Close Wos .. your input is always welcome.

[Fist and Faith]

Is this an argument to demonstrate science cannot prove the non existence of a god .. and intelligent design

That's not remotely what I was trying to demonstrate. Although that's entirely true. Science can't do that, and nobody should bother trying to use science that way.

Hi Wos! I'm guessing that this position is not one that will cut much ice with the scientists - but to the more philosophically minded .........

That is, more or less, science's position on God.

[Zarathustra]

... God cannot be thought of as existing or not existing, because he is outside that which we understand as being or otherwise.

I'm an atheist. The thought of god not existing defines my entire religious perspective. How can it not be possible to think this when I think it every single time I articulate my atheism?

If God exists outside that which we understand as being, then how did he (allegedly) interfere with world events? Wouldn't he have to step "into" the world to do that? How would he enter the world as Jesus? How could he be inside of us? How could any assertion in the Bible about God be true if we can't even think of him as existing? Where did we get the idea if it's an impossible idea? How can we talk about him right now? How do we know he exists beyond being if we can't even think that far (much less know things there)?

[Fist and Faith]

Sounds a bit like Schrodinger's God. Can't exist or not exist...

[peter]

We, in the evolution of our minds, have conceptualised what we take 'being' to be. This conception is on pretty shakey ground if subjected to rigorous probing philosophically speaking - there's an entire branch of the discipline devoted to it isn't there? By this logic I'm thinking there might be whole armies of God's out there beyond the limits of of our powers of understanding (of the nature of being). Granted, this will have no bearing on the original quote because it will by definition be beyond our purview, our concept of being being tied intimately with extension in time and space within our own Universe.

[Vraith]

We, in the evolution of our minds, have conceptualised what we take 'being' to be.

Or have we had that conceptualization thrust upon us by what is?

Anyway, pointing back a few posts---that separation/limitation stance is quite an Eastern thing...shouldn't be surprising that it leaks into some of the Catholic/Christian thought since Christianity really isn't Western in origins.

That perspective...and others much like it... still exist in many forms of Buddhism and related---maybe other places, too. It kinda works there---but it doesn't work for Christianity, it contradicts it. Because the rest of the Christian structure makes material demands. And those demands force the other perspective to do material work, perform material functions, that the perspective denies.

In a way...though I'd have to do a lot of reading and hard thinking to see if it's so...it seems to me this perspective/position fails to emulsify with Christianity for the same or similar reason that the attempts to merge Platonic and/or Aristotelian thought do.
The concepts contravene the commandments. [[I know, the Ten are OT, and don't take it TOO literally, but that was just too much fun to say. ]]

[peter]

That's a really interesting topic in itself V. Agreed, there's a PhD just waiting to be done in that reading!

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

We, in the evolution of our minds, have conceptualised what we take 'being' to be. This conception is on pretty shakey ground if subjected to rigorous probing philosophically speaking - there's an entire branch of the discipline devoted to it isn't there? By this logic I'm thinking there might be whole armies of God's out there beyond the limits of of our powers of understanding (of the nature of being). Granted, this will have no bearing on the original quote because it will by definition be beyond our purview, our concept of being being tied intimately with extension in time and space within our own Universe.

I would have you keep in mind that, at least from the Catholic POV, the regulative principle involved regarding the knowledge/correspondence between the Creation and the Creator is neither that of Equivocity (an absolute unknowing which would sanction a fanciful irrationalism/fideism) nor that of Univocity (an absolute knowing which would establish a tamely predictable, colorless cult of Reason) but, rather, that of Analogy.

Not only, as I'd said earlier, is this methodological Analogicity demanded by the structure of Catholicity itself, but further, it is expressly formulated by the Fourth Lateran Council: "One cannot note any similarity between Creator and creature, however great, without being compelled to note an even greater dissimilarity between them." ("maior dissimulitudo in tanta similitudine")

Though there's prolly more I could say, I'd better stop here for now. Cuz there's a whole universe of Catholic culture here to unpack, and that might bore everyone to tears.