Physics and metaphysics
maff
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1366172,00.html
Mike Purton
Saturday December 4, 2004
The Guardian
A series of scientific experiments in the early 1980s changed forever
our understanding of the nature of matter. It is likely that it will
also prove to have been the greatest religious discovery of the 20th
century.
Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or
more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then
on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist
between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they
are now at opposite ends of the universe.
Mike Purton
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mike+Purton%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mike+Purton%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Mike%20Purton&safe=images&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Mike%20Purton%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=gn
Physics Physicists Physicist
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20Physics%20OR%20Physicists%20OR%20Physicist&num=100&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=gn
metaphysics metaphysicists metaphysicist
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20metaphysics%20OR%20metaphysicists%20OR%20metaphysicist&num=100&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=gn
D.P.
> Physics and metaphysics
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1366172,00.html
>
> Mike Purton
> Saturday December 4, 2004
> The Guardian
>
> A series of scientific experiments in the early 1980s changed forever
> our understanding of the nature of matter. It is likely that it will
> also prove to have been the greatest religious discovery of the 20th
> century.
>
> Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or
> more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then
> on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist
> between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they
> are now at opposite ends of the universe.
>
> Mike Purton
The article goes on to suggest that all matter may be in an entangled state
and draws religious implications from this suggestion. The suggestion,
however, is false. Entanglement is a quantum phenomena that doesn't exist
between macroscopic collections of particles because of decoherence. This is
in fact one of the problems in constructing a quantum computer from a large
number of particles: as the number of "qubits" grows, the harder it is to
prevent decoherence from destroying the quantum correlations.
Here is more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence
Steven Carr
wrote:
>Physics and metaphysics
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1366172,00.html
>Mike Purton
>Saturday December 4, 2004
>The Guardian
>Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two or
>more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then
>on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist
>between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if they
>are now at opposite ends of the universe.
One way to think of it as if you had sent a pair of trousers on
opposite direction through the galaxy.
Somebody , a million light years away finds a left leg of the pair of
trousers.
Instantly, he knows that millions of light years away, there is a
right leg of the pair of trousers - thanks to trouser entanglement.
This cannot be explained by any classical laws of logic.
I can't help feeling there must be more to the paradox than this.
Steven Carr
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
Stanley Friesen
There is. I do not understand it all that well myself, but close to the
core is the Uncertainty Principle. Until the trouser leg is observed it
is *neither* left nor right, it is in a superposition of both states.
Upon observing that one of them is a left leg, the other *becomes* a
right leg.
[Well, that is a bit superficial, but it extends the analogy
appropriately].
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Matthew Isleb
Umm, isn't it *both* left and right?
-matthew
Stanley Friesen
Oops, yes. Or I suppose I could have said "not purely left or right".
Nivlem
Thanks. Saves me the effort of actually reading the article to determine
if my first supposition, "Here we go again. More fucking quantum
solipsism from some whackjob." is correct.
Ian H Spedding
"Steven Carr" <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41b1ecde...@news.demon.co.uk...
Didn't this first appear in a paper on quantum trouser
entanglement by Professors Wallace and Grommit?
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
quibbler
@yahoo.com says...
> Physics and metaphysics
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1366172,00.html
>
> Mike Purton
> Saturday December 4, 2004
> The Guardian
>
> A series of scientific experiments in the early 1980s changed forever
> our understanding of the nature of matter. It is likely that it will
> also prove to have been the greatest religious discovery of the 20th
> century.
It's doubtful that it has anything to do with religion whatsoever.
Furthermore, while entanglement may show a degree of non-locality, it
has yet to be verified at extreme distances. So needless to say, you're
getting a bit ahead of yourself.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Thomas H. Faller
Does this predetermine the color of the suspenders or belt?
Tom Faller
Stanley Friesen
I suspect that those measures commute, so I think not.
Earle Jones
Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net> wrote:
> "Thomas H. Faller" <fal...@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> >Stanley Friesen wrote:
[...]
> >> The peace of God be with you.
> >>
> >> Stanley Friesen
> >
> >Does this predetermine the color of the suspenders or belt?
> >
> I suspect that those measures commute, so I think not.
*
Stanley:
Q: What's purple and commutes?
A: An Abelian grape.
earle
*
Eros
So, what exactly are the dimentions of a quark?... in qubits, I mean.
> Here is more information:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence
EROS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific
methods: and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know" -
Bertrand Russell
david ford
The intelligent design hypothesis can provide for a metaphysical
research program; links to Popper.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405050538.4f5d9820%40posting.google.com
Bob
wrote:
>
>The intelligent design hypothesis can provide for a metaphysical
>research program; links to Popper.
>http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405050538.4f5d9820%40posting.google.com
>
let me know when they get around to doing actual physical research.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Richard Forrest
It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research
programme' is. Does it mean that if our research doesn't come to a
clear conclusion, we say that God did it and abandon any future
research on the subject?
RF
maff
Show the evidence, Christian fascist scum.
Bob
<ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
>
>Bob wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:19:13 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The intelligent design hypothesis can provide for a metaphysical
>> >research program; links to Popper.
>>
>>http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405050538.4f5d9820%40posting.google.com
>> >
>>
>> let me know when they get around to doing actual physical research.
>>
>> ---------------------------
>> to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
>> and enter 'wf3h' in the field
>
>
>It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research
>programme' is.
yeah, that one made me laugh.
John Wilkins
Popper's claim was that Darwinism was a MRP, meaning that it was not
scientific as a hypothesis is, but that it guided research. Popper
thought this was legitimate, as he was not a positivist and thought
metaphysics was perfectly fine.
Popper was wrong. Darwinism has metaphysical implications (for example,
about essentialism in biological ontology), but it is a perfectly fine
theoretical framework. It is testable, and has been tested (and
survived, with modifications). It guides actual research as theoretical
frameworks do, by suggesting fruitful lines of investigation, models
that can be applied, and most of all physical explanations.
IDevotees want to have the same standing as Darwinian biology (which
includes all the various forms of later evolutionary theory that
developed out of Darwin's ideas, but which include ideas Darwin did not
have, just to be on the clear side of vagueness), and since they cannot
actually offer a scientific hypothesis which can be tested - the
ordinary mark of science - they are attempting to say that Darwinian
evolution and ID are on the same level as MRPs. It's a variety of
"Darwinism is religion - we are religion, so we are as scientific as
Darwinism".
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
unrestra...@hotmail.com
were designed". What would that be? What would they be assuming, in
order to attempt to disprove it or find corroborative evidence?
What would be the difference between a gene designed by an
intelligence, and a gene that was not? What evidence would disprove
intelligent design to your satisfaction?
We have gone from Creationism, which is falsifiable and has been
falsified, to Intelligent Design(tm), which cannot be articulated even
by its proponents who have science PhDs (all four or five of them).
Kermit
Al Klein
>The intelligent design hypothesis
Aside from "goddidit", what's the hypothesis?
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
Al Klein
>It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research
>programme' is.
I think it would mean that we research research programs.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
John Wilkins
> On 26 Jan 2005 12:25:22 -0800, "Richard Forrest"
> <ric...@plesiosaur.com> said in alt.atheism:
>
> >It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research
> >programme' is.
>
> I think it would mean that we research research programs.
No, that's a metaresearch program. A metaphysical research program is
when we research metaphysics. I have real trouble doing a gas
chromatograph of ontological categories, however... the buggers won't
stay still.
Craig Franck
> You said in your link that research could study genes "as thought they
> were designed". What would that be? What would they be assuming, in
> order to attempt to disprove it or find corroborative evidence?
I think you would have to go back to the beginnings of science to get
a feel for this. Thales claiming everything was made out of water was
not necessarily an improvement on Greek mythology as a category of
explanation, particularly from a purely psychological perspective. The
idea was to assume that the world is a product of impersonal, natural
forces, and eventually fruitful lines of investigation would emerge.
But from the POV of someone living 2,500 years ago, modern science
might not seem rational since you need a fundamental change of world
view in order to "get it."
> What would be the difference between a gene designed by an
> intelligence, and a gene that was not?
Someone taking the time to design something did so for a reason, if
only to relieve boredom. The fact that physics is so seemingly elegant is
often given as evidence of deism.
> What evidence would disprove
> intelligent design to your satisfaction?
This is like asking someone in a 12-step program What evidence would
disprove your notion that electricity is a "higher power"? ID will never
be disproved in these peoples minds, you can only get the more intelligent
of them to admit it's not real science.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
John Wilkins
> <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > You said in your link that research could study genes "as thought they
> > were designed". What would that be? What would they be assuming, in
> > order to attempt to disprove it or find corroborative evidence?
>
> I think you would have to go back to the beginnings of science to get
> a feel for this. Thales claiming everything was made out of water was
> not necessarily an improvement on Greek mythology as a category of
> explanation, particularly from a purely psychological perspective. The
> idea was to assume that the world is a product of impersonal, natural
> forces, and eventually fruitful lines of investigation would emerge.
Russell notes that Thales was not as irrational as it sounds on the bare
page - until 20 years before he published the history, it was thought by
scientists that the universe was composed mostly of hydrogen, 2/3 of
water. Russell didn't understand atomic chemistry, of course, bu
tthere's a point hidden in there somewhere.
>
> But from the POV of someone living 2,500 years ago, modern science
> might not seem rational since you need a fundamental change of world
> view in order to "get it."
The "it" they had to get was that the world had a nature that did not
depend on the whims of gods. I think they'd get it pretty quickly if you
put it in those terms.
>
> > What would be the difference between a gene designed by an
> > intelligence, and a gene that was not?
>
> Someone taking the time to design something did so for a reason, if
> only to relieve boredom. The fact that physics is so seemingly elegant is
> often given as evidence of deism.
Or as evidence that we evolved to deal with the universe...
But I have friends who take the anthropic principle seriously.
>
> > What evidence would disprove
> > intelligent design to your satisfaction?
>
> This is like asking someone in a 12-step program What evidence would
> disprove your notion that electricity is a "higher power"? ID will never
> be disproved in these peoples minds, you can only get the more intelligent
> of them to admit it's not real science.
We wish.
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
And John said, "Let there be lunch", and there was lunch.
And John tasted that it was good.
Ian H Spedding
news:1gr1u65.9awqgfx7wselN%john...@wilkins.id.au...
>
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > On 26 Jan 2005 12:25:22 -0800, "Richard Forrest"
> > <ric...@plesiosaur.com> said in alt.atheism:
> >
> > >It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research
> > >programme' is.
> >
> > I think it would mean that we research research programs.
>
> No, that's a metaresearch program. A metaphysical research program is
> when we research metaphysics. I have real trouble doing a gas
> chromatograph of ontological categories, however... the buggers won't
> stay still.
I'd have thought palaeometaphysics would be easier. Study the fossilized
remains of ancestral categories like ontosauruses...or should that be
ontosaurii?
John Wilkins
That's old hat. Besides, ontosauruses only existed in ontological
deserts, and lived on what there is there.
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Walter Bushell
john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Breaking free of creationism is not dependent on intelligence, in fact
for very intelligent people there are more defense mechanisms available.
It largely depends on the degree of self honesty. To give up creationism
means letting the things that are most solid in your world view and
letting them dissolve in the light of truth. Truely a vertigo making
experience.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Walter Bushell
john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 26 Jan 2005 12:25:22 -0800, "Richard Forrest"
> > <ric...@plesiosaur.com> said in alt.atheism:
> >
> > >It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research
> > >programme' is.
> >
> > I think it would mean that we research research programs.
>
> No, that's a metaresearch program. A metaphysical research program is
> when we research metaphysics. I have real trouble doing a gas
> chromatograph of ontological categories, however... the buggers won't
> stay still.
Yes, I have enough trouble doing ontological studies on sets, much less
categories.
Walter Bushell
john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Ian H Spedding <ha...@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "John Wilkins" <john...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> > news:1gr1u65.9awqgfx7wselN%john...@wilkins.id.au...
> > >
> > > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 26 Jan 2005 12:25:22 -0800, "Richard Forrest"
> > > > <ric...@plesiosaur.com> said in alt.atheism:
> > > >
> > > > >It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research
> > > > >programme' is.
> > > >
> > > > I think it would mean that we research research programs.
> > >
> > > No, that's a metaresearch program. A metaphysical research program is
> > > when we research metaphysics. I have real trouble doing a gas
> > > chromatograph of ontological categories, however... the buggers won't
> > > stay still.
> >
> > I'd have thought palaeometaphysics would be easier. Study the fossilized
> > remains of ancestral categories like ontosauruses...or should that be
> > ontosaurii?
>
> That's old hat. Besides, ontosauruses only existed in ontological
> deserts, and lived on what there is there.
Is an Ontosuarues a relative of the Apatosaures? In which case shouldn't
the name be changed?
Theo Bromine
Ontology recapitulates philology.
Craig Franck
> Craig Franck wrote:
>
> > <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > > You said in your link that research could study genes "as thought they
> > > were designed". What would that be? What would they be assuming, in
> > > order to attempt to disprove it or find corroborative evidence?
> >
> > I think you would have to go back to the beginnings of science to get
> > a feel for this. Thales claiming everything was made out of water was
> > not necessarily an improvement on Greek mythology as a category of
> > explanation, particularly from a purely psychological perspective. The
> > idea was to assume that the world is a product of impersonal, natural
> > forces, and eventually fruitful lines of investigation would emerge.
>
> Russell notes that Thales was not as irrational as it sounds on the bare
> page - until 20 years before he published the history, it was thought by
> scientists that the universe was composed mostly of hydrogen, 2/3 of
> water.
I think this was simply a lucky coincidence. Thales picked water because
it came in all three states of mater: solid, liquid, and vapor. The Greeks
only appear intuitively correct about things because they covered
practically all possible logical types of arguments. But Pythagoras was
not "on to" string theory because he had a mathematical fascination with
music and vibration energies.
> Russell didn't understand atomic chemistry, of course, bu
> tthere's a point hidden in there somewhere.
I think the hidden point is Thales focused on states of mater as opposed
to the traditional types of matter, earth, air, fire, and water; it was sort of
a Greek unified-matter theory: everything reduces to water.
My main point is naturalism was stumbled upon, didn't do much, and was
accepted mostly as a rejection of myth. This is simply the flip side of
YEC today: they believe in it because they grew up with it, it doesn't do
much, and it is accepted mostly as a rejection of science.
At a primitive state of knowledge, the notion that the universe is a spiritual
playground for ghosts does explain the most. That's why everyone was
most likely an animist 30,000 years ago. It strength is it requires full-blown
modern science to dislodge things like consciousness from the spiritual.
That's a powerful vehicle of explanation.
> > But from the POV of someone living 2,500 years ago, modern science
> > might not seem rational since you need a fundamental change of world
> > view in order to "get it."
>
> The "it" they had to get was that the world had a nature that did not
> depend on the whims of gods. I think they'd get it pretty quickly if you
> put it in those terms.
The Stoics saw this as a form of liberation. "Science liberates us from
the terror of the Gods" was written on the entrance way of the library
in Alexander. But how is this different from the Buddhist idea that in
order to hop of the wheel of birth and death, you must free your mind
from the things that bind you to this world?
Put in those terms, naturalism didn't need to turn out to be true anymore
than reincarnation had to be true. A large number of Western Buddhists
don't believe in reincarnation; but that's not the point. Buddhism "works"
for strictly psychological reasons. The fundamental metaphysics is false.
> > > What would be the difference between a gene designed by an
> > > intelligence, and a gene that was not?
> >
> > Someone taking the time to design something did so for a reason, if
> > only to relieve boredom. The fact that physics is so seemingly elegant is
> > often given as evidence of deism.
>
> Or as evidence that we evolved to deal with the universe...
So hunting down prey in the grass lands of Africa prepared the human
mind to be impressed by modern physics?
> But I have friends who take the anthropic principle seriously.
It is compelling that a possibly-average intelligent species may have
gone from not knowing what made the sun shine to a TOE in the life
span a single individual.
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" wrote
>
> > Craig Franck wrote:
> >
> > > <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > You said in your link that research could study genes "as thought they
> > > > were designed". What would that be? What would they be assuming, in
> > > > order to attempt to disprove it or find corroborative evidence?
> > >
> > > I think you would have to go back to the beginnings of science to get
> > > a feel for this. Thales claiming everything was made out of water was
> > > not necessarily an improvement on Greek mythology as a category of
> > > explanation, particularly from a purely psychological perspective. The
> > > idea was to assume that the world is a product of impersonal, natural
> > > forces, and eventually fruitful lines of investigation would emerge.
> >
> > Russell notes that Thales was not as irrational as it sounds on the bare
> > page - until 20 years before he published the history, it was thought by
> > scientists that the universe was composed mostly of hydrogen, 2/3 of
> > water.
>
> I think this was simply a lucky coincidence. Thales picked water because
> it came in all three states of mater: solid, liquid, and vapor. The Greeks
> only appear intuitively correct about things because they covered
> practically all possible logical types of arguments. But Pythagoras was
> not "on to" string theory because he had a mathematical fascination with
> music and vibration energies.
True enough. But I think it was a bit more than that. Thales was looking
for something known, with a nature, that could feasibly explain what was
observed.
>
> > Russell didn't understand atomic chemistry, of course, bu
> > tthere's a point hidden in there somewhere.
>
> I think the hidden point is Thales focused on states of mater as opposed
> to the traditional types of matter, earth, air, fire, and water; it was
> sort of a Greek unified-matter theory: everything reduces to water.
>
> My main point is naturalism was stumbled upon, didn't do much, and was
> accepted mostly as a rejection of myth. This is simply the flip side of
> YEC today: they believe in it because they grew up with it, it doesn't do
> much, and it is accepted mostly as a rejection of science.
>
> At a primitive state of knowledge, the notion that the universe is a
> spiritual playground for ghosts does explain the most. That's why everyone
> was most likely an animist 30,000 years ago. It strength is it requires
> full-blown modern science to dislodge things like consciousness from the
> spiritual. That's a powerful vehicle of explanation.
The idea of a phusis and an ousia was enormously fruitful in philosophy,
though. Even though Thales and Heraclitus and so forth were unsuccessful
in their programs, the *idea* of things having a regular nature that
could be known, for whatever historical reason it became embedded, was
very useful later on.
>
> > > But from the POV of someone living 2,500 years ago, modern science
> > > might not seem rational since you need a fundamental change of world
> > > view in order to "get it."
> >
> > The "it" they had to get was that the world had a nature that did not
> > depend on the whims of gods. I think they'd get it pretty quickly if you
> > put it in those terms.
>
> The Stoics saw this as a form of liberation. "Science liberates us from
> the terror of the Gods" was written on the entrance way of the library
> in Alexander. But how is this different from the Buddhist idea that in
> order to hop of the wheel of birth and death, you must free your mind
> from the things that bind you to this world?
It's not really. I think there was a lot of convergence, and possibly
cross-influence, from the Indus Valley to the Mediterranean. I like the
Carvarkists, though - Epicureans first in the Indus Valley, and last in
the Hellenistic tradition.
>
> Put in those terms, naturalism didn't need to turn out to be true anymore
> than reincarnation had to be true. A large number of Western Buddhists
> don't believe in reincarnation; but that's not the point. Buddhism "works"
> for strictly psychological reasons. The fundamental metaphysics is false.
>
> > > > What would be the difference between a gene designed by an
> > > > intelligence, and a gene that was not?
> > >
> > > Someone taking the time to design something did so for a reason, if
> > > only to relieve boredom. The fact that physics is so seemingly elegant is
> > > often given as evidence of deism.
> >
> > Or as evidence that we evolved to deal with the universe...
>
> So hunting down prey in the grass lands of Africa prepared the human
> mind to be impressed by modern physics?
>
> > But I have friends who take the anthropic principle seriously.
>
> It is compelling that a possibly-average intelligent species may have
> gone from not knowing what made the sun shine to a TOE in the life
> span a single individual.
And may go back in a similar period, if antiscience is allowed to
flourish.
isl...@earthlink.net
> Even though Thales and Heraclitus and so forth were unsuccessful
that
> could be known...
heh... don't even get me started, but the way that I understand this is
that Heraclitus would have nailed it, (more or less), in terms of
natural moral manifestations had he known about the observed slightly
predominant expansive tendency of our universe, rather than what he
determined to be a "cosmic reconcilliation" of opposing forces.
It's all about the journey, Alfie... not actually arriving... ;)
Craig Franck
> Craig Franck wrote:
> > I think this was simply a lucky coincidence. Thales picked water because
> > it came in all three states of mater: solid, liquid, and vapor. The Greeks
> > only appear intuitively correct about things because they covered
> > practically all possible logical types of arguments. But Pythagoras was
> > not "on to" string theory because he had a mathematical fascination with
> > music and vibration energies.
>
> True enough. But I think it was a bit more than that. Thales was looking
> for something known, with a nature, that could feasibly explain what was
> observed.
Which bring up the question of exactly what the "nature" of things
are. You mentioned Russell before. One of the things he was
concerned about when it came to scientific inference was the dual
epistemological spaces of the perceptual and the physical.
Sure his beloved "causal chains of events" assured a regularity and
validity to our experiences, but when Thales was talking about water
being behind the nature of things, did he mean wet, thirst quenching,
fun to swim in water, or something *behind* the nature of water?
It seems like a trivial, strictly verbal, or odd distinction, but the
"hidden powers of nature" argument seems separate from the lesser
"nature has patterns" argument.
What I meant by Thales claiming everything was made out of water
was not necessarily an improvement on Greek mythology as a
category of explanation was both invoke "hidden powers," but the
water bit seems even sillier on the face of it. So it takes a huge leap
of faith to believe water had some -- what at the time would certainly
seem like -- almost magical qualities to give rise to the world.
As an observation of why it took science so long to catch on this is
merely interesting, but WRT creationists, I think they are basically
rejecting scientific claims that stuff like water (or cosmic explosions)
can manifest things without intelligent guidance, divine or otherwise.
John Wilkins
It's a good question. I suspect that he was abstracting the properties
of actual water (has solid, liquid and gaseous phases, in our terms, can
be extracted from most things, and so forth) to achieve an "essence"
(ousia) of water from which modifications could derive other observed
substances. Or perhaps I am just being over-charitable; I don't know.
The tendency was to suppose that there was something eternal that
generated the changeable world. Empedocles' more abstract apeiron
(unbounded) is a logical development of this. As, it has to be said, is
Plato's and Aristotle's use of eidos (form).
>
> As an observation of why it took science so long to catch on this is
> merely interesting, but WRT creationists, I think they are basically
> rejecting scientific claims that stuff like water (or cosmic explosions)
> can manifest things without intelligent guidance, divine or otherwise.
The "eternal essence" here is "agency". They think that decisions to
make things is somehow ontologically prior to the natures of things.
Hence, they wish to return us to the pre-Thalesian world. I blame a
number of people, but Schopenhauer (the world as will and idea? C'mon!)
rates highly in my book.
david ford
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>On 26 Jan 2005 12:25:22 -0800, "Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> said in alt.atheism:
>>>It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research
>>>programme' is.
>>
>>I think it would mean that we research research programs.
>
> No, that's a metaresearch program. A metaphysical research program is
> when we research metaphysics. I have real trouble doing a gas
> chromatograph of ontological categories, however... the buggers won't
> stay still.
The intelligent design hypothesis can provide for a metaphysical
maff
david ford wrote:
[...]
You've been saying that for several years. There's no evidence for
'intelligent design' or Christian fascist apologetics for the last 12
billions of years.
Atheistagnostic
>http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405050538.4f5d9820%40posting.google.com
In that post Mr. Ford argues:
> For example, biologists can study [biology]
> as if it was the product of intelligence.
Can't do that, sir. Taking it for granted at the outset that your
"theory" (there might be an intelligent designer of biolobical
organisms) is true would be the logical fallacy of begging the question.
The only reasonable default presumption (like the default presumption of
'No guilt' in criminal court) is the null, 'No intelligent designer.'
You will have to come up with some logically satisfactory evidence that
knocks down the null, otherwise, you have no case.
Virgil
Atheistagnostic <atheist...@nospam.net> wrote:
> david ford wrote:
>
>
> >http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405050538.4f5d9820%40postin
> >g.google.com
>
> In that post Mr. Ford argues:
>
> > For example, biologists can study [biology]
> > as if it was the product of intelligence.
>
> Can't do that, sir. Taking it for granted at the outset that your
> "theory" (there might be an intelligent designer of biolobical
> organisms) is true would be the logical fallacy of begging the question.
As would assuming, a priori, the impossibility of intelligent design be
begging the question. As Simple Septic frequently does.
>
> The only reasonable default presumption (like the default presumption of
> 'No guilt' in criminal court) is the null, 'No intelligent designer.'
The only intelligent presumption is that we do not know, which puts the
creationists and Simple Septic in the same question begging boat.
On the other hand, no theory without SOME positive evidence is
worthwhile giving serious consideration to, and at present neither the
theory that there is or the theory that there cannnot be intelligent
design is supported by any positive evidence.
Craig Franck
> david ford wrote:
>
> >http://groups.google.co.in/groups?
> > selm=b1c67abe.0405050538.4f5d9820%40posting.google.com
>
> In that post Mr. Ford argues:
>
> > For example, biologists can study [biology]
> > as if it was the product of intelligence.
>
> Can't do that, sir. Taking it for granted at the outset that your
> "theory" (there might be an intelligent designer of biolobical
> organisms) is true would be the logical fallacy of begging the question.
>
> The only reasonable default presumption (like the default presumption of
> 'No guilt' in criminal court) is the null, 'No intelligent designer.'
Perhaps, but which is the default -- intelligence or natural process -- really
depends on the precise situation and methodology.
The FAA may wish to treat all exploding airplanes as the result of foul play
unless it is proven otherwise. I don't see how this can be a logical fallacy
since it just assumes the most likely scenario is true: very few airplanes just
blow up on their own now-a-days.
A major problem arises when you have a data set of one, particularly when
both instance may look identical. But invoking rules in courts of law is a
particularly poor way to resolve the situation because I could just invoke
the rules of tax court: you owe the taxes they think you do unless you can
prove otherwise. So it's an issue of methodology, not logic.
Science, by definition, deals with natural processes as the method of
explanation. When I play chess against a computer I pretend I am playing
a person since that is the most natural orientation to the situation.
Al Klein
<craig....@verizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>"Atheistagnostic" wrote
>> The only reasonable default presumption (like the default presumption of
>> 'No guilt' in criminal court) is the null, 'No intelligent designer.'
>Perhaps, but which is the default -- intelligence or natural process -- really
>depends on the precise situation and methodology.
The "methodology" is "where's the objective evidence that a designer
objectively exists?"
>Science, by definition, deals with natural processes as the method of
>explanation.
Science deals with explanations of observations, natural or
supernatural. If there were ever a real observation of something
supernatural, science would investigate it.
> When I play chess against a computer I pretend I am playing
>a person since that is the most natural orientation to the situation.
That's you. Many kids, when playing a game against a live opponent,
pretend they're playing against a computer, since that is the most
natural orientation to the situation for THEM.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:24:52 GMT, "Craig Franck"
> <craig....@verizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>
...
> > When I play chess against a computer I pretend I am playing
> >a person since that is the most natural orientation to the situation.
>
> That's you. Many kids, when playing a game against a live opponent,
> pretend they're playing against a computer, since that is the most
> natural orientation to the situation for THEM.
My son asks if he can undo moves. He assumes I have them stored on disk
somewhere...
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Fiat lunch!
AntiSeptic
Boggs, aka Muddy Boggs, aka Dick Dragon, aka Albert
Briggs, aka Bill Gates, aka Dr. Sister, aka Tom Wetsuit,
aka Hum, aka Ho Hum, aka Huxley, aka The Theenker, aka
Rooster, aka Yoda, aka The Thinkerator, aka Y3K, aka
T. Jefferson, aka Spike Nail, aka Wolf Blitzer) wrote:
The same drivel he's been posting the past 5 years:
[snip]
> Can't do that, sir. Taking it for granted at the outset that your
> "theory" (there might be an intelligent designer of biolobical
> organisms) is true would be the logical fallacy of begging the question.
>
> The only reasonable default presumption (like the default presumption of
> 'No guilt' in criminal court) is the null, 'No intelligent designer.'
>
> You will have to come up with some logically satisfactory evidence that
> knocks down the null, otherwise, you have no case.
<snore>
Earthling48
Steven Carr wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:12:05 +0000 (UTC), maf...@yahoo.com (maff)
> wrote:
>
> >Physics and metaphysics
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1366172,00.html
>
> >Mike Purton
> >Saturday December 4, 2004
> >The Guardian
>
> >Physicists call it entanglement, and it describes the state of two
or
> >more particles once they have interacted with one another. From then
> >on, irrespective of time and space, a correlation will always exist
> >between them. What happens to one will affect the other - even if
they
> >are now at opposite ends of the universe.
>
> One way to think of it as if you had sent a pair of trousers on
> opposite direction through the galaxy.
>
> Somebody , a million light years away finds a left leg of the pair of
> trousers.
>
> Instantly, he knows that millions of light years away, there is a
> right leg of the pair of trousers - thanks to trouser entanglement.
>
> This cannot be explained by any classical laws of logic.
>
> I can't help feeling there must be more to the paradox than this.
There is. The dreaded zipper entanglement!
Painfully,
Earthling48
> Steven Carr
> ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
david ford
> Richard Forrest <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
>>Bob wrote:
>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 david ford:
>>>>The intelligent design hypothesis can provide for a metaphysical
>>>>research program; links to Popper.
>>>>http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405050538.4f5d9820%40posting.google.com
>>>
>>
>>It would be a good start to know what a 'metaphysical research
>>clear conclusion, we say that God did it and abandon any future
>>research on the subject?
>
> Popper's claim was that Darwinism was a MRP, meaning that it was not
> scientific as a hypothesis is, but that it guided research. Popper
> thought this was legitimate, as he was not a positivist and thought
> metaphysics was perfectly fine.
>
> Popper was wrong. Darwinism has metaphysical implications (for example,
> about essentialism in biological ontology), but it is a perfectly fine
> theoretical framework. It is testable, and has been tested (and
> survived, with modifications). It guides actual research as theoretical
> frameworks do, by suggesting fruitful lines of investigation, models
> that can be applied, and most of all physical explanations.
>
> IDevotees want to have the same standing as Darwinian biology (which
> includes all the various forms of later evolutionary theory that
> developed out of Darwin's ideas, but which include ideas Darwin did not
> have, just to be on the clear side of vagueness), and since they cannot
> actually offer a scientific hypothesis which can be tested - the
> ordinary mark of science - they are attempting to say that Darwinian
> evolution and ID are on the same level as MRPs. It's a variety of
> "Darwinism is religion - we are religion, so we are as scientific as
> Darwinism".
Scary.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
>
> >"Atheistagnostic" wrote
>
> >> The only reasonable default presumption (like the default presumption of
> >> 'No guilt' in criminal court) is the null, 'No intelligent designer.'
>
> >Perhaps, but which is the default -- intelligence or natural process -- really
> >depends on the precise situation and methodology.
>
> The "methodology" is "where's the objective evidence that a designer
> objectively exists?"
"There is a designer" is an inference the same way mind-independent
entities that endure through time and space are inferred by various
forms of realism.
Also, it does appear to be methodology because people who choose
not to use the scientific method do not need to suppose that natural
process is the default explanation unless there is evidence of something
more.
It's a technical way of thinking that obviously has not penetrated all
cultures equally.
> >Science, by definition, deals with natural processes as the method of
> >explanation.
>
> Science deals with explanations of observations, natural or
> supernatural. If there were ever a real observation of something
> supernatural, science would investigate it.
That's a reasonable approach I share. However, methodological naturalism
requires naturalistic hypothesis or it breaks down. Hence, from a scientific
POV, some version of evolution must be the case since it is the only
naturalistic explanation. This is why ID isn't really science but more like
pre-scientific natural philosophy.
> > When I play chess against a computer I pretend I am playing
> >a person since that is the most natural orientation to the situation.
>
> That's you. Many kids, when playing a game against a live opponent,
> pretend they're playing against a computer, since that is the most
> natural orientation to the situation for THEM.
That's true.
My main point was anthropomorphizing can lead to improved under-
standing of natural phenomenon even when it isn't really justified from
a strictly scientific POV.
Al Klein
<craig....@verizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" wrote
>> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
>> >"Atheistagnostic" wrote
>> >> The only reasonable default presumption (like the default presumption of
>> >> 'No guilt' in criminal court) is the null, 'No intelligent designer.'
>> >Perhaps, but which is the default -- intelligence or natural process -- really
>> >depends on the precise situation and methodology.
>> The "methodology" is "where's the objective evidence that a designer
>> objectively exists?"
>"There is a designer" is an inference
Sorry, but science works on evidence, and so do I. No evidence? Then
you can infer anything you like, but I'm not interested in wasting my
time on your inference.
>Also, it does appear to be methodology because people who choose
>not to use the scientific method do not need to suppose that natural
>process is the default explanation unless there is evidence of something
>more.
Unless there's evidence of something more I'm not inclined to waste my
time on it.
>It's a technical way of thinking that obviously has not penetrated all
>cultures equally.
It's a religious way of thinking and I don't have that particular
mental disease.
>That's a reasonable approach I share. However, methodological naturalism
>requires naturalistic hypothesis or it breaks down. Hence, from a scientific
>POV, some version of evolution must be the case since it is the only
>naturalistic explanation. This is why ID isn't really science but more like
>pre-scientific natural philosophy.
ID is Christian creationism in secular clothing.
>My main point was anthropomorphizing can lead to improved under-
>standing of natural phenomenon even when it isn't really justified from
>a strictly scientific POV.
Anthropomorphizing can also lead to nonsense. Just look at religion
for proof.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"religion did for bullshit, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
Richard Forrest
Why should we gain an improved understanding of anything by adopting an
approach to the investigation of the natural world which was abandoned
two centuries ago because it was of little pragmatic value, rather than
using a scientific approach, whose value has been demonstrated by two
centuries of vastly increased understanding of the natural world?
RF
Craig Franck
> Craig Franck wrote:
> > My main point was anthropomorphizing can lead to improved under-
> > standing of natural phenomenon even when it isn't really justified
> > from
> > a strictly scientific POV.
>
> Why should we gain an improved understanding of anything by adopting an
> approach to the investigation of the natural world which was abandoned
> two centuries ago because it was of little pragmatic value, rather than
> using a scientific approach, whose value has been demonstrated by two
> centuries of vastly increased understanding of the natural world?
It allows you to justify choice of theories based upon an extended
criteria. This is a major issue because one of the biggest problems in
the philosophy of science is the "invent a hypothesis" part of the
method.
For example, before string theory, the only thing that general relativity
and QM had in common was this:
In GR, every observer gets to pretend they are the frame of reference.
Going 99.9% the speed of light? No problem. Just pretend you're
standing still near the surface of a black hole.
In QM, the observer fixes the final reality by making an observation.
The problem here is obvious: these aren't theories about the universe,
but our experiences in the universe. We are in the final theory. Saying
it's just an expression of low level symmetries is fine, but who are these
symmetries for? Maybe the correct theory is one that exhibits none of
the properties we consider mathematically elegant. We are simply stuck
inventing pet theories that work to varying degrees.
But if the universe is considered to be designed -- whether it is or not --
this problem disappears: The observer stands in symmetry with the
designer.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
> >"There is a designer" is an inference
>
> Sorry, but science works on evidence, and so do I. No evidence? Then
> you can infer anything you like, but I'm not interested in wasting my
> time on your inference.
I appreciate that. My point is the designer is part of the low-level
inferential framework that structures the evidence. Modern science
has a large number of these inferences (ironically, one is known as
God's-eye view).
If you believe natural process can do everything that God is generally
called on to do, then you obviously have no use for a designer. It's
the fact that the assumptions are so interchangeable that leads some
to consider naturalism a form of metaphysics, too.
If you have the opportunity, you might want to look at a copy of
Russell's "Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits". I think he gives
a balanced presentation of both sides of similar arguments.
> >It's a technical way of thinking that obviously has not penetrated all
> >cultures equally.
>
> It's a religious way of thinking and I don't have that particular
> mental disease.
I was referring to the scientific method. If you consider religion a mental
disease, I don't think you are capable of forming a rational position on
this matter.
ric...@plesiosaur.com
I'm sorry, but you truly don't understand QM.
> The problem here is obvious: these aren't theories about the
universe,
> but our experiences in the universe. We are in the final theory.
Saying
> it's just an expression of low level symmetries is fine, but who are
these
> symmetries for? Maybe the correct theory is one that exhibits none of
> the properties we consider mathematically elegant. We are simply
stuck
> inventing pet theories that work to varying degrees.
>
> But if the universe is considered to be designed -- whether it is or
not --
> this problem disappears: The observer stands in symmetry with the
> designer.
>
> --
> Craig Franck
> craig....@verizon.net
> Cortland, NY
Well, QM theory makes detailed predictions about the behavour of matter
and energy. Experiment has demonstrated that it is an extremely acurate
model for predicting the behaviour of matter and energy.
What determines whether a theory is correct or not is its power to
predict the behaviour it models.
A 'theory' which says that the Universe is the way it is because it was
designed that way is impossible to test is pragmatically utterly
useless. The only prediction I could see a 'designer' theory could make
is that an omniscient and all-powerful designer would design perfectly.
On that basis biological systems falsify the theory immediately,
starting with my aching spine.
If you can identify a prediction made by the theory that the Universe
was designed which does not rely on empty rhetoric and handwaving,
please let us know. "Wow, isn't it complicated, it must be designed" is
an empty argument, as is "If it doesn't look well-designed it's because
we don't understand the mind of the designer".
RF
Christopher A. Lee
<craig....@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Al Klein" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
>
>> >"There is a designer" is an inference
>>
>> Sorry, but science works on evidence, and so do I. No evidence? Then
>> you can infer anything you like, but I'm not interested in wasting my
>> time on your inference.
>
>I appreciate that. My point is the designer is part of the low-level
>inferential framework that structures the evidence. Modern science
>has a large number of these inferences (ironically, one is known as
>God's-eye view).
What "evidence"? That is a pre-existing belief, not a conclusion from
evidence. There is nothing that leads to the conclusion of a designer.
There is no way to conclude that everything was designed. And hence
the "conclusion" of a designer is fallacious.
This becomes obvious when you substitute "megadesign" etc for what
this hypothetical "designer of everything" is supposed to have
designed.
1. If everything is "megadesigned" by an intelligent designer there is
nothing "meganatural" for comparison.
2. We would have to know enough already about this hypothetical
"megadesigner" to know how it designs things, in order to recognise
"megadesign". Which presumes what you are supposed to be proving
Neither of these are rocket science. Which explains the reaction of
the less ignorant, less gullible, less unintelligent etc to those who
take it seriously.
>If you believe natural process can do everything that God is generally
>called on to do, then you obviously have no use for a designer. It's
>the fact that the assumptions are so interchangeable that leads some
>to consider naturalism a form of metaphysics, too.
You need to learn the difference between "no reason to assume
something" and "believe the opposite" - and then can your strawman.
>If you have the opportunity, you might want to look at a copy of
>Russell's "Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits". I think he gives
>a balanced presentation of both sides of similar arguments.
Both sides of what? It's religionists pretending their pre-existing
beliefs are science, vs everybody else. No different that "both sides
of "the flat Earth theory" or "the stork brings babies theory"."
>> >It's a technical way of thinking that obviously has not penetrated all
>> >cultures equally.
>>
>> It's a religious way of thinking and I don't have that particular
>> mental disease.
>
>I was referring to the scientific method. If you consider religion a mental
>disease, I don't think you are capable of forming a rational position on
>this matter.
You said it.
But what else would you call it when it is so out of touch with
reality, intelligence etc that it comes up with something as
ridiculous as "intelligent design 'theory'" and imagines anybody with
more than half a brain to think this is scientific.
Al Klein
<craig....@verizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" wrote
>> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
>> >"There is a designer" is an inference
>> Sorry, but science works on evidence, and so do I. No evidence? Then
>> you can infer anything you like, but I'm not interested in wasting my
>> time on your inference.
>I appreciate that. My point is the designer is part of the low-level
>inferential framework that structures the evidence.
And for which you can present no evidence - it's all assertion.
Yours, most likely.
>If you believe natural process can do everything that God is generally
>called on to do, then you obviously have no use for a designer.
No I don't have the belief that "natural process can do everything
that God is generally called on to do", I just see no evidence that
there's a) any need for a god, or b) that any god objectively exists.
>If you have the opportunity, you might want to look at a copy of
>Russell's "Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits". I think he gives
>a balanced presentation of both sides of similar arguments.
There's no "side". If you have no actual objective evidence of the
objective existence of a god, you have nothing but your assertion that
there is one.
>> >It's a technical way of thinking that obviously has not penetrated all
>> >cultures equally.
>> It's a religious way of thinking and I don't have that particular
>> mental disease.
>I was referring to the scientific method. If you consider religion a mental
>disease, I don't think you are capable of forming a rational position on
>this matter.
Science is nothing if not rational. Religion is nothing if not
irrational. Sane people don't talk to made-up gods, so religion is a
mental disease. (You think the ancient Greeks had good reason to
believe that Zeus lived on Mt. Olympus?)
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
Craig Franck
>
> Craig Franck wrote:
> > It allows you to justify choice of theories based upon an extended
> > criteria. This is a major issue because one of the biggest problems
> > in
> > the philosophy of science is the "invent a hypothesis" part of the
> > method.
> >
> > For example, before string theory, the only thing that general
> > relativity
> > and QM had in common was this:
> >
> > In GR, every observer gets to pretend they are the frame of
> > reference.
> > Going 99.9% the speed of light? No problem. Just pretend you're
> > standing still near the surface of a black hole.
> >
> > In QM, the observer fixes the final reality by making an observation.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, but you truly don't understand QM.
What is wrong with that characterization? The observer plays a major
role in QM by collapsing probability waves. This is not true?
> > The problem here is obvious: these aren't theories about the
> > universe,
> > but our experiences in the universe. We are in the final theory.
> > Saying
> > it's just an expression of low level symmetries is fine, but who are
> > these
> > symmetries for? Maybe the correct theory is one that exhibits none of
> > the properties we consider mathematically elegant. We are simply
> > stuck
> > inventing pet theories that work to varying degrees.
> >
> > But if the universe is considered to be designed -- whether it is or
> > not --
> > this problem disappears: The observer stands in symmetry with the
> > designer.
>
> Well, QM theory makes detailed predictions about the behavour of matter
> and energy. Experiment has demonstrated that it is an extremely acurate
> model for predicting the behaviour of matter and energy.
>
> What determines whether a theory is correct or not is its power to
> predict the behaviour it models.
>
> A 'theory' which says that the Universe is the way it is because it was
> designed that way is impossible to test is pragmatically utterly
> useless.
You don't grasp the implication. We can trust our intelligence to give
reliable information about the universe because it was designed by an
intelligence, in the same way we can trust our senses to give us reliable
information because they evolved over time and are beneficial.
Also, There is a designer isn't a theory any more than materialism or the
universe exists is a theory. It's a fundamental assumption that can't be
tested because it's self-verifying.
> The only prediction I could see a 'designer' theory could make
> is that an omniscient and all-powerful designer would design perfectly.
That's doesn't follow at all. It's just your conception of a designer. Why
does the designer have to be all powerful? Because you can therefore
dismiss the possibility because it falls short of you pre-conceived goal.
Sounds like an obvious strawman to me.
> On that basis biological systems falsify the theory immediately,
> starting with my aching spine.
Anyone who put a moments thought into this would see that perhaps
the designer designed just physics, and everything we see around us
is statistical fallout.
I've made no claims beyond this, and you're simply attacking the
weakest form of the argument.
Besides, have you ever considered that maybe the designer doesn't like
you?
> If you can identify a prediction made by the theory that the Universe
> was designed which does not rely on empty rhetoric and handwaving,
> please let us know.
The only one I've come up with that is scientifically testable is if an
intelligence designed this universe, it should be far easier than expected
to design our own universe to keep propagating more universes down
this particular branch.
> "Wow, isn't it complicated, it must be designed" is
> an empty argument, as is "If it doesn't look well-designed it's because
> we don't understand the mind of the designer".
I'm making the opposite claim: the universe was possibly designed
because our feeble intelligence is able to figure so much of it out.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> In GR, every observer gets to pretend they are the frame of reference.
> Going 99.9% the speed of light? No problem. Just pretend you're
> standing still near the surface of a black hole.
First, a technical correction. "Standing near the surface of a
black hole" would correspond, roughly, to a high *acceleration*,
not a high velocity. Going at 99.9% of the speed of light? No
need to change anything at all -- it's inertial motion, and even
Galileo knew that it was indistinguishable from being at rest.
More important: the spirit of GR is really almost exactly the
opposite of what you are suggesting. Everyone knows that if
you look out the window of a car, what you see will look different
depending on how fast the car is moving. That's nothing deep.
The point of relativity, special and general, is precisely to
extract the parts of the universe that *don't* depend on that
kind of subjective experience.
Relativity doesn't say "everything is relative." It says,
"despite different subjective experiences, many things are
*not* relative."
> In QM, the observer fixes the final reality by making an
> observation.
No, not at all. This is a misconception coming from "pop"
treatments. An observer can choose what to measure, and
that affects the *possible* outcomes (if I make a measurement
of position, I'll find a position, not a momentum). But the
observer certainly does *not* determine the outcome of the
measurement.
> The problem here is obvious: these aren't theories about the
> universe, but our experiences in the universe.
On the contrary. One of the basic purposes of both relativity
and quantum mechanics is to abstract "the universe" from our
experiences, and to describe what is *not* a function of our
individual experiences.
Steve Carlip
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote:
>
> >"Al Klein" wrote
> >> Sorry, but science works on evidence, and so do I. No evidence? Then
> >> you can infer anything you like, but I'm not interested in wasting my
> >> time on your inference.
> >
> >I appreciate that. My point is the designer is part of the low-level
> >inferential framework that structures the evidence. Modern science
> >has a large number of these inferences (ironically, one is known as
> >God's-eye view).
>
> What "evidence"? That is a pre-existing belief, not a conclusion from
> evidence. There is nothing that leads to the conclusion of a designer.
>
> There is no way to conclude that everything was designed. And hence
> the "conclusion" of a designer is fallacious.
I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe was designed.
> This becomes obvious when you substitute "megadesign" etc for what
> this hypothetical "designer of everything" is supposed to have
> designed.
>
> 1. If everything is "megadesigned" by an intelligent designer there is
> nothing "meganatural" for comparison.
You have the comparison of intelligent behavior of humans and other
natural processes that are not intelligently driven. In fact, the observation
that our minds are intelligent and a natural process demonstrates that the
two go together without conflict.
> 2. We would have to know enough already about this hypothetical
> "megadesigner" to know how it designs things, in order to recognize
> "mega".
I don't believe so. If a UFO crashed on earth, would we have to know
how ET's designed it to realize it wasn't a naturally occurring object?
> >If you believe natural process can do everything that God is generally
> >called on to do, then you obviously have no use for a designer. It's
> >the fact that the assumptions are so interchangeable that leads some
> >to consider naturalism a form of metaphysics, too.
>
> You need to learn the difference between "no reason to assume
> something" and "believe the opposite" - and then can your strawman.
It's not a strawman. Metaphysical naturalism is called that because
it makes metaphysical claims. All you have left without that is
methodological naturalism, which makes no claims about naturalism
being a property of all things.
> >If you have the opportunity, you might want to look at a copy of
> >Russell's "Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits". I think he gives
> >a balanced presentation of both sides of similar arguments.
>
> Both sides of what? It's religionists pretending their pre-existing
> beliefs are science, vs. everybody else. No different that "both sides
> of "the flat Earth theory" or "the stork brings babies theory"."
Wow. Just do yourself a favor and consider reading the book.
> >> >It's a technical way of thinking that obviously has not penetrated all
> >> >cultures equally.
> >>
> >> It's a religious way of thinking and I don't have that particular
> >> mental disease.
> >
> >I was referring to the scientific method. If you consider religion a mental
> >disease, I don't think you are capable of forming a rational position on
> >this matter.
>
> You said it.
>
> But what else would you call it when it is so out of touch with
> reality, intelligence etc that it comes up with something as
> ridiculous as "intelligent design 'theory'" and imagines anybody with
> more than half a brain to think this is scientific.
The problem with this thinking is a great many scientists believe that
perhaps the universe was designed. Try "Before the Beginning" by
Martin Rees. The forward is by Stephen Hawking. This is who I
initially got the idea that if we develop the ability to design universes,
the odds of this universe being designed go way up.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" said
> >I appreciate that. My point is the designer is part of the low-level
> >inferential framework that structures the evidence.
>
> And for which you can present no evidence - it's all assertion.
That's what I asserted in what you replied to.
> Yours, most likely.
I don't claim credit for it.
> >If you believe natural process can do everything that God is generally
> >called on to do, then you obviously have no use for a designer.
>
> No I don't have the belief that "natural process can do everything
> that God is generally called on to do", I just see no evidence that
> there's a) any need for a god, or b) that any god objectively exists.
Look, I meant many people believe God created the unversed, and
others (such as yourself) believe it was the result of natural process.
You do believe that?
> >I was referring to the scientific method. If you consider religion a mental
> >disease, I don't think you are capable of forming a rational position on
> >this matter.
>
> Science is nothing if not rational. Religion is nothing if not
> irrational. Sane people don't talk to made-up gods, so religion is a
> mental disease.
What, are you trying to parody someone here? You are insane if you
pray?
> (You think the ancient Greeks had good reason to
> believe that Zeus lived on Mt. Olympus?)
It was a vehicle of explanation at the time.
Al Klein
<craig....@verizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>"Christopher A. Lee" wrote
>> There is no way to conclude that everything was designed. And hence
>> the "conclusion" of a designer is fallacious.
>I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe was designed.
Since there's no evidence of design, it's not at all "likely" that the
universe was designed.
>I don't believe so. If a UFO crashed on earth, would we have to know
>how ET's designed it to realize it wasn't a naturally occurring object?
We have other flying objects to compare it with - both known designed
objects and known undesigned objects. Do you have a known designed
universe and a known undesigned one, so that we can compare this one
with them?
>> But what else would you call it when it is so out of touch with
>> reality, intelligence etc that it comes up with something as
>> ridiculous as "intelligent design 'theory'" and imagines anybody with
>> more than half a brain to think this is scientific.
>The problem with this thinking is a great many scientists believe that
>perhaps the universe was designed. Try "Before the Beginning" by
>Martin Rees. The forward is by Stephen Hawking.
Who doesn't believe in design. (Very few atheists do.)
>This is who I
>initially got the idea that if we develop the ability to design universes,
>the odds of this universe being designed go way up.
And the odds of a god (or any "supernatural" designer) go way down.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want
you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our
goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by
God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want
pluralism."
-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort
Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
Al Klein
<craig....@verizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" wrote
>> "Craig Franck" said
>> >If you believe natural process can do everything that God is generally
>> >called on to do, then you obviously have no use for a designer.
>> No I don't have the belief that "natural process can do everything
>> that God is generally called on to do", I just see no evidence that
>> there's a) any need for a god, or b) that any god objectively exists.
>Look, I meant many people believe God created the unversed, and
>others (such as yourself) believe it was the result of natural process.
>You do believe that?
That people believe in one god or another? That's a fact, not
something to believe or disbelieve. Many people also "believe" that
Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. So much for what people
believe being an indicator of anything useful.
>> >I was referring to the scientific method. If you consider religion a mental
>> >disease, I don't think you are capable of forming a rational position on
>> >this matter.
>> Science is nothing if not rational. Religion is nothing if not
>> irrational. Sane people don't talk to made-up gods, so religion is a
>> mental disease.
>What, are you trying to parody someone here? You are insane if you
>pray?
Pretty much.
>> (You think the ancient Greeks had good reason to
>> believe that Zeus lived on Mt. Olympus?)
>It was a vehicle of explanation at the time.
So you think they were completely sane and their belief had some
merit. (If it had no merit they weren't completely sane to run their
lives as if the belief were true.)
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president."
- George W. Bush, quoted in George Magazine, September, 2000
"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith,
deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by
God to save Germany."
- Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler
Ed Earl Ross
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:24:52 GMT, "Craig Franck"
> <craig....@verizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>
>>pray?
>
>
> Pretty much.
Al,
Most of your points are well considered. However, your use of the
word insane, in this instance, seems either provocative or
inaccurate. The word insane implies a diseased mind, an emotionally
distressed mind, or a foolish act (as doing something bad when one
knows better). However, praying is a learned activity, a common
superstition, similar to crossing ones fingers for luck. IMO
praying is not important enough to be called an insane activity.
--
Humbly--Ed
Woodrow Wilson
"I would rather fail in a cause that will ultimately triumph
than to triumph in a cause that will ultimately fail."
Bob
>"Al Klein" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
>
>> >"There is a designer" is an inference
>>
>> Sorry, but science works on evidence, and so do I. No evidence? Then
>> you can infer anything you like, but I'm not interested in wasting my
>> time on your inference.
>
>I appreciate that. My point is the designer is part of the low-level
>inferential framework that structures the evidence. Modern science
>has a large number of these inferences (ironically, one is known as
>God's-eye view).
>
>If you believe natural process can do everything that God is generally
>called on to do, then you obviously have no use for a designer. It's
>the fact that the assumptions are so interchangeable that leads some
>to consider naturalism a form of metaphysics, too.
except 'naturalism' has one distinct advantage: we KNOW natural
processes can design things because we SEE it every day. we have NEVER
seen a non-natural designer.
>
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Christopher A. Lee
And of course nobody here is an a priori, philosophical naturalist in
spite of how many creations lie about it.
Richard Forrest
Craig Franck wrote:
> <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote
>
> >
> > Craig Franck wrote:
>
> > > It allows you to justify choice of theories based upon an
extended
> > > criteria. This is a major issue because one of the biggest
problems
> > > in
> > > the philosophy of science is the "invent a hypothesis" part of
the
> > > method.
> > >
> > > For example, before string theory, the only thing that general
> > > relativity
> > > and QM had in common was this:
> > >
> > > In GR, every observer gets to pretend they are the frame of
> > > reference.
> > > Going 99.9% the speed of light? No problem. Just pretend you're
> > > standing still near the surface of a black hole.
> > >
> > > In QM, the observer fixes the final reality by making an
observation.
> > >
> >
> > I'm sorry, but you truly don't understand QM.
>
> What is wrong with that characterization? The observer plays a major
> role in QM by collapsing probability waves. This is not true?
>
If you observe a quantum event it collapses into one of its probability
states.
The quantum event can live quite happily being two mutally contraditory
things at once without there being an observer present.
That's circular argument.
> Also, There is a designer isn't a theory any more than materialism or
the
> universe exists is a theory. It's a fundamental assumption that can't
be
> tested because it's self-verifying.
>
Materialism isn't a theory. It's a principle used in investigation. The
reason why science is based on materialism is that it works. If prayer
cured illnessess, and dancing made it rain, we'd be praying and
dancing. Science, based on materialism, works.
> > The only prediction I could see a 'designer' theory could make
> > is that an omniscient and all-powerful designer would design
perfectly.
>
> That's doesn't follow at all. It's just your conception of a
designer. Why
> does the designer have to be all powerful? Because you can therefore
> dismiss the possibility because it falls short of you pre-conceived
goal.
>
> Sounds like an obvious strawman to me.
>
So there is a designer but he doesn't have to be competent?
> > On that basis biological systems falsify the theory immediately,
> > starting with my aching spine.
>
> Anyone who put a moments thought into this would see that perhaps
> the designer designed just physics, and everything we see around us
> is statistical fallout.
>
How do you design 'physics'? How do you manufacture 'physics'?
> I've made no claims beyond this, and you're simply attacking the
> weakest form of the argument.
>
> Besides, have you ever considered that maybe the designer doesn't
like
> you?
>
So you propose a designer who may or may not be competent, who may or
may not be powerful, who may only have designed 'phyiscs', and who may
not like me. Is there any way of testing any of these hypotheses?
> > If you can identify a prediction made by the theory that the
Universe
> > was designed which does not rely on empty rhetoric and handwaving,
> > please let us know.
>
> The only one I've come up with that is scientifically testable is if
an
> intelligence designed this universe, it should be far easier than
expected
> to design our own universe to keep propagating more universes down
> this particular branch.
>
I'm sorry, but I asked for a prediction of the theory that there is a
designer. Your example presuposed that a designer exists. The point
about a prediction is that it offers the possibility of falsification.
RF
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:24:52 GMT, "Craig Franck"
>> <craig....@verizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>What, are you trying to parody someone here? You are insane if you
>>>pray?
>>
>>
>> Pretty much.
>
>Al,
>Most of your points are well considered. However, your use of the
>word insane, in this instance, seems either provocative or
>inaccurate. The word insane implies a diseased mind, an emotionally
>distressed mind, or a foolish act (as doing something bad when one
>knows better). However, praying is a learned activity, a common
>superstition, similar to crossing ones fingers for luck.
Believing the nonsense that causes it is the result of a diseased
mind. Sane people don't accept that there's a non-objectively-real
perfect creator god that reacts to prayers. It's self-contradictory.
> IMO praying is not important enough to be called an insane activity.
It caused a war we're currently fighting. You don't consider that
important?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
Bob
that's true. what creationists forget is that for thousands of years,
supernaturalism WAS the explanation of how the world works. we don't
accept it because it's a failure.
Ed Earl Ross
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:46:45 GMT, Ed Earl Ross <ede...@satx.rr.com>
> said in alt.atheism:
>
(prayer)
> caused a war we're currently fighting. You don't consider that
> important?
Prayer doesn't cause a person to become a terrorist; otherwise, we
would see terrorism independent of religion, including Buddhists.
Moreover, a terrorist is not required to pray (e.g., Stalin).
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote:
> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe was designed.
>
> Except that it isn't because there is no reason to imagine that it was
> designed.
You are stating your opinion as fact. You could fill an entire section of
a Barnes & Noble with books making a case for an argument from
design, first cause, etc. Yet you dismiss them all.
> >You have the comparison of intelligent behavior of humans and other
> >natural processes that are not intelligently driven. In fact, the observation
> >that our minds are intelligent and a natural process demonstrates that the
> >two go together without conflict.
>
> So demonstrate this process at the level of your still-hypothetical
> designer,
Do you know the difference between speculative metaphysics and a
scientific hypothesis? What is the title of this thread?
>taking into account that it is supposed to have designed
> everything so there is nothing natural at that level.
Nature is what perhaps was designed. You are aware that a designed and
un-designed universe can be logically and physically indistinguishable.
> >It's not a strawman. Metaphysical naturalism is called that because
> >it makes metaphysical claims. All you have left without that is
> >methodological naturalism, which makes no claims about naturalism
> >being a property of all things.
>
> Of course it's a strawman. And a remarkably stupid one. I even showed
> you why,.Hint: ONCE AGAIN, YOU NEED TO LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
> NOT HAVING YOUR BELIEF AND BELIEVING SOME OPPOPSITE THAT YOU HAVE
> INVENTED. This opposite that you invented, was a strawman.
>
> BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT BELIEF.
>
> Come back when you have learned some elementary logic.
It's obvious you're getting frustrated. I'm talking about metaphysics, and
you can't or won't grasp my argument.
The metaphysical notion of cause and effect can be replaced at will by
one which invokes pre-programmed actions by God. The fact that science
has good reasons to believe events occur that can be best described by
cause and effect is irrelevant to such a metaphysical claim.
Honest. I'm not making this stuff up. This is not a wacky notion in a
thread such as this.
> >Wow. Just do yourself a favor and consider reading the book.
>
> Why?
>
> I'm not arguing with Russell, or even with what you imagine he said
> that you are attempting to use as argument from authority. I'M ARGUING
> WITH YOU.
I thought we were having a discussion.
> YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WROTE WELL ENOUGH TO ARGUE IT >YOURSELF.
Okay, this is one of a few thousand ideas in the book:
Any single statement can be considered true if you are willing to build
an entire worldview or philosophical system around it. The idea that the
universe was created is one such statement.
> Explain why you imagine there is reason to conclude that the universe
> was designed.
>
> Without any of the usual fallacies.
I can't imagine framing an argument that you would not consider
fallacious.
> >The problem with this thinking is a great many scientists believe that
> >perhaps the universe was designed. Try "Before the Beginning" by
> >Martin Rees. The forward is by Stephen Hawking. This is who I
> >initially got the idea that if we develop the ability to design universes,
> >the odds of this universe being designed go way up.
>
> No. They don't. Because it is nothing to do with science, and there is
> no reason to reach that conclusion.
>
> You're just showing you are woefully ignorant of science as well as
> logic.
Books about speculative cosmology have "nothing to do with
science?" They may not be totally scientific, but science and
philosophy can be fruitfully explored together.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe was designed.
>
> Since there's no evidence of design, it's not at all "likely" that the
> universe was designed.
So there is no chance that we live in a universe that was designed to
look undesigned? From a scientific POV, you can't rule out such a
thing. It may be the case, and there is just no evidence for it.
Science only knows things probabilistically. The scientific statement
that "The universe was definitely not designed" is false. If it's false,
there must be some chance it is true. You can only dismiss it as idle
speculation, perhaps even worthless to some individuals.
> >I don't believe so. If a UFO crashed on earth, would we have to know
> >how ET's designed it to realize it wasn't a naturally occurring object?
>
> We have other flying objects to compare it with - both known designed
> objects and known undesigned objects. Do you have a known designed
> universe and a known undesigned one, so that we can compare this one
> with them?
No, and that is a good point. It's long been recognized in cosmology
that a data set of one is quite problematical when it comes to
inductive reasoning.
> >> But what else would you call it when it is so out of touch with
> >> reality, intelligence etc that it comes up with something as
> >> ridiculous as "intelligent design 'theory'" and imagines anybody with
> >> more than half a brain to think this is scientific.
>
> >The problem with this thinking is a great many scientists believe that
> >perhaps the universe was designed. Try "Before the Beginning" by
> >Martin Rees. The forward is by Stephen Hawking.
>
> Who doesn't believe in design. (Very few atheists do.)
Many also seem very hostile to the notion
Christopher A. Lee
<craig....@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Al Klein" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
>
>> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe was designed.
>>
>> Since there's no evidence of design, it's not at all "likely" that the
>> universe was designed.
>
>So there is no chance that we live in a universe that was designed to
>look undesigned? From a scientific POV, you can't rule out such a
>thing. It may be the case, and there is just no evidence for it.
Where did he say that? Clue: he didn't. Please try to be less
dishonest next time.
>Science only knows things probabilistically. The scientific statement
>that "The universe was definitely not designed" is false. If it's false,
>there must be some chance it is true. You can only dismiss it as idle
>speculation, perhaps even worthless to some individuals.
It's also your strawman. Because what is actually said is THERE IS NO
REASON TO ASSUME IT WAS DESIGNED.
When you finally grasp the difference you will stop making such an
idiot of yourself.
>> >I don't believe so. If a UFO crashed on earth, would we have to know
>> >how ET's designed it to realize it wasn't a naturally occurring object?
>>
>> We have other flying objects to compare it with - both known designed
>> objects and known undesigned objects. Do you have a known designed
>> universe and a known undesigned one, so that we can compare this one
>> with them?
>
>No, and that is a good point. It's long been recognized in cosmology
>that a data set of one is quite problematical when it comes to
>inductive reasoning.
It's better than a data set of zero which is all you have.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote:
> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe was designed.
>
> And you're wrong. Because there is no reason whatsoever to think it
> was.
What if you happen to believe in revelation? I don't believe in UFO's,
but then I've never been abducted by one...
Are you saying in the entire history of mankind no one has ever had
an experience that would generate a reasonably held believe that the
universe was designed?
> >> This becomes obvious when you substitute "megadesign" etc for what
> >> this hypothetical "designer of everything" is supposed to have
> >> designed.
> >>
> >> 1. If everything is "megadesigned" by an intelligent designer there is
> >> nothing "meganatural" for comparison.
> >
> >You have the comparison of intelligent behavior of humans and other
> >natural processes that are not intelligently driven. In fact, the observation
> >that our minds are intelligent and a natural process demonstrates that the
> >two go together without conflict.
>
> No. You don't. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING NATURAL AT THE LEVEL OF YOUR
> HYPOTHETICAL DESIGNER.
Why can't the designer be naturalistic too? They could have evolved
in another quite rare, naturally occurring universe that has such
creatures.
> Which word are you pretending you don't understand?
I'm not trying to be stubborn. I just think the situation is more
complicated than you are aware of.
It's like I speculate that perhaps the universe we inhabit is just maybe
a simulation on an unimaginably advanced computer, and the person
I'm talking to gets grievously offended at the notion.
Do you feel that the only justified source of beliefs about the universe
are ones that resemble science? If you do, you are way in the minority.
Christopher A. Lee
<craig....@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Christopher A. Lee" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" wrote:
>
>> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe was designed.
>>
>> And you're wrong. Because there is no reason whatsoever to think it
>> was.
>
>What if you happen to believe in revelation? I don't believe in UFO's,
>but then I've never been abducted by one...
What's that got to do with it?
>Are you saying in the entire history of mankind no one has ever had
>an experience that would generate a reasonably held believe that the
>universe was designed?
Give the man a peanut.
>> >> This becomes obvious when you substitute "megadesign" etc for what
>> >> this hypothetical "designer of everything" is supposed to have
>> >> designed.
>> >>
>> >> 1. If everything is "megadesigned" by an intelligent designer there is
>> >> nothing "meganatural" for comparison.
>> >
>> >You have the comparison of intelligent behavior of humans and other
>> >natural processes that are not intelligently driven. In fact, the observation
>> >that our minds are intelligent and a natural process demonstrates that the
>> >two go together without conflict.
>>
>> No. You don't. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING NATURAL AT THE LEVEL OF YOUR
>> HYPOTHETICAL DESIGNER.
>
>Why can't the designer be naturalistic too? They could have evolved
>in another quite rare, naturally occurring universe that has such
>creatures.
What designer?
In the light of what you have been repeatedly told, give the evidecne
for this hypothetical designer.
You can't.
So you are just pissing into the wind.
>> Which word are you pretending you don't understand?
>
>I'm not trying to be stubborn. I just think the situation is more
>complicated than you are aware of.
You don't think anything.
>It's like I speculate that perhaps the universe we inhabit is just maybe
>a simulation on an unimaginably advanced computer, and the person
>I'm talking to gets grievously offended at the notion.
Then back it up.
And stop lying.
Several of us have already told y ou why there is no way to infer a
designer.
Which you repeatedly ignore.
And now you lie about the reasons people react negatively to you.
>Do you feel that the only justified source of beliefs about the universe
>are ones that resemble science? If you do, you are way in the minority.
Where did I say that? Clue: that is another of your stupid
fabrications.
Learn some basic logic.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote:
>
> >"Al Klein" wrote
> >
> >> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
> >
> >> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe was designed.
> >>
> >> Since there's no evidence of design, it's not at all "likely" that the
> >> universe was designed.
> >
> >So there is no chance that we live in a universe that was designed to
> >look undesigned? From a scientific POV, you can't rule out such a
> >thing. It may be the case, and there is just no evidence for it.
>
> Where did he say that? Clue: he didn't. Please try to be less
> dishonest next time.
He said 'it's not at all "likely". There is indeed some likelihood that
the universe was designed. So that statement is false. Period. Things
can likely be true that there is no evidence for. The fact that the
statement is false in a deceptive way is what perhaps opens it up
for different interpretations.
There is no evidence for a whole slew of subatomic particles we may
possibly learn of in the future, but there being ones we don't know
is a near certainty. It is the nature of science to surprise us. No?
"No evidence" does not equal "not likely." So, since NE then NL is
false.
> >Science only knows things probabilistically. The scientific statement
> >that "The universe was definitely not designed" is false. If it's false,
> >there must be some chance it is true. You can only dismiss it as idle
> >speculation, perhaps even worthless to some individuals.
>
> It's also your strawman. Because what is actually said is THERE IS NO
> REASON TO ASSUME IT WAS DESIGNED.
CAPITALIZATION doesn't make it any truer. If I'm a religious person
who was raised to believe in a designer Being, I have no reason to believe
it is true? Is that your argument? Good luck with that one.
He means there is no scientific reason. I GET THAT. I've used the word
"metaphysical" almost two dozen times in this thread. He is saying there
is no evidence for a metaphysical notion he disagrees with. THAT IS
ALMOST ALWAYS THE CASE. The fact that you two seem to expect
there to be worries me.
He needs to make a case that the only RATIONAL reason for believing
in a designer is a scientific sort of one. He hasn't even tried that.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote:
> >What if you happen to believe in revelation? I don't believe in UFO's,
> >but then I've never been abducted by one...
>
> What's that got to do with it?
I think I got it: If I had a religious revelation (God appeared to me and
said He designed the universe) would that be a valid reason to think it
designed? To me it would be. Does that make me an idiot?
> >Why can't the designer be naturalistic too? They could have evolved
> >in another quite rare, naturally occurring universe that has such
> >creatures.
>
> What designer?
>
> In the light of what you have been repeatedly told, give the evidecne
> for this hypothetical designer.
>
> You can't.
>
> So you are just pissing into the wind.
That's because the designer is not hypothetical but a metaphysical
construct. Do you know what metaphysics is?
> >> Which word are you pretending you don't understand?
> >
> >I'm not trying to be stubborn. I just think the situation is more
> >complicated than you are aware of.
>
> You don't think anything.
Why are you being so nasty?
> Several of us have already told y ou why there is no way to infer a
> designer.
>
> Which you repeatedly ignore.
I don't accept your opinion as fact, so I'm an idiot. Okay. Nice...
> >Do you feel that the only justified source of beliefs about the universe
> >are ones that resemble science? If you do, you are way in the minority.
>
> Where did I say that? Clue: that is another of your stupid
> fabrications.
You never did, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION RATHER
THAN ASSERT IT AS FACT.
Look, calm down and read slower.
Bob
<craig....@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Al Klein" wrote
>
>>
>> Who doesn't believe in design. (Very few atheists do.)
>
>Many also seem very hostile to the notion
>
hardly. the problem is that some theists think it should be used to
explain everything. it's a garbage dump for lazy thinking.
Fred Stone
news:EyxRd.22653$sR5.18737@trndny05:
> "Christopher A. Lee" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" wrote:
>
>> >What if you happen to believe in revelation? I don't believe in
>> >UFO's, but then I've never been abducted by one...
>>
>> What's that got to do with it?
>
> I think I got it: If I had a religious revelation (God appeared to me
> and said He designed the universe) would that be a valid reason to
> think it designed? To me it would be. Does that make me an idiot?
>
It would make you a schizophrenic.
>> >Why can't the designer be naturalistic too? They could have evolved
>> >in another quite rare, naturally occurring universe that has such
>> >creatures.
>>
>> What designer?
>>
>> In the light of what you have been repeatedly told, give the evidecne
>> for this hypothetical designer.
>>
>> You can't.
>>
>> So you are just pissing into the wind.
>
> That's because the designer is not hypothetical but a metaphysical
> construct. Do you know what metaphysics is?
>
Metaphysics is *not* a way of just making shit up.
>> >> Which word are you pretending you don't understand?
>> >
>> >I'm not trying to be stubborn. I just think the situation is more
>> >complicated than you are aware of.
>>
>> You don't think anything.
>
> Why are you being so nasty?
>
Because you're being stupid.
>> Several of us have already told y ou why there is no way to infer a
>> designer.
>>
>> Which you repeatedly ignore.
>
> I don't accept your opinion as fact, so I'm an idiot. Okay. Nice...
>
You don't seem to accept facts either.
>> >Do you feel that the only justified source of beliefs about the
>> >universe are ones that resemble science? If you do, you are way in
>> >the minority.
>>
>> Where did I say that? Clue: that is another of your stupid
>> fabrications.
>
> You never did, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION RATHER
> THAN ASSERT IT AS FACT.
>
> Look, calm down and read slower.
>
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
Fred Stone
> "Christopher A. Lee" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" wrote:
>
>> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe was
>> >designed.
>>
>> Except that it isn't because there is no reason to imagine that it
>> was designed.
>
> You are stating your opinion as fact. You could fill an entire section
> of a Barnes & Noble with books making a case for an argument from
> design, first cause, etc. Yet you dismiss them all.
>
We "dismiss" them because we have refuted them all. Yes, every one of
them.
>> >You have the comparison of intelligent behavior of humans and other
>> >natural processes that are not intelligently driven. In fact, the
>> >observation that our minds are intelligent and a natural process
>> >demonstrates that the two go together without conflict.
>>
>> So demonstrate this process at the level of your still-hypothetical
>> designer,
>
> Do you know the difference between speculative metaphysics and a
> scientific hypothesis? What is the title of this thread?
>
Is "speculative metaphysics" another way of saying "imaginary crap?"
>>taking into account that it is supposed to have designed
>> everything so there is nothing natural at that level.
>
> Nature is what perhaps was designed. You are aware that a designed and
> un-designed universe can be logically and physically
> indistinguishable.
>
In which case the distinction is irrelevant.
>> >It's not a strawman. Metaphysical naturalism is called that because
>> >it makes metaphysical claims. All you have left without that is
>> >methodological naturalism, which makes no claims about naturalism
>> >being a property of all things.
>>
>> Of course it's a strawman. And a remarkably stupid one. I even showed
>> you why,.Hint: ONCE AGAIN, YOU NEED TO LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
>> NOT HAVING YOUR BELIEF AND BELIEVING SOME OPPOPSITE THAT YOU HAVE
>> INVENTED. This opposite that you invented, was a strawman.
>>
>> BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT BELIEF.
>>
>> Come back when you have learned some elementary logic.
>
> It's obvious you're getting frustrated. I'm talking about metaphysics,
> and you can't or won't grasp my argument.
>
> The metaphysical notion of cause and effect can be replaced at will by
> one which invokes pre-programmed actions by God. The fact that science
> has good reasons to believe events occur that can be best described by
> cause and effect is irrelevant to such a metaphysical claim.
>
> Honest. I'm not making this stuff up. This is not a wacky notion in a
> thread such as this.
>
Yes, it's a wacky notion in any forum anywhere.
>> >Wow. Just do yourself a favor and consider reading the book.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> I'm not arguing with Russell, or even with what you imagine he said
>> that you are attempting to use as argument from authority. I'M
>> ARGUING WITH YOU.
>
> I thought we were having a discussion.
>
You seem to be fantasizing.
>> YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WROTE WELL ENOUGH TO ARGUE IT
>> >YOURSELF.
>
> Okay, this is one of a few thousand ideas in the book:
>
> Any single statement can be considered true if you are willing to
> build an entire worldview or philosophical system around it. The idea
> that the universe was created is one such statement.
>
Another way of saying that anybody can fool themselves if they work hard
enough at it.
>> Explain why you imagine there is reason to conclude that the universe
>> was designed.
>>
>> Without any of the usual fallacies.
>
> I can't imagine framing an argument that you would not consider
> fallacious.
>
Bingo!
>> >The problem with this thinking is a great many scientists believe
>> >that perhaps the universe was designed. Try "Before the Beginning"
>> >by Martin Rees. The forward is by Stephen Hawking. This is who I
>> >initially got the idea that if we develop the ability to design
>> >universes, the odds of this universe being designed go way up.
>>
>> No. They don't. Because it is nothing to do with science, and there
>> is no reason to reach that conclusion.
>>
>> You're just showing you are woefully ignorant of science as well as
>> logic.
>
> Books about speculative cosmology have "nothing to do with
> science?" They may not be totally scientific, but science and
> philosophy can be fruitfully explored together.
>
--
Fred Stone
> "Christopher A. Lee" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" wrote:
>>
>> >"Al Klein" wrote
>> >
>> >> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
>> >
>> >> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe
>> >> >was designed.
>> >>
>> >> Since there's no evidence of design, it's not at all "likely" that
>> >> the universe was designed.
>> >
>> >So there is no chance that we live in a universe that was designed
>> >to look undesigned? From a scientific POV, you can't rule out such a
>> >thing. It may be the case, and there is just no evidence for it.
>>
>> Where did he say that? Clue: he didn't. Please try to be less
>> dishonest next time.
>
> He said 'it's not at all "likely". There is indeed some likelihood
> that the universe was designed. So that statement is false. Period.
> Things can likely be true that there is no evidence for. The fact that
> the statement is false in a deceptive way is what perhaps opens it up
> for different interpretations.
>
This is a fallacy. Just because we cannot prove that it is impossible
doesn't prove that it is in fact possible.
> There is no evidence for a whole slew of subatomic particles we may
> possibly learn of in the future, but there being ones we don't know
> is a near certainty. It is the nature of science to surprise us. No?
>
> "No evidence" does not equal "not likely." So, since NE then NL is
> false.
>
There is no reason to assume that it is likely just because we have no
evidence that it is likely.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote
> > "Christopher A. Lee" wrote
> >
> >> "Craig Franck" wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Al Klein" wrote
> >> >
> >> >> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
> >> >
> >> >> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe
> >> >> >was designed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Since there's no evidence of design, it's not at all "likely" that
> >> >> the universe was designed.
> >> >
> >> >So there is no chance that we live in a universe that was designed
> >> >to look undesigned? From a scientific POV, you can't rule out such a
> >> >thing. It may be the case, and there is just no evidence for it.
> >>
> >> Where did he say that? Clue: he didn't. Please try to be less
> >> dishonest next time.
> >
> > He said 'it's not at all "likely". There is indeed some likelihood
> > that the universe was designed. So that statement is false. Period.
> > Things can likely be true that there is no evidence for. The fact that
> > the statement is false in a deceptive way is what perhaps opens it up
> > for different interpretations.
> >
>
> This is a fallacy. Just because we cannot prove that it is impossible
> doesn't prove that it is in fact possible.
I understand that.
Strictly speaking, even science only deals in likelihood through
probabilistic induction. I would not expect any argument like this
to demonstrate anything other than it is a possibility that the
universe was created.
The major objection that I see with this is since there is no
evidence for the universe being created, believing it is the case
is an example of entertaining a pet idea for it's own sake.
The Greeks were doing this 2,500 years ago to good effect.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote
> > "Christopher A. Lee" wrote
> >
> >> "Craig Franck" wrote:
> >
> >> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe was
> >> >designed.
> >>
> >> Except that it isn't because there is no reason to imagine that it
> >> was designed.
> >
> > You are stating your opinion as fact. You could fill an entire section
> > of a Barnes & Noble with books making a case for an argument from
> > design, first cause, etc. Yet you dismiss them all.
> >
>
> We "dismiss" them because we have refuted them all. Yes, every one of
> them.
Well, if you feel that way, then I doubt I could add anything that
would cause you to re-evaluate your position on this matter.
> > Do you know the difference between speculative metaphysics and a
> > scientific hypothesis? What is the title of this thread?
> >
>
> Is "speculative metaphysics" another way of saying "imaginary crap?"
In many cases. But then a lot of "imaginary crap" like Hilbert spaces
and representational realism have gone on to be invaluable to science.
Fred Stone
> "Fred Stone" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" wrote
>
>> > "Christopher A. Lee" wrote
>> >
>> >> "Craig Franck" wrote:
>> >
>> >> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe
>> >> >was designed.
>> >>
>> >> Except that it isn't because there is no reason to imagine that it
>> >> was designed.
>> >
>> > You are stating your opinion as fact. You could fill an entire
>> > section of a Barnes & Noble with books making a case for an
>> > argument from design, first cause, etc. Yet you dismiss them all.
>> >
>>
>> We "dismiss" them because we have refuted them all. Yes, every one of
>> them.
>
> Well, if you feel that way, then I doubt I could add anything that
> would cause you to re-evaluate your position on this matter.
>
You could provide some real objective evidence to support your
speculation.
>> > Do you know the difference between speculative metaphysics and a
>> > scientific hypothesis? What is the title of this thread?
>> >
>>
>> Is "speculative metaphysics" another way of saying "imaginary crap?"
>
> In many cases. But then a lot of "imaginary crap" like Hilbert spaces
> and representational realism have gone on to be invaluable to science.
>
That's because they turn out to explain real objective evidence.
Al Klein
<craig....@verizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" wrote
>> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
>> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe was designed.
>> Since there's no evidence of design, it's not at all "likely" that the
>> universe was designed.
>So there is no chance that we live in a universe that was designed to
>look undesigned?
Chance? Yes. Enough chance to waste time thinking about it? No.
> From a scientific POV, you can't rule out such a thing.
Science only rules out the impossible. It tries to find explanations
for the observed. There's a whole universe between those two that
science doesn't waste its time on.
> It may be the case, and there is just no evidence for it.
It may also be the case that Maeve created the universe last Thursday.
Do you seriously want to ask the government for funds to study whether
that's what happened?
>> >I don't believe so. If a UFO crashed on earth, would we have to know
>> >how ET's designed it to realize it wasn't a naturally occurring object?
>> We have other flying objects to compare it with - both known designed
>> objects and known undesigned objects. Do you have a known designed
>> universe and a known undesigned one, so that we can compare this one
>> with them?
>No, and that is a good point. It's long been recognized in cosmology
>that a data set of one is quite problematical when it comes to
>inductive reasoning.
Only for values of "problematical" approaching "totally useless".
>> >> But what else would you call it when it is so out of touch with
>> >> reality, intelligence etc that it comes up with something as
>> >> ridiculous as "intelligent design 'theory'" and imagines anybody with
>> >> more than half a brain to think this is scientific.
>> >The problem with this thinking is a great many scientists believe that
>> >perhaps the universe was designed. Try "Before the Beginning" by
>> >Martin Rees. The forward is by Stephen Hawking.
>> Who doesn't believe in design. (Very few atheists do.)
>Many also seem very hostile to the notion
Hawking isn't. He just uses religion to increase his sales.
Al Klein
<craig....@verizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>> >So there is no chance that we live in a universe that was designed to
>> >look undesigned? From a scientific POV, you can't rule out such a
>> >thing. It may be the case, and there is just no evidence for it.
>> Where did he say that? Clue: he didn't. Please try to be less
>> dishonest next time.
>He said 'it's not at all "likely". There is indeed some likelihood that
>the universe was designed.
Now you're equivocating. Possible and likely aren't the same thing.
Is it possible that the universe was designed? Yes, to the extent
that it's not impossible. Is it likely? Not in the slightest. It's
more likely that I'll find a winning lottery ticket on my lawn
tomorrow morning. MUCH more likely.
>> It's also your strawman. Because what is actually said is THERE IS NO
>> REASON TO ASSUME IT WAS DESIGNED.
>CAPITALIZATION doesn't make it any truer. If I'm a religious person
>who was raised to believe in a designer Being, I have no reason to believe
>it is true?
We were talking about scientific possibility, so no, you'd have no
scientifically-backed reason, whether you were religious or not.
>He needs to make a case that the only RATIONAL reason for believing
>in a designer is a scientific sort of one.
There's no evidence of design and there's no reason there needs to be
design, so there's no rational reason to believe that the universe is
designed, without even bringing science into it. (Religion is not
rational.)
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:16:03 GMT, "Craig Franck"
><craig....@verizon.net> wrote:
>>"Al Klein" wrote
>>> Who doesn't believe in design. (Very few atheists do.)
>>Many also seem very hostile to the notion
>hardly. the problem is that some theists think it should be used to
>explain everything. it's a garbage dump for lazy thinking.
And some theists equate lack of belief with hostility.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
Craig Franck
> Craig Franck wrote:
> > Sounds like an obvious strawman to me.
> >
>
> So there is a designer but he doesn't have to be competent?
Why in the world would that have to be the case? According to
Cabala, this world is a knock-off by a lesser deity.
You need to know the goal and motivation to grasp whether some-
thing was well done. This might not be the best of all worlds, but
the one in which the most can happen, good and bad. Also, the
designer may hate me, which would explain a lot.
> > > On that basis biological systems falsify the theory immediately,
> > > starting with my aching spine.
> >
> > Anyone who put a moments thought into this would see that perhaps
> > the designer designed just physics, and everything we see around us
> > is statistical fallout.
> >
>
> How do you design 'physics'? How do you manufacture 'physics'?
According to string theory, you might tear and refold the Calabi Yau
spaces to get the strings vibrating in a manner that brings about the
physics you want. Then you need to inflate the space in a black hole.
> > The only one I've come up with that is scientifically testable is if
> > an
> > intelligence designed this universe, it should be far easier than
> > expected
> > to design our own universe to keep propagating more universes down
> > this particular branch.
>
> I'm sorry, but I asked for a prediction of the theory that there is a
> designer. Your example presuposed that a designer exists. The point
> about a prediction is that it offers the possibility of falsification.
If we can create universes in the next 500 years, that might be because
a designer wanted us to design more of them to keep this branch of
the multiverse propagating along.
Al Klein
said in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:46:45 GMT, Ed Earl Ross <ede...@satx.rr.com>
>> said in alt.atheism:
>> It (prayer)
>> caused a war we're currently fighting. You don't consider that
>> important?
>Prayer doesn't cause a person to become a terrorist
Religion does, so it's pretty much the same thing.
>otherwise, we would see terrorism independent of religion
Religion isn't the only thing that causes terrorism, but religion does
cause terrorism. Or don't you consider what happened on 9/11
terrorism? (It most definitely was caused by religion.)
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the
one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H. L. Mencken
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" said in alt.atheism:
> >He needs to make a case that the only RATIONAL reason for believing
> >in a designer is a scientific sort of one.
>
> There's no evidence of design and there's no reason there needs to be
> design, so there's no rational reason to believe that the universe is
> designed, without even bringing science into it. (Religion is not
> rational.)
I can respect that position.
I also got into a discussion with someone who pointed out that my
designer argument was trying to function in three different domains --
metaphysics, religion, and science -- which practically guarantees that
it is going to be broken at some deep level.
Al Klein
<craig....@verizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>Strictly speaking, even science only deals in likelihood through
>probabilistic induction.
Based on observation. Since no one's ever observed either creation or
a creator, science doesn't concern itself with the issue.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote
>
> > "Fred Stone" wrote
> >
> >> "Craig Franck" wrote
> >> > You are stating your opinion as fact. You could fill an entire
> >> > section of a Barnes & Noble with books making a case for an
> >> > argument from design, first cause, etc. Yet you dismiss them all.
> >> >
> >>
> >> We "dismiss" them because we have refuted them all. Yes, every one of
> >> them.
> >
> > Well, if you feel that way, then I doubt I could add anything that
> > would cause you to re-evaluate your position on this matter.
> >
>
> You could provide some real objective evidence to support your
> speculation.
The problem with that is I've been down all those roads before. Every
argument can be countered with an appeal to natural process. Smolin's
Baby Universes theory that tunes for black hole formation followed by
this simply being a Raw Fact seems reasonable.
The only people I ever convince are those pre-disposed to believing in
the first place.
Al Klein
<craig....@verizon.net> said in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" wrote
>> There's no evidence of design and there's no reason there needs to be
>> design, so there's no rational reason to believe that the universe is
>> designed, without even bringing science into it. (Religion is not
>> rational.)
>I can respect that position.
>I also got into a discussion with someone who pointed out that my
>designer argument was trying to function in three different domains --
>metaphysics, religion, and science -- which practically guarantees that
>it is going to be broken at some deep level.
It's trivially broken at every level.
As far as science goes, no evidence of, nor need for, creation, breaks
it.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Ed Earl Ross
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:45:33 GMT, Ed Earl Ross <ede...@satx.rr.com>
> said in alt.atheism:
>
> cause terrorism. Or don't you consider what happened on 9/11
> terrorism? (It most definitely was caused by religion.)
Yes, religion can be a terrible thing. Millennia of wars have been
fought over religious one-up-manship. To survive a religion must
grow. Converts and births contribute to membership growth. To make
a convert, one sells ones own religion and kicks the competitor.
The basic argument is "Buy my religion and you will feel better
than if you continue your false beliefs. In the extreme, "feel
better" means "feel superior to the inhuman non-believers." This
form of extreme religion is religious bigotry, and it breeds war.
Stalin taught atheism and hatred of non-communists--without prayer.
Buddhism teaches non-violence--with prayer. Some Muslim clerics
teach hatred of non-Muslims and terrorism--with prayer. For several
hundred years, some Catholic and some Protestants in Northern
Ireland terrorized each other--with prayer.
Christopher A. Lee
So when are those who invoke metaphysics and religion going to
demonstrate that they actually apply in the real world?
Fred Stone
> "Fred Stone" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" wrote
>>
>> > "Fred Stone" wrote
>> >
>> >> "Craig Franck" wrote
>
>> >> > You are stating your opinion as fact. You could fill an entire
>> >> > section of a Barnes & Noble with books making a case for an
>> >> > argument from design, first cause, etc. Yet you dismiss them
>> >> > all.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> We "dismiss" them because we have refuted them all. Yes, every one
>> >> of them.
>> >
>> > Well, if you feel that way, then I doubt I could add anything that
>> > would cause you to re-evaluate your position on this matter.
>> >
>>
>> You could provide some real objective evidence to support your
>> speculation.
>
> The problem with that is I've been down all those roads before. Every
> argument can be countered with an appeal to natural process. Smolin's
> Baby Universes theory that tunes for black hole formation followed by
> this simply being a Raw Fact seems reasonable.
>
You're confusing "arguments" with "evidence".
> The only people I ever convince are those pre-disposed to believing in
> the first place.
>
That should tell you something about the quality of your arguments.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote:
> >I also got into a discussion with someone who pointed out that my
> >designer argument was trying to function in three different domains --
> >metaphysics, religion, and science -- which practically guarantees that
> >it is going to be broken at some deep level.
>
> So when are those who invoke metaphysics and religion going to
> demonstrate that they actually apply in the real world?
They have. I gave the examples of Hilbert spaces and representational
realism. The fact that recreational mathematics have been put to good
use in the past demonstrates that purely imaginative thinking is often
quite productive. Science itself is a hybrid of various kinds of realisms
and rationalisms that have found good use.
There is also the ironic fact that several people appear to be full-on
proponents of metaphysical naturalism. This reveals the reason why
the arguments that have been made against me are often so
effective: the positive demonstration of naturalism's ability to solve
all problems of existence is never actually made, it is simply assumed
that all rational people think that way. It wins by default.
So you seem to be taking all the useful aspects of metaphysics (even
religion, because the kind of naturalism you are advocating is quite
similar to hylozoistic mystery religions from fifth century Greece), and
that is why it seems so easy to win arguments like this.
Craig Franck
> "Craig Franck" wrote
> > "Fred Stone" wrote
> >> You could provide some real objective evidence to support your
> >> speculation.
> >
> > The problem with that is I've been down all those roads before. Every
> > argument can be countered with an appeal to natural process. Smolin's
> > Baby Universes theory that tunes for black hole formation followed by
> > this simply being a Raw Fact seems reasonable.
> >
>
> You're confusing "arguments" with "evidence".
The two are related. All evidence needs an interpretative framework/
argument.
For example, the evidence of religious revelation that was labeled a
kind of schizophrenia requires an extremely sophisticated view of the
human mind and what constitutes pathology, as opposed to alternative
reality, that has only come into being in the last 100 years or so.
> > The only people I ever convince are those pre-disposed to believing in
> > the first place.
> >
>
> That should tell you something about the quality of your arguments.
Are you posting from alt.atheism?
Zachriel
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:co6d1193kmmaq1djf...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:41:46 GMT, "Craig Franck"
> <craig....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" wrote
>>
>>> "Craig Franck" wrote:
>>
>>> >I'm just stating that it is as likely as not that the universe was
>>> >designed.
>>>
>>> And you're wrong. Because there is no reason whatsoever to think it
>>> was.
>>
>>What if you happen to believe in revelation? I don't believe in UFO's,
>>but then I've never been abducted by one...
>
> What's that got to do with it?
The point was that if you had a personal revelation you might be convinced
of a Creator's existence, though you would still lack objective scientific
evidence.
>>Are you saying in the entire history of mankind no one has ever had
>>an experience that would generate a reasonably held believe that the
>>universe was designed?
>
> Give the man a peanut.
>
>>> >> This becomes obvious when you substitute "megadesign" etc for what
>>> >> this hypothetical "designer of everything" is supposed to have
>>> >> designed.
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. If everything is "megadesigned" by an intelligent designer there
>>> >> is
>>> >> nothing "meganatural" for comparison.
>>> >
>>> >You have the comparison of intelligent behavior of humans and other
>>> >natural processes that are not intelligently driven. In fact, the
>>> >observation
>>> >that our minds are intelligent and a natural process demonstrates that
>>> >the
>>> >two go together without conflict.
>>>
>>> No. You don't. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING NATURAL AT THE LEVEL OF YOUR
>>> HYPOTHETICAL DESIGNER.
>>
>>Why can't the designer be naturalistic too? They could have evolved
>>in another quite rare, naturally occurring universe that has such
>>creatures.
>
> What designer?
Franck could be referring to the possibility of creating new universes from
gravitational singularities (or some such). If this were possible, then
creatures in that world might determine that they were evolved and that
stars and galaxies were formed by "natural processes", and yet, the universe
itself would have been created. It's just one of many possible scenarios.
Remember, this is metaphysics.
> In the light of what you have been repeatedly told, give the evidecne
> for this hypothetical designer.
>
> You can't.
There is no such *scientific* evidence.
> So you are just pissing into the wind.
>
>>> Which word are you pretending you don't understand?
>>
>>I'm not trying to be stubborn. I just think the situation is more
>>complicated than you are aware of.
>
> You don't think anything.
>
>>It's like I speculate that perhaps the universe we inhabit is just maybe
>>a simulation on an unimaginably advanced computer, and the person
>>I'm talking to gets grievously offended at the notion.
>
> Then back it up.
>
> And stop lying.
Why do you assume that because you disagree with someone that they are
lying? I've read the whole exchange and at no point have I found Craig
Franck to be intentionally misleading.
The Matrix world is completely consistent with science, along with Last
Thursdayism. Science ignores such extraneous notions as they are not subject
to validation by the scientific method, but metaphysics is not so
constrained.
>
> Several of us have already told y ou why there is no way to infer a
> designer.
There is no objective or scientific evidence of a designer. The assertion of
a designer is not scientific. Those who claim that there is scientific
evidence of a creator are mistaken.
> Which you repeatedly ignore.
>
> And now you lie about the reasons people react negatively to you.
>
>>Do you feel that the only justified source of beliefs about the universe
>>are ones that resemble science? If you do, you are way in the minority.
>
> Where did I say that? Clue: that is another of your stupid
> fabrications.
>
> Learn some basic logic.
What other sources of knowledge do you acknowledge?
Fred Stone
> "Fred Stone" wrote
>
>> "Craig Franck" wrote
>
>> > "Fred Stone" wrote
>
>> >> You could provide some real objective evidence to support your
>> >> speculation.
>> >
>> > The problem with that is I've been down all those roads before.
>> > Every argument can be countered with an appeal to natural process.
>> > Smolin's Baby Universes theory that tunes for black hole formation
>> > followed by this simply being a Raw Fact seems reasonable.
>> >
>>
>> You're confusing "arguments" with "evidence".
>
> The two are related. All evidence needs an interpretative framework/
> argument.
>
Why do I suspect that you want to put the framework ahead of the
observation?
> For example, the evidence of religious revelation that was labeled a
> kind of schizophrenia requires an extremely sophisticated view of the
> human mind and what constitutes pathology, as opposed to alternative
> reality, that has only come into being in the last 100 years or so.
>
I'm not entirely sure where you want to go with this. Are you saying
that the schizophrenic might be experiencing something that is
objectively real?
>> > The only people I ever convince are those pre-disposed to believing
>> > in the first place.
>> >
>>
>> That should tell you something about the quality of your arguments.
>
> Are you posting from alt.atheism?
>
Yes, why?
Al Klein
<ca...@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
>So when are those who invoke metaphysics and religion going to
>demonstrate that they actually apply in the real world?
Is "the day after never" in the running?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein