Is strict atheism a barrier to knowledge and truth?

[Starboard Tack]

In Iris Fry's book The Emergence of Life on Earth, she makes a statement that demonstrates a common, and possibly defective view of knowledge. The preamble to this statement is a complaint against people she refers to as "Creationists" who, in her opinion, pervert science to further their philosophical arguments. The context to the statement is that instead of billions of years for chemicals to self organize into life on the primordial earth, research has shown that the window has shrunk to around 10 million years, prompting those pesky "Creationists" to note that this isn't enough time for a purely naturalistic explanation for life's beginnings. The statement is this:

Notice the paradox that the findings of scientific research are seen fit, under the circumstances, to serve as evidence against science (by creationists). (page 125).

What is intriguing here is that the research simply argues against a long period of time for life to appear, and says nothing about the value of science. However, by noticing it, apparently the theists are guilty of being anti-science. This is a classic illustration of the topic I'd like to explore.

By adopting the view that a belief in God's existence and his involvement in his creation is a priori off limits, Dr. Fry believes that any suggestion that naturalistic explanation may lack explanatory power and be wrong is by definition anti-science. But is it?

God either does, or does not exist. In what form he/she/it exists is another topic, but is it not a given that there is at least a possibility, even if rejected, that he/she/it does exist?

And if it is a possibility, then by excluding supernatural involvement as a matter of philosophic dogma when trying to understand intractable problems doesn't the scientist who insists on pure naturalism guarantee that he or she may never be able to find the truth? In other words, if the existence of God is even the remotest possibility, isn't the rejection of that possibility without consideration itself anti-scientific? Directed panspermia is taken as a scientific proposition for life's origins, proposed by Nobel prize winners. Is that more scientific than the belief that the causal agent who brought the universe into existence is a personal being?

I can think of examples where scientific advancement has been stultified as a result of an insistence on a purely naturalistic understanding of the world. If so, doesn't it behoove scientists to entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, even if only to be able to rule it out when a naturalistic explanation is found?[/i]

[FinalEnigma]

In simple answer to the OP, I believe the a priori assumption that everything has a natural explanation and not a supernatural one is fully justified. The reason for this has been perhaps best said by Tim Minchin, a Brilliant comedian.

"Throughout history, every mystery ever solver has turned out to be...not magic."


(profanity warning)

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe. Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

Even if I go so far as to accept that the cause of our universe was external to it, why does this mean that it was supernatural/non-natural? Can you show that it wasn't an accident caused by a scientist in a parallel universe or some other natural cause? that it necessarily was supernatural?

Perhaps, but isn't it true that if this universe was the result of a test tube experiment by a scientist in a universe outside our own, would he not represent a causation outside the natural world we know, a.k.a. a supernatural or non-natural cause?

There's a difference between "outside the natural world that we know", and "not natural". My example of an alien scientist would be perfectly natural.

Can you provide an example of where something comes into being in this universe without a cause, or more interestingly, where the effect of a cause is greater than the cause itself?

where the effect of a cause is greater than the cause itself? that's easy: splitting the atom, the butterfly effect, rumors, etc.

For a simple example, is it possible that a 200# man jumps into a pool and causes the displacement of 500,000# of water?

I assume you mean lbs? a 200 pound man could EASILY displace more than 200 pounds of water if he hit the water with any kind of velocity, especially if he was a terrible diver! If he slid slowly into the water, he wouldn't displace much, but if he hit it at 200 MPH he would displace far more than 200 lbs of water. 500,000 lbs would be tough, unless maybe he hit the water at meteoric speeds.

If not, you can begin to understand how the creation of everything from nothing is a stretch of logic.

I don't think anyone has proposed that the universe came from nothing - admittedly I haven't read the entire thread.

[Starboard Tack]

[quote="FinalEnigma

Nothing even similar to this, nothing comparable has ever been witnessed. We have only ever seen matter and energy changing form, we have never witnessed it coming into existence and according to the first law of thermodynamics, it is impossible for it to come into existence.

You seem to be missing the point that the universe came into existence from outside the universe, meaning the laws of physics, including the 1st LoT does not apply to the the causal agent that exists outside the universe. Your very point proves mine.

However, what can reasonably be assumed, since it is universally true for everything we can observe is that all things that exist have a cause. Can you provide an example where something comes from nothing in this universe?

As far as I can tell, virtual particles. They only come into existence under certain conditions but they do not appear to have a cause. Even still, I don't have to provide anything, we have no idea how matter and energy came into existence or even if they did. Positing that matter and energy changing form has a cause therefore matter and energy coming into existence must have a cause is illogical, they are two completely different things.

Arguing that because you don't understand or accept a cause means it doesn't exist is preposterous. I challenge you again, show an example of something that exists without a cause. Your example of virtual particles doesn't apply, since their behavior and existence is predicted by quantum physics. Some things came into existence at the big bang. Among those include the physical characteristics of the universe. The cause of matter, including virtual particles is the singularity. So, within this universe, again please provide an example of effect without cause, or to use your terms to me earlier "retract your statement."

Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

The nature of these causes is completely unknown though, positing anything about them would be illogical especially the notion of "creation".

I grant that the cause of what is (our universe) is not measurable. However, it is illogical to dispute that what is, cannot be the result of it having been created.

Did I say that? I said that positing the notion of creation is illogical, as far as I'm aware, there is nothing credible to base that on.

If something exists, like the universe, it has a cause. No exceptions in this universe. For you to argue that there is nothing credible on which to base the statement that what exists must have a cause is itself an illogical statement. Again, to quote you, prove it or withdraw it.

How else would you explain its existence?

Oh so now you're saying, "any explanation is a good explanation." This is far from scientific and has nothing to do with truth.

No, what I am saying is that what exists, exists and therefore must have a cause. How am I wrong?

The universe exists, therefore is was caused. Are you arguing that it doesn't exist, or that it can come into existence without a cause? If the latter, again, please provide examples of effect without cause, or better yet, of effect that is greater than its cause.

I'm not arguing either, i'm just pointing out the illogical notions you've tried to put forward.

What is illogical about the assertion that what exists has a cause? Again, this is a simple statement that you reject, therefore you have a rational reason for doing so, therefore you can provide the evidence that I am wrong. Please provide the evidence.

[Starboard Tack]

[quote="FinalEnigma"

There's a difference between "outside the natural world that we know", and "not natural". My example of an alien scientist would be perfectly natural.

It might be natural in a universe above, beyond or separate from this universe, which would simply mean that it is not part of our natural universe which is governed by different physical constants than those that would allow your alien scientist to bring matter and energy into existence, violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Can you provide an example of where something comes into being in this universe without a cause, or more interestingly, where the effect of a cause is greater than the cause itself?

where the effect of a cause is greater than the cause itself? that's easy: splitting the atom, the butterfly effect, rumors, etc.

All incorrect. E-mc2, so the energy released is not greater than the cause. The butterfly effect is a string of causation that builds on itself, not violating the principle. Interesting point on rumors. Damage is done by rumors, but rumors are what they are - a cause capable of causing great damage.

For a simple example, is it possible that a 200# man jumps into a pool and causes the displacement of 500,000# of water?

I assume you mean lbs?

Yes, that would be what the # sign generally means.

a 200 pound man could EASILY displace more than 200 pounds of water if he hit the water with any kind of velocity, especially if he was a terrible diver! If he slid slowly into the water, he wouldn't displace much, but if he hit it at 200 MPH he would displace far more than 200 lbs of water. 500,000 lbs would be tough, unless maybe he hit the water at meteoric speeds.

If he was dropped from 25,000 feet, then yes, the cause of gravity acting on his mass would be what it was. No more, and no less than the cause would predict. Another bad example.

If not, you can begin to understand how the creation of everything from nothing is a stretch of logic.

I don't think anyone has proposed that the universe came from nothing - admittedly I haven't read the entire thread.

All space, time, energy and matter came into existence in a nearly infinitely small particle of nearly infinitely energy. Where did it come from? Guess, but it wasn't from within the universe created.

[Goat]

You seem to be missing the point that the universe came into existence from outside the universe, meaning the laws of physics, including the 1st LoT does not apply to the the causal agent that exists outside the universe. Your very point proves mine.

Please provide evidence that the 1ts law of thermodynamics does not apply to the causal agent from outside the universe. Give peer reviewed scientific articles on this subject, or retract this statement.

[FinalEnigma]

There's a difference between "outside the natural world that we know", and "not natural". My example of an alien scientist would be perfectly natural.

It might be natural in a universe above, beyond or separate from this universe, which would simply mean that it is not part of our natural universe which is governed by different physical constants than those that would allow your alien scientist to bring matter and energy into existence, violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.

First of all, nobody said the universe was created from nothing. I certainly didn't assert that my alien scientist did so - say he used something in his universe to create our universe?

Can you provide an example of where something comes into being in this universe without a cause, or more interestingly, where the effect of a cause is greater than the cause itself?

where the effect of a cause is greater than the cause itself? that's easy: splitting the atom, the butterfly effect, rumors, etc.

All incorrect. E-mc2, so the energy released is not greater than the cause. The butterfly effect is a string of causation that builds on itself, not violating the principle. Interesting point on rumors. Damage is done by rumors, but rumors are what they are - a cause capable of causing great damage.

if you look at the energy expenditure to split the atom, and the energy that results from doing so, there is a decided difference.

and I fail to see how a causal chain that builds on itself does not apply. the initial cause is something small, the ultimate effect is something very large - something small building on itself to create something large seems to be exactly what you were asking for.

For a simple example, is it possible that a 200# man jumps into a pool and causes the displacement of 500,000# of water?

I assume you mean lbs?

Yes, that would be what the # sign generally means.

a 200 pound man could EASILY displace more than 200 pounds of water if he hit the water with any kind of velocity, especially if he was a terrible diver! If he slid slowly into the water, he wouldn't displace much, but if he hit it at 200 MPH he would displace far more than 200 lbs of water. 500,000 lbs would be tough, unless maybe he hit the water at meteoric speeds.

If he was dropped from 25,000 feet, then yes, the cause of gravity acting on his mass would be what it was. No more, and no less than the cause would predict. Another bad example.

I agree it's a bad example. First of all, 200 lbs of man will not necessarily displace an equivalent weight of water - that would be volume. Second, a volume displacement isn't exactly a cause and effect.
However, I'll remind you that it was your example.

If not, you can begin to understand how the creation of everything from nothing is a stretch of logic.

I don't think anyone has proposed that the universe came from nothing - admittedly I haven't read the entire thread.

All space, time, energy and matter came into existence in a nearly infinitely small particle of nearly infinitely energy.

Says who? last I heard, science made no claims on where the singularity from which the big bang banged came from.

I might also point out that, above and beyond the entire rest of these last few posts of ours, things do, in fact, come from nothing. there are particles called virtual particles that come into existence from nothing for brief periods of time before annihilating themselves back into nothingness.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Nothing even similar to this, nothing comparable has ever been witnessed. We have only ever seen matter and energy changing form, we have never witnessed it coming into existence and according to the first law of thermodynamics, it is impossible for it to come into existence.

You seem to be missing the point that the universe came into existence from outside the universe, meaning the laws of physics, including the 1st LoT does not apply to the the causal agent that exists outside the universe. Your very point proves mine.

So you think the universe came into existence from outside the universe? Ok, first, show that the universe "came into existence", the universe certainly began at the Big bang but before the Big bang the universe was the singularity, it was still there, the Big bang didn't bring it into existence. Also show that the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to "the causal agent outside the universe."

However, what can reasonably be assumed, since it is universally true for everything we can observe is that all things that exist have a cause. Can you provide an example where something comes from nothing in this universe?

As far as I can tell, virtual particles. They only come into existence under certain conditions but they do not appear to have a cause. Even still, I don't have to provide anything, we have no idea how matter and energy came into existence or even if they did. Positing that matter and energy changing form has a cause therefore matter and energy coming into existence must have a cause is illogical, they are two completely different things.

Arguing that because you don't understand or accept a cause means it doesn't exist is preposterous.

Good thing i wasn't arguing that then. Something I spelled out for you in the previous post.

I challenge you again, show an example of something that exists without a cause. Your example of virtual particles doesn't apply, since their behavior and existence is predicted by quantum physics.

What? How does their predictability disqualify them from your question?

Some things came into existence at the big bang. Among those include the physical characteristics of the universe. The cause of matter, including virtual particles is the singularity. So, within this universe,

What? Can you support everything you just said with some relevant scientific data? The cause of matter was the singularity? What? Since when? That doesn't even make sense, the singularity was the universe, it contained the matter and energy in it's entirety.

again please provide an example of effect without cause, or to use your terms to me earlier "retract your statement."

I didn't have to in the first place to make my point but I did anyway and you've given no reasonable justification for it's disqualification.

Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

The nature of these causes is completely unknown though, positing anything about them would be illogical especially the notion of "creation".

I grant that the cause of what is (our universe) is not measurable. However, it is illogical to dispute that what is, cannot be the result of it having been created.

Did I say that? I said that positing the notion of creation is illogical, as far as I'm aware, there is nothing credible to base that on.

If something exists, like the universe, it has a cause. No exceptions in this universe.

Show the truth in this statement and please don't create an equivocation between matter/energy changing form and function with matter/energy coming into existence.

For you to argue that there is nothing credible on which to base the statement that what exists must have a cause is itself an illogical statement. Again, to quote you, prove it or withdraw it.

Good thing I didn't say that, perhaps you should read what i write a bit more closely so I don't have to repeat myself so often. I didn't say that, "there is nothing credible on which to base the statement that what exists must have a cause." I said, "positing the notion of creation is illogical, as far as I'm aware, there is nothing credible to base that on." These are direct quotes that you yourself had in your post. The notion of "creation" in any sense that posit's a "creator" is illogical and a baseless claim, unless you would care to back up that claim with some relevant or meaningful data?

How else would you explain its existence?

Oh so now you're saying, "any explanation is a good explanation." This is far from scientific and has nothing to do with truth.

No, what I am saying is that what exists, exists and therefore must have a cause. How am I wrong?

How are you right? You are suggesting something that is impossible happened. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, it cannot "come into existence". This is the first law of thermodynamics.

The universe exists, therefore is was caused. Are you arguing that it doesn't exist, or that it can come into existence without a cause? If the latter, again, please provide examples of effect without cause, or better yet, of effect that is greater than its cause.

I'm not arguing either, i'm just pointing out the illogical notions you've tried to put forward.

What is illogical about the assertion that what exists has a cause?

Because suggesting that something can cause something else to exist violates the first law of thermodynamics.

Again, this is a simple statement that you reject, therefore you have a rational reason for doing so, therefore you can provide the evidence that I am wrong. Please provide the evidence.

I have spelled it out for you multiple times.

[Autodidact]

In simple answer to the OP, I believe the a priori assumption that everything has a natural explanation and not a supernatural one is fully justified. The reason for this has been perhaps best said by Tim Minchin, a Brilliant comedian.

"Throughout history, every mystery ever solver has turned out to be...not magic."


(profanity warning)

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe. Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

Actually, no. It now appears that at least quantum events happen without cause. I don't know what you mean by "past infinite" or what that could mean. That seems logically impossible. In any case, we don't know whether the universe's existence is infinite or not; it well may be. Further more, there's no necessary connection whatsoever between, "whatever caused the universe, if anything," and "Starboard's particular God."

[McCulloch]

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe. Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

If we stay absolutely focused on empirical reality, we observe that nothing new is ever created. Everything that is, is merely a rearrangement of what was already there. This has been formally stated as the First Law of Thermodynamics. So it would seem unreasonable to posit a time when all the essential stuff of the universe did not exist, since it cannot be created nor destroyed.

[Starboard Tack]

You seem to be missing the point that the universe came into existence from outside the universe, meaning the laws of physics, including the 1st LoT does not apply to the the causal agent that exists outside the universe. Your very point proves mine.

Please provide evidence that the 1ts law of thermodynamics does not apply to the causal agent from outside the universe. Give peer reviewed scientific articles on this subject, or retract this statement.

Please provide peer reviewed articles substantiating that it is not correct, or retract your demand for retraction.

It may be that universes beyond our own have the same laws of physics. However, since they are not measurable (consult Einstein on this) we cannot know. If we don't know, and can't know what laws of physics might pertain to realities beyond this space time envelop, we cannot assert that our laws of thermodynamics would apply, much less call them laws in such universes, hence my statement.

[Starboard Tack]

That seems reasonable, except that if we stay absolutely focused on down to earth empirical reality, we observe that it always seems to be so that whatever exists, has a cause. You, me, the moon, everything. The universe exists, therefore has a cause. We know the universe's existence is not past infinite, therefore whatever is the cause of the universe must by definition be outside the natural world of the universe. Put another way, a supernatural cause, or non-natural if you prefer. Either way, there really do seem to be some things that must have an explanation that sources outside our universe. Is it magic? Hardly. Not if the causal agent actually exists, which it appears must be the case.

If we stay absolutely focused on empirical reality, we observe that nothing new is ever created. Everything that is, is merely a rearrangement of what was already there. This has been formally stated as the First Law of Thermodynamics. So it would seem unreasonable to posit a time when all the essential stuff of the universe did not exist, since it cannot be created nor destroyed.

You may find it unreasonable, but the Borde, Guth and Vilenkin space time theorem would contradict you. In the words of Alexander Vilenkin:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

So which are you, a reasonable man, or an unreasonable one? Either way, the universe is past finite and there was a time when nothing that is, was.

What you may be overlooking is that when the universe came into being, the laws of physics governing the universe also came into being. In that sense, the 1st law of thermodynamics may only have local application in this space time, which began. Having begun, it must have a causal agent bringing it into existence. You may wish to argue that this causal agent is impersonal, but that would be a statement of religious, not empirical substance.