Infinite Tortoise Problem (Turtles all the way down)

[otseng]

"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
"At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
"The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

The first cause problem is often used as an argument against the existence of a god.

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."

"If God created/designed everything, then what created/designed God?"

For debate:
Is it infinite turtles all the way down?
Is it logical to use this argument against the existence of God?

[Bugmaster]

Again, I'm not stating to give up on pursuing natural explanations.

Ok, so given any arbitrary event X, how do you tell whether X has a natural explanation, or a supernatural one (i.e., "God did it") ? It'd be pretty silly to assume that the explanation is supernatural, only to be proven wrong later, when faith in Zeus isn't as strong as it used to be.

I do believe the two can influence each other. How? I don't know. But again, answering how is not necessary to prove that it exists.

I claim that the nonphysical cannot, by definition, influence the physical. Since it's nonphysical, it cannot exert any physical force (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, whatever) on the physical world -- because, if it could, the nonphysical would be physical itself.

Something must have caused it. It might be a deity or it might be a quantum fluctuation or whatever. But, since the universe is not eternal (infinite past) then it must've had a cause.

Assuming this is true (and assuming that causality transcends universes, which may or may not be true), why do you automatically assume that the cause must be supernatural ?

And, again, if "God did it" is your explanation, what does it explain ? What testable predictions does it make ?

What does it explain? Well, it explains what caused the universe. :)

Not really. You haven't explained anything; you've merely relabeled your ignorance to "God". You are exactly in the same position as Copernicus, who stated that God must've organized the heavens, and that's that. You're just looking at the bigger picture, because someone who came before you (Newton) wasn't satisfied with Copernicus's ignorance.

[otseng]

Ok, so given any arbitrary event X, how do you tell whether X has a natural explanation, or a supernatural one (i.e., "God did it") ? It'd be pretty silly to assume that the explanation is supernatural, only to be proven wrong later, when faith in Zeus isn't as strong as it used to be.

Ultimately, one cannot tell until a definitive natural explanation is found. Until then, I'll willing to be proved to be silly.

I claim that the nonphysical cannot, by definition, influence the physical. Since it's nonphysical, it cannot exert any physical force (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, whatever) on the physical world -- because, if it could, the nonphysical would be physical itself.

I believe the supernatural is a superset of the natural world. They are not disjointed sets.

For example, I have an aquarium in my house. From the fish's perspective, they live in the water world. But, there also exists a non-water world which is beyond the water world. The water world is a subset of the non-water world.

The fish can wonder, "How'd this water world get here?" Ultimately, it came from the non-water world.

Assuming this is true (and assuming that causality transcends universes, which may or may not be true), why do you automatically assume that the cause must be supernatural ?

Because there is no good natural explanation for it.

Why do you assume it must be non supernatural?

You are exactly in the same position as Copernicus, who stated that God must've organized the heavens, and that's that.

I'd consider it a privilege to be considered to be in the exact same position as Copernicus.

[Galphanore]

It sounds like you're just labeling anything we cannot currently explain "supernatural", thats an understandable thing to do. Many people who believe in a god of the gaps do that, but I don't think that's a very good idea because it retards progress. If something is declaired the perview of god then any time a scientist wants to look into it he is shouted down and told to "stop playing god". Even if you believe in god, how is slowing the advance of science a good thing?

It's all about mysteries. If we label something as a mystery and treat it with reverance then it becomes extremely difficult to actually gain any approval of learning about it. Any advance in that direction is fought with tooth and nail, the evolution creation debate is a perfect example of that. Many creationists have decided that god created life as it is, so they fight against evolution in the only way they are able, the courts, because all their 'scientific' arguments against it are full of holes. I'll never claim we know everything about evolution, but it's the best explaination we've got right now.

[otseng]

Many people who believe in a god of the gaps do that, but I don't think that's a very good idea because it retards progress. If something is declaired the perview of god then any time a scientist wants to look into it he is shouted down and told to "stop playing god". Even if you believe in god, how is slowing the advance of science a good thing?

How is it retarding scientific progress? I've already stated that scientists should look for natural explanations. Nowhere have I stated that we should abandon scientific inquiries just because I believe that God did it. Cosmologists should certainly continue on with their study of string theory, new inflation, slow roll inflation, brane inflation, whatever.

Any advance in that direction is fought with tooth and nail, the evolution creation debate is a perfect example of that.

I totally disagree.

Science advances by people disagreeing with each other and testing each other's hypothesis. If anything, evolutionary theory should welcome criticisms against it so that it can hold up to scrutiny.

Creationists are not simply disagreeing with evolution by simply waving their Bibles and saying, "That's not what the Bible says!" Rather, they point to empirical evidence (at least most do) and show inconsistencies with evolutionary theory.

And why is evolution such a sacred idea that it should not be open to attack? Why shouldn't people be allowed to be skeptical of conventional ideas? Why must all people embrace evolutionary theories?

[Goat]

Many people who believe in a god of the gaps do that, but I don't think that's a very good idea because it retards progress. If something is declaired the perview of god then any time a scientist wants to look into it he is shouted down and told to "stop playing god". Even if you believe in god, how is slowing the advance of science a good thing?

How is it retarding scientific progress? I've already stated that scientists should look for natural explanations. Nowhere have I stated that we should abandon scientific inquiries just because I believe that God did it. Cosmologists should certainly continue on with their study of string theory, new inflation, slow roll inflation, brane inflation, whatever.

Any advance in that direction is fought with tooth and nail, the evolution creation debate is a perfect example of that.

I totally disagree.

Science advances by people disagreeing with each other and testing each other's hypothesis. If anything, evolutionary theory should welcome criticisms against it so that it can hold up to scrutiny.

Creationists are not simply disagreeing with evolution by simply waving their Bibles and saying, "That's not what the Bible says!" Rather, they point to empirical evidence (at least most do) and show inconsistencies with evolutionary theory.

That is what some do. Of course, most do not. Nor, do they show any evidence for any alternative explanation. I also note that many times, the ones that yell and scream the loudest about 'inconsistancies in evolution' are using outdated information, make absurd claims (the 'law of conservation of information and the claims about the '2nd law of theomdaynmics' are being repeated constantly).

There is nothing wrong with actually showing the weaknesses of the TOE. However, using strawmen attacks, invalid information, lies, and misrepresentations are not the way to go about it.

[Galphanore]

Many people who believe in a god of the gaps do that, but I don't think that's a very good idea because it retards progress. If something is declaired the perview of god then any time a scientist wants to look into it he is shouted down and told to "stop playing god". Even if you believe in god, how is slowing the advance of science a good thing?

How is it retarding scientific progress? I've already stated that scientists should look for natural explanations. Nowhere have I stated that we should abandon scientific inquiries just because I believe that God did it. Cosmologists should certainly continue on with their study of string theory, new inflation, slow roll inflation, brane inflation, whatever.

I agree, many creationists do not. I do not consider you a mainstream creationist because you actually consider the evidence. Science is slowed because, for example, by fighting the teaching of evolution in schools creationists have managed to make it so we have one of the worst understandings of it, as a nation, in the world. So most progress in it comes from outside the US. If everyone acted the way the creationist lobbyists do, how would we progress at all?

Any advance in that direction is fought with tooth and nail, the evolution creation debate is a perfect example of that.

I totally disagree.

Science advances by people disagreeing with each other and testing each other's hypothesis. If anything, evolutionary theory should welcome criticisms against it so that it can hold up to scrutiny.

Creationists are not simply disagreeing with evolution by simply waving their Bibles and saying, "That's not what the Bible says!" Rather, they point to empirical evidence (at least most do) and show inconsistencies with evolutionary theory.

And why is evolution such a sacred idea that it should not be open to attack? Why shouldn't people be allowed to be skeptical of conventional ideas? Why must all people embrace evolutionary theories?

You've got it backward, evolution is no more sacred then any other well established theory with copious evidence, but the problem is that neither Creationists nor Intelligent Design theorists are presenting an alternate explanation that can actually be tested, and hasn't been falsified. Is it possible the entire universe was created a tenth of a second ago exactly the way it is now? Of course, but what does that have to do with science? If we assume that's what happened then it's largely irrelevant. Evolution, however, is attacked in the wrong way.

You don't improve science by trying to outlaw part of it, you provide valid criticisms of it. Unlike you, most creationists do not do that. When someone like Michael Behe is still using the "The eye could not evolve" claim when it has been long shown to be inaccurate, and when one of the most often repeated claims of creationists is "speciation does not occur" when it has also been shown, how is that not slowing progress? It's a waste of time for scientists to have to explain that the 'problem' is not a problem over and over and over again, to the exact same person even!

You're always welcome to disagree with a theory, science thrives on critical observation, but if the majority of the arguments agaisnt a theory have been shown to be innacurate, and yet are still the main ones used, how does that help?

And one final question, do you believe that a supernatural event can have an effect upon the "real" world?

[Bugmaster]

Oh good, I think we're coming to a consensus on this.

Ultimately, one cannot tell until a definitive natural explanation is found. Until then, I'll willing to be proved to be silly.

In other words, you're saying that, for any unknown event, the supernatural explanation is the default one. More specifically, we should assume that the causes of the event are divine, until science can prove otherwise; until then, we should assume that God did it.

I absolutely agree with you that, given that God exists, your worldview makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, I do not share your assumption that God exists. Therefore, from my perspective, the supernatural explanation is not the default, and the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is true. You can't say, "We don't know what caused X, therefore X was most likely caused by God, therefore X is evidence for God's existence", because that's circular reasoning.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that, from my atheistic perspective, supernatural explanations have a poor track record. So far, most supernatural explanations for unexplained events have proven to be false. Sunrise, lightning, the Evening Star and the Morning Star, the motion of the planets, St. Elmo's Fire, life... all these things and many others were assumed to have supernatural origins, and one by one the supernatural explanations (En, Thor, Ishtar, YHVH, etc.) were replaced by natural ones. Additionally, many of the things you treat as supernatural today -- such as the Big Bang -- would not even be a topic of conversation without a long string of natural explanations that lead to them. The Ancient Greeks had no idea what "Background Radiation" meant.

Again, none of what I just said matters if you have faith that God exists. But, I don't have such faith, and thus I remain unconvinced.

I believe the supernatural is a superset of the natural world. They are not disjointed sets.

In that case, we should be able to measure the supernatural (directly or indirectly); but if it could do that, it would just be natural, not supernatural.

You are exactly in the same position as Copernicus, who stated that God must've organized the heavens, and that's that.

I'd consider it a privilege to be considered to be in the exact same position as Copernicus. O:)

Why be so proud of joining the category of people whose religion prevented them from achieving great things ? Ultimately, this is what happened to Copernicus. He could've discovered so many more things, but he didn't, because he assumed that "God did it".

[otseng]

Oh good, I think we're coming to a consensus on this.

I think you're right, we are coming to sort of a consensus on this.

Ultimately, one cannot tell until a definitive natural explanation is found. Until then, I'll willing to be proved to be silly.

In other words, you're saying that, for any unknown event, the supernatural explanation is the default one. More specifically, we should assume that the causes of the event are divine, until science can prove otherwise; until then, we should assume that God did it.

I absolutely agree with you that, given that God exists, your worldview makes perfect sense.

Hallelujah, someone from the other side acknowledges my worldview makes perfect sense (given that God exists)!

Unfortunately, I do not share your assumption that God exists. Therefore, from my perspective, the supernatural explanation is not the default, and the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is true.

Of course. The burden of proof is on me. And that is something I've been trying to do in practically all the threads I've posted in the Science and Religion category.

You can't say, "We don't know what caused X, therefore X was most likely caused by God, therefore X is evidence for God's existence", because that's circular reasoning.

Of course. And I don't believe I've used this argument anywhere. If I have, I'm willing to be corrected on this.

Sunrise, lightning, the Evening Star and the Morning Star, the motion of the planets, St. Elmo's Fire, life... all these things and many others were assumed to have supernatural origins, and one by one the supernatural explanations (En, Thor, Ishtar, YHVH, etc.) were replaced by natural ones.

Certainly.

And also, I'm not saying we should use the excuse "God did it" for all things that don't currently have a natural explanation. But for the cause of the universe, I'm willing to stick my neck out on this one and say that I believe there will never be a natural cause to be found for this. If one day it is found and fully supported by empirical evidence, I will abandon all debates on Creation vs Evolution.

Additionally, many of the things you treat as supernatural today -- such as the Big Bang -- would not even be a topic of conversation without a long string of natural explanations that lead to them.

Certainly. That is why I'm all for pursuing sciences from a naturalistic point of view. But, at the same time, others should also be allowed to pursue it from a supernaturalistic point of view.

I believe the supernatural is a superset of the natural world. They are not disjointed sets.

In that case, we should be able to measure the supernatural (directly or indirectly); but if it could do that, it would just be natural, not supernatural.

Measure is not perhaps the best word to use. Perhaps detect would be better.

You are exactly in the same position as Copernicus, who stated that God must've organized the heavens, and that's that.

I'd consider it a privilege to be considered to be in the exact same position as Copernicus.

Why be so proud of joining the category of people whose religion prevented them from achieving great things ? Ultimately, this is what happened to Copernicus. He could've discovered so many more things, but he didn't, because he assumed that "God did it".

Copernicus was quite on the cutting edge of science when he argued for heliocentrism.

[Bugmaster]

Sunrise, lightning, the Evening Star and the Morning Star, the motion of the planets, St. Elmo's Fire, life... all these things and many others were assumed to have supernatural origins, and one by one the supernatural explanations (En, Thor, Ishtar, YHVH, etc.) were replaced by natural ones.

Certainly.
And also, I'm not saying we should use the excuse "God did it" for all things that don't currently have a natural explanation. But for the cause of the universe, I'm willing to stick my neck out on this one and say that I believe there will never be a natural cause to be found for this.

Well, from my atheistic perspective, this is an extraordinary claim. You can certainly say, "we may not find the answer in our lifetime", or "it's highly unlikely we'll ever find the answer", but "never" is a much stronger word. IMO, the only way you could claim that a natural explanation could never be found, would be to somehow logically prove that a natural explanation is impossible a priori, and I haven't seen you do that. Furthermore, the sheer weight of evidence -- i.e., the number of natural explanations we have for events that were previously thought to be unexplainable -- leads me to be even more skeptical of your claim.

But that's only half the trouble. Even if you somehow managed to logically prove that a natural explanation will never be found, you'd still have to prove that the supernatural one is true -- and that is a monumental task, since you're dealing with someone (i.e. myself) who doesn't believe that the supernatural world does, or can, exist. From my perspective, it is more likely that the origin of the universe is unknowable yet natural, rather than supernatural.

If one day it is found and fully supported by empirical evidence, I will abandon all debates on Creation vs Evolution.

That is actually a completely different debate. Evolution can be true even if a god created the Universe; in fact, abiogenesis (which the evolutionary theory doesn't deal with, one way or another) could also be true in this case.

But, at the same time, others should also be allowed to pursue it from a supernaturalistic point of view.

As a great believer in free speech, I'll gladly defend your right to pursue whatever studies from whatever point of view (assuming you don't hurt anyone else in the process), even if I disagree with you.

In that case, we should be able to measure the supernatural (directly or indirectly); but if it could do that, it would just be natural, not supernatural.

Measure is not perhaps the best word to use. Perhaps detect would be better.

What's the difference, scientifically speaking ?

Copernicus was quite on the cutting edge of science when he argued for heliocentrism.

Yeah. Imagine how much further he could've gotten in his studies if he didn't stop halfway...

[QED]

Hallelujah, someone from the other side acknowledges my worldview makes perfect sense (given that God exists)!

Count me in too of course it's perfectly possible for any of us to have a fully consistent view of anything we like given certain omissions or suspensions of reality. Many a good Hollywood fantasy is built upon the suspension of just one physical fact. That's why we must focus on the inconsistencies rather than the consistencies.