Is it reasonable to deduce God from order in Nature?

[marco]

Is it reasonable to look at a lamb and deduce that God set the production of sheep in motion through his wonderful love. Blake wondered why the God who made the lamb also made the tiger to kill it.

When we see the operation of flowers, the human eye, the spider's web... some of us conclude there is a God who fashioned them. How else did they come about?

Thus God is the product of our ignorance. We do not know - ergo God.

Is this a reasonable position to hold?

Should we expect more definite signs of our maker?

And if we accept that some Intelligence made everything, how do we reconcile this Intelligence with the Titan of the Old Testament, hung up on sex, sin and sacrifice?

[Mithrae]

The problem is that you are invoking prescriptive 'laws of chemistry/physics' here, which is philosophy rather than science. (In fact not only prescriptive, imposing a general rule, but proscriptive, forbidding any exceptions.) Science itself provides us with descriptive 'laws,' collating and formalizing the apparently consistent behaviours from a wide range of observations. But the fact that these are not prescriptive laws is demonstrated by the fact that they're sometimes found to be broken (eg. Newton's laws of motion and gravitation).

What? I thought you were a skeptic, and scientific. You think chemistry/physics is "philosophy"??? You are starting to sound more and more like a believer all the time. Perhaps you really are and just don't want to admit it...

Maybe you should have googled "is chemistry science" or "is physics science". Then maybe you would have seen this:

Maybe you should have read what I wrote You suggested that scientific laws are real things in and of themselves, actual universal constraints on reality which would need to "be suspended in order for the claim to have happened." That is a philosophical position; and trying to equate a paragraph you've dashed up with science itself is not a very compelling counter-argument (to say the least!).

Newton's laws were superceded by the theory of relativity. No one here, including me, has ever tried to claim a Newtonian law as "universal". I've been talking about universal laws, the ones for which no violation can be found, despite many efforts to do so for generations. Conversation of mass, conversation of energy, etc.

Newton's laws of motion were (and still seem to be) considered 'laws' of physics, as was his law of universal gravitation in the past. These laws obviously do not and did not constrain the behaviour of reality - they merely described and formalized what had been observed and would continue to be observed in all reproducible observations in similar circumstances. They do not (and never did) apply to all special circumstances. And if you think that by contrast conservation of energy is universal and "cannot seem to be violated" as in your earlier post, you are incorrect even there: Vacuum fluctuations of virtual particles seem to (and may in fact) violate conservation of energy at very localized scales for very short periods of time, for example. Special circumstances again... and who ever said that 'miracles' or the like were normal circumstances?


Reality is weird, and vast. It is extremely difficult to overstate how infinitesimally small the range of reliable human observations actually are: Even within the narrow scope of populated land-masses on the surface of this single planet in the 21st century (in the visible spectrum of light on macro scales), even then the overwhelming majority of things which exist and occur in any given hour are not observed by any humans at all, reliable or otherwise. But even if 100% of the things in the earth/moon system over the past three centuries were reliably observed at all scales and all bands of radiation, that's still only a fraction of one ten-millionth of the estimated time the universe has existed and something like one 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of its estimated size.

We've inferred quite a bit about the wider universe based on scraps and glimpses of the electromagnetic radiation which has entered our little sphere from distant parts. But even so, our observations would cover roughly one tenth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of the estimated total scope of reality to date... even if we had reliable observations of 100% of the earth/moon system over recent centuries. Though obviously we don't even have that. Not even close. Not even remotely close! And in fact, the figure should probably be more like one twentieth of the above, since it is further estimated that 'ordinary' matter constitutes less than 5% of the total mass-energy of the universe It really is almost impossible to overstate just how limited our reliable observations actually are!

But you're here talking about "known universal laws"?

Scientists observe and reproduce those observations and make testable predictions based on the results and, given enough breadth and consistency of observations, collate and formalize them into 'laws' describing how reality is seen to behave. It's a necessary and extremely useful process which through a process of induction tells us with high confidence how reality can be expected to keep behaving in the given circumstances.

But if you're talking about those laws as real things in and of themselves, actual universal constraints on reality which would need to be "suspended" before any unusual, non-reproducible event could occur, what you are doing is philosophy, not science. In and of itself that obviously doesn't mean that you're wrong; but it's a view which goes far beyond the available observational evidence, which you are then using to dismiss actual reports by multiple observers... and not just one or two isolated incidents, but again and again and again.

[Kenisaw]

The problem is that you are invoking prescriptive 'laws of chemistry/physics' here, which is philosophy rather than science. (In fact not only prescriptive, imposing a general rule, but proscriptive, forbidding any exceptions.) Science itself provides us with descriptive 'laws,' collating and formalizing the apparently consistent behaviours from a wide range of observations. But the fact that these are not prescriptive laws is demonstrated by the fact that they're sometimes found to be broken (eg. Newton's laws of motion and gravitation).

What? I thought you were a skeptic, and scientific. You think chemistry/physics is "philosophy"??? You are starting to sound more and more like a believer all the time. Perhaps you really are and just don't want to admit it...

Maybe you should have googled "is chemistry science" or "is physics science". Then maybe you would have seen this:

Maybe you should have read what I wrote You suggested that scientific laws are real things in and of themselves, actual universal constraints on reality which would need to "be suspended in order for the claim to have happened." That is a philosophical position; and trying to equate a paragraph you've dashed up with science itself is not a very compelling counter-argument (to say the least!).

Universal laws represent the observed behavior of the universe. They represent facts. The laws represent the actual constraints of the universe, as observed and repeatedly tested and verified countless times. The laws are the not the constraints, the universe is. So when religious claims include specific actions that violate the observed laws of the universe, and no evidence is given for the god creature, for the act, or for the violation of the laws that govern the universe the act occurred in, there is plenty of reason to dismiss the claim as baseless conjecture. This is not a philosophical stance, it is an application of what has been determined through the scientific method to be true.

Newton's laws were superceded by the theory of relativity. No one here, including me, has ever tried to claim a Newtonian law as "universal". I've been talking about universal laws, the ones for which no violation can be found, despite many efforts to do so for generations. Conversation of mass, conversation of energy, etc.

Newton's laws of motion were (and still seem to be) considered 'laws' of physics, as was his law of universal gravitation in the past. These laws obviously do not and did not constrain the behaviour of reality - they merely described and formalized what had been observed and would continue to be observed in all reproducible observations in similar circumstances. They do not (and never did) apply to all special circumstances. And if you think that by contrast conservation of energy is universal and "cannot seem to be violated" as in your earlier post, you are incorrect even there: Vacuum fluctuations of virtual particles seem to (and may in fact) violate conservation of energy at very localized scales for very short periods of time, for example. Special circumstances again... and who ever said that 'miracles' or the like were normal circumstances?

Virtual particles do not violate conservation of energy.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles- ... -are-they/

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Q ... icles.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... gy_gr.html

Of course, this is all at the smallest of levels, in the quantum arena. The actions of miracles by gods in human lives isn't at the quantum level anyway. It's at (if I may describe it this way) the human level, and there is no violation of conservation laws at the human level either. Yet god claims invariably involve such violations...

Reality is weird, and vast. It is extremely difficult to overstate how infinitesimally small the range of reliable human observations actually are: Even within the narrow scope of populated land-masses on the surface of this single planet in the 21st century (in the visible spectrum of light on macro scales), even then the overwhelming majority of things which exist and occur in any given hour are not observed by any humans at all, reliable or otherwise. But even if 100% of the things in the earth/moon system over the past three centuries were reliably observed at all scales and all bands of radiation, that's still only a fraction of one ten-millionth of the estimated time the universe has existed and something like one 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of its estimated size.

Totally agree.

We've inferred quite a bit about the wider universe based on scraps and glimpses of the electromagnetic radiation which has entered our little sphere from distant parts. But even so, our observations would cover roughly one tenth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of the estimated total scope of reality to date... even if we had reliable observations of 100% of the earth/moon system over recent centuries. Though obviously we don't even have that. Not even close. Not even remotely close! And in fact, the figure should probably be more like one twentieth of the above, since it is further estimated that 'ordinary' matter constitutes less than 5% of the total mass-energy of the universe It really is almost impossible to overstate just how limited our reliable observations actually are!

Totally agree. One caveat to this however - We haven't observed much, but we have observed things from a larger part of the universe. Light by and large comes from stars, and we've observed light from a lot of the universe. All this light has the exact same characteristics (photons, speed, etc). If this light came from parts of the universe that exists under different laws, there should be different characteristics for the light. The conversation laws, the fundamental forces of the universe, the zero sum of everything in the universe...all these things are closely related to each other. Change one thing and you affect everything else. If conservation laws did not exist all over the universe, there is no reason to find light behaving the exact same way no matter where it originated from. There's no reason for the cosmic background radiation to act the same way no matter where it is observed.

We haven't observed much, but we've observed from all over (albeit in small amounts) and everything works within the laws of chemistry, physics, conservation, etc that we've validated for years now...

But you're here talking about "known universal laws"?

Of course. This is what we know, based on the scientific method. Please remember that the scientific method is an ongoing process, no one claims that anything in science is a closed case. Everything is considered open pending the possible discovery of additional information in the future. Universal laws are no different in that regard. This is what we know, so far, based on everything we have looked at.

Scientists observe and reproduce those observations and make testable predictions based on the results and, given enough breadth and consistency of observations, collate and formalize them into 'laws' describing how reality is seen to behave. It's a necessary and extremely useful process which through a process of induction tells us with high confidence how reality can be expected to keep behaving in the given circumstances.

Totally agree.

But if you're talking about those laws as real things in and of themselves, actual universal constraints on reality which would need to be "suspended" before any unusual, non-reproducible event could occur, what you are doing is philosophy, not science. In and of itself that obviously doesn't mean that you're wrong; but it's a view which goes far beyond the available observational evidence, which you are then using to dismiss actual reports by multiple observers... and not just one or two isolated incidents, but again and again and again.

Again, the laws represent the available observational evidence. Is there any reason to think that the laws can be violated? No. This is not philosophical, this is based on scientific examination of all data and evidence gathered to date. Let's not forget a key point that things weren't consistent all over the universe, we shouldn't see a consistent universe everywhere. Yet we do. This is not a view that goes "far beyond the available observational evidence", this is a view BASED on the available observational evidence.

You then turn around and try to pretend that claims made by various human beings is some kind of observational evidence. Can you see what they supposedly see? Can you verify it? Can you gather that data yourself? No, of course not. They could be lying, they could be mistaken, they could be telling the truth. You have no idea which one it is, because it is a claim and not evidence. I've explained this enough to you already.

You want to doubt things that can be verified and observed by any other human being on the planet at any time they want to do so (conversation laws, homogeneous rules in the universe), and then consider realistically possible baseless claims of human experience that cannot be substantiated or validated. If you think you are a skeptic than you are doing it backwards...

Please answer me this: We get claims, again and again, that Sasquatch are real. There are a billion Hindus on the planet, and there are actual reports again and again of experiences with their gods. Native Americans claim again and again about experiences with their Spirits. There are lots of claims of UFOs by people of all different makeups. Do you consider these claims as plausible as the Christian ones? Why or why not? Shouldn't the claims of a billion Hindus be just as likely as a billion Christians, since there are also "actual reports by multiple observers"?

[Mithrae]

You suggested that scientific laws are real things in and of themselves, actual universal constraints on reality which would need to "be suspended in order for the claim to have happened." That is a philosophical position; and trying to equate a paragraph you've dashed up with science itself is not a very compelling counter-argument (to say the least!).

Universal laws represent the observed behavior of the universe. They represent facts. The laws represent the actual constraints of the universe, as observed and repeatedly tested and verified countless times. The laws are the not the constraints, the universe is. So when religious claims include specific actions that violate the observed laws of the universe, and no evidence is given for the god creature, for the act, or for the violation of the laws that govern the universe the act occurred in, there is plenty of reason to dismiss the claim as baseless conjecture. This is not a philosophical stance, it is an application of what has been determined through the scientific method to be true.

Observed behaviour ≠ actual constraints. That is an equivalency which is not made in any other circumstances, as far as I can think off the top of my head. Jack might brush his teeth every day of his life, but no-one would claim that he is constrained to do so. A volcano might lie dormant for centuries or millennia of observation, but that doesn't mean it is incapable of erupting. An orbiting planet might go millions of years without crossing paths with a big asteroid or comet, but no-one would claim that such an event is prevented from occurring. Well they might claim that, if they're of a religious persuasion: But "we have not conclusively observed X yet, therefore X is prevented from occurring" is not a rational viewpoint.

The only thing you can infer from "we have not conclusively observed X yet" is that in the cases of conclusive observation, circumstances have not been favourable for X. Newton's law of universal gravitation was a universal law, until conclusive observations became good enough to find discrepancies. Now it's not a universal law any more, which shows that imagining 'universal laws' to be "actual constraints of the universe" is an invalid assumption.

But you're here talking about "known universal laws"?

Of course. This is what we know, based on the scientific method. Please remember that the scientific method is an ongoing process, no one claims that anything in science is a closed case. Everything is considered open pending the possible discovery of additional information in the future. Universal laws are no different in that regard. This is what we know, so far, based on everything we have looked at.

And therefore one of the things we know is that it is entirely fallacious to assume these observations are representative of universal constraints on reality.

But if you're talking about those laws as real things in and of themselves, actual universal constraints on reality which would need to be "suspended" before any unusual, non-reproducible event could occur, what you are doing is philosophy, not science. In and of itself that obviously doesn't mean that you're wrong; but it's a view which goes far beyond the available observational evidence, which you are then using to dismiss actual reports by multiple observers... and not just one or two isolated incidents, but again and again and again.

Again, the laws represent the available observational evidence. Is there any reason to think that the laws can be violated? No.

Yes, there is - I just showed you that reason. We have observational reports, often by multiple apparently credible observers, from all periods of history (though historical claims have flimsy evidence) through to the enlightened 20th and 21st centuries, and spanning all parts of the world. You might not find those reports persuasive enough to disturb your alternative worldview, but baldly asserting that such a range and depth of observational reports are no reason whatsoever looks more like hopeful rhetoric than any kind of objective analysis.

You want to doubt things that can be verified and observed by any other human being on the planet at any time they want to do so (conversation laws, homogeneous rules in the universe), and then consider realistically possible baseless claims of human experience that cannot be substantiated or validated. If you think you are a skeptic than you are doing it backwards...

It certainly is not the case that any human on the planet can verify those scientific observations at any time. In fact most people never will and never could personally verify them in their entire lives. I'd go even further and hazard a guess that even in wealthier countries, a majority or significant minority of people would find themselves unable to personally verify even one of those laws, even if they used equipment from their local university. Honestly, how many people do you think would really understand the theoretical groundwork necessary to conduct even just a few experiments testing conservation of energy? With enough training I'm sure most people could parrot the words back at you and mimic the motions of an experiment, but that's not the same as verifying the results.

An equivalent claim is sometimes made by religious folk: Anyone on earth can experience the truth of our religion, if they are sincere in their desire to do so and dedicated to pursuing that truth long-term!

You then turn around and try to pretend that claims made by various human beings is some kind of observational evidence. Can you see what they supposedly see? Can you verify it? Can you gather that data yourself? No, of course not. They could be lying, they could be mistaken, they could be telling the truth. You have no idea which one it is, because it is a claim and not evidence. I've explained this enough to you already.

Just as a report of a scientific experiment is 'just a claim.' I don't trust scientific conclusions because I have personally replicated all experimental results, and certainly not from a belief that scientists are immune from error or especially trustworthy. Do you?

I trust scientific conclusions because there are thousands of scientists replicating and testing and refining and confirming each others' work. Any single scientist may well be subject to misperception, experimental design flaws, bias or even outright deceit in pursuit of funding. There is a chance that's the case, wouldn't you agree? But the probability that two scientists are wrong or deceptive is smaller than the probability that one is, and the probability that thousands of scientists are all misleading or wildly mistaken beyond known uncertainties becomes exceptionally small. [As a point of interest, that is exactly how I explain things to climate change contrarians on my other forum, when they try to equate scientific consensus with 'truth by popular vote.']

Precisely the same reasoning applies in the case of media reports, or anything else for that matter:
- Observation is the primary means by which we know about reality
- Anything I can't personally observe, I must rely on others' observations
- Any individual's reported observation has some probability of being false
- Many people's observations collectively have a lower probability of being false

If you have some other method of gaining reliable information beyond your personal experience I'd be delighted to hear of it. But otherwise, that is also precisely the same reasoning I use in the case of unusual or paranormal reports. Anything else would be special pleading on philosophical grounds.



(And no, the religion of folk reporting an observation makes no difference to the level of scrutiny and scepticism which should be applied.)

[Monta]

[Replying to post 52 by Kenisaw]


"Of course. This is what we know, based on the scientific method. Please remember that the scientific method is an ongoing process, no one claims that anything in science is a closed case. Everything is considered open pending the possible discovery of additional information in the future. "


Well done! Just like theist science can keep an open mind.

[Kenisaw]

You suggested that scientific laws are real things in and of themselves, actual universal constraints on reality which would need to "be suspended in order for the claim to have happened." That is a philosophical position; and trying to equate a paragraph you've dashed up with science itself is not a very compelling counter-argument (to say the least!).

Universal laws represent the observed behavior of the universe. They represent facts. The laws represent the actual constraints of the universe, as observed and repeatedly tested and verified countless times. The laws are the not the constraints, the universe is. So when religious claims include specific actions that violate the observed laws of the universe, and no evidence is given for the god creature, for the act, or for the violation of the laws that govern the universe the act occurred in, there is plenty of reason to dismiss the claim as baseless conjecture. This is not a philosophical stance, it is an application of what has been determined through the scientific method to be true.

Observed behaviour ≠ actual constraints. That is an equivalency which is not made in any other circumstances, as far as I can think off the top of my head. Jack might brush his teeth every day of his life, but no-one would claim that he is constrained to do so. A volcano might lie dormant for centuries or millennia of observation, but that doesn't mean it is incapable of erupting. An orbiting planet might go millions of years without crossing paths with a big asteroid or comet, but no-one would claim that such an event is prevented from occurring. Well they might claim that, if they're of a religious persuasion: But "we have not conclusively observed X yet, therefore X is prevented from occurring" is not a rational viewpoint.

OK, really horrible comparisons. You are talking about universal laws that no exception can be found for, and comparing that to volcanoes that we know erupt, even if they haven't for a long time? What is the use in that? We know planets have been hit before, hence your "might go millions of years" statement has nothing to do with the fact that we know it can happen at some point.

We know of no exception to the universal laws. We are talking about something that has never been violated despite our best efforts to find such a violation.

Which is more logical?
1) Repeatedly observed and tested universal laws cannot be violated. Supernatural Claim X violates universal laws. There is no evidence or data for magic or the supernatural. There is no evidence or data for gods. Conclusion - Claim X cannot be true given what we know.
2) Repeatedly observed and tested universal laws cannot be violated. Supernatural Claim X violates universal laws. There is no evidence or data for magic or the supernatural. There is no evidence or data for gods. Conclusion - Claim X should be considered plausible despite the complete lack of proof for the Claim or the agency causing the action in the Claim, because there is always a possibility that universal laws can be violated and we just don't know about it yet, AND there may be evidence or data for god creatures and magic that we haven't discovered yet.

The only thing you can infer from "we have not conclusively observed X yet" is that in the cases of conclusive observation, circumstances have not been favourable for X. Newton's law of universal gravitation was a universal law, until conclusive observations became good enough to find discrepancies. Now it's not a universal law any more, which shows that imagining 'universal laws' to be "actual constraints of the universe" is an invalid assumption.

It's an invalid assumption for Newton's Law you mean. That has nothing to do with other lines of research unrelated to Newton's Laws.

If we use your reasoning, the fact that believers don't believe in 99.9% of the gods in the history of humanity means they shouldn't believe in the god creature they do pray do, right? After all, assuming one's god must exist is an invalid assumption if these other gods don't exist, eh?

But you're here talking about "known universal laws"?

Of course. This is what we know, based on the scientific method. Please remember that the scientific method is an ongoing process, no one claims that anything in science is a closed case. Everything is considered open pending the possible discovery of additional information in the future. Universal laws are no different in that regard. This is what we know, so far, based on everything we have looked at.

And therefore one of the things we know is that it is entirely fallacious to assume these observations are representative of universal constraints on reality.

But the observations are representative of constraints on reality. No known violations have ever been found. It is not fallacious to use what we know at this time, when analyzing claims that supposedly present a violation of all the research and observation to this point.

What's really fallacious is to assume that there will be a violation found at some point in the future so that you can call plausible the baseless magic and superhuman claims, which is itself fallacious because one thing failing (universal laws) does not automatically lend credence to another thing (magic).

But if you're talking about those laws as real things in and of themselves, actual universal constraints on reality which would need to be "suspended" before any unusual, non-reproducible event could occur, what you are doing is philosophy, not science. In and of itself that obviously doesn't mean that you're wrong; but it's a view which goes far beyond the available observational evidence, which you are then using to dismiss actual reports by multiple observers... and not just one or two isolated incidents, but again and again and again.

Again, the laws represent the available observational evidence. Is there any reason to think that the laws can be violated? No.

Yes, there is - I just showed you that reason. We have observational reports, often by multiple apparently credible observers, from all periods of history (though historical claims have flimsy evidence) through to the enlightened 20th and 21st centuries, and spanning all parts of the world. You might not find those reports persuasive enough to disturb your alternative worldview, but baldly asserting that such a range and depth of observational reports are no reason whatsoever looks more like hopeful rhetoric than any kind of objective analysis.

Ahh, so it's enlightened observations in the 20th and 21st century for baseless magic claims is it, yet we can't use verified universal laws verified in the 20th and 21st century as an argument against baseless magic claims? What a hilarious double standard that is.

Any human being can verify universal laws, but let's doubt those. Instead, let's take the word of people who can not substantiate anything they say and call that plausible.

Your argument fails miserably.

You want to doubt things that can be verified and observed by any other human being on the planet at any time they want to do so (conversation laws, homogeneous rules in the universe), and then consider realistically possible baseless claims of human experience that cannot be substantiated or validated. If you think you are a skeptic than you are doing it backwards...

It certainly is not the case that any human on the planet can verify those scientific observations at any time. In fact most people never will and never could personally verify them in their entire lives. I'd go even further and hazard a guess that even in wealthier countries, a majority or significant minority of people would find themselves unable to personally verify even one of those laws, even if they used equipment from their local university. Honestly, how many people do you think would really understand the theoretical groundwork necessary to conduct even just a few experiments testing conservation of energy? With enough training I'm sure most people could parrot the words back at you and mimic the motions of an experiment, but that's not the same as verifying the results.

How hard do you think it is to verify, Mith? It ain't rocket science bro. It's done in high school science classrooms every year. Look it up on youtube. Google it. There are simple experiments that can be done. The math isn't all that difficult. Most high school graduates have done it.

An equivalent claim is sometimes made by religious folk: Anyone on earth can experience the truth of our religion, if they are sincere in their desire to do so and dedicated to pursuing that truth long-term!

Which is one of their better arguments quite frankly. Self verification is the easiest way to convince yourself of something.

You then turn around and try to pretend that claims made by various human beings is some kind of observational evidence. Can you see what they supposedly see? Can you verify it? Can you gather that data yourself? No, of course not. They could be lying, they could be mistaken, they could be telling the truth. You have no idea which one it is, because it is a claim and not evidence. I've explained this enough to you already.

Just as a report of a scientific experiment is 'just a claim.' I don't trust scientific conclusions because I have personally replicated all experimental results, and certainly not from a belief that scientists are immune from error or especially trustworthy. Do you?

I trust scientific conclusions because there are thousands of scientists replicating and testing and refining and confirming each others' work. Any single scientist may well be subject to misperception, experimental design flaws, bias or even outright deceit in pursuit of funding. There is a chance that's the case, wouldn't you agree? But the probability that two scientists are wrong or deceptive is smaller than the probability that one is, and the probability that thousands of scientists are all misleading or wildly mistaken beyond known uncertainties becomes exceptionally small. [As a point of interest, that is exactly how I explain things to climate change contrarians on my other forum, when they try to equate scientific consensus with 'truth by popular vote.']

Precisely the same reasoning applies in the case of media reports, or anything else for that matter:
- Observation is the primary means by which we know about reality
- Anything I can't personally observe, I must rely on others' observations
- Any individual's reported observation has some probability of being false
- Many people's observations collectively have a lower probability of being false

If you have some other method of gaining reliable information beyond your personal experience I'd be delighted to hear of it. But otherwise, that is also precisely the same reasoning I use in the case of unusual or paranormal reports. Anything else would be special pleading on philosophical grounds.

(And no, the religion of folk reporting an observation makes no difference to the level of scrutiny and skepticism which should be applied.)

Not all claims are the same. No doubt you've heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That saying didn't just pop up for no good reason, Mith.

The easiest claims to accept are the ones we can test and experience and observe ourselves. We can all see the sun rise in the east and set in the west for example. Verifiable by each and every one of us. Then comes the claims that we can't verify, but are consistent with what we know. Say Willum tells us he ate tacos for lunch today. We didn't see it, but we know tacos exist, and we know people eat them. We can be pretty sure that he can get tacos where he lives, and that he eats lunch on a regular basis. So this is very plausible, and probably accepted with any further proof, for most people. Then comes the claims that we can't verify, but are consistent with what we know, BUT are highly unlikely anyway. Tired Of The Nonsense tells us he hooked up with Jennifer Garner last night after she finished filming a Capitol One Visa commercial. We didn't see it, but we know she exists (or at least accepts she exists), and we know people have sex. We are pretty sure that Tired and Jennifer Garner have sex during their lives. However, even though this is very plausible, most will call BS on it anyway because of who Jennifer Garner is and who Tired is. We don't accept it even though it could happen. Then comes the claims that we can't verify and are not consistent with what we know. I tell everyone I was abducted by Odin and forced to wear a tutu while undergoing anal probing. Not plausible, not consistent with what we know, and very unlikely.

I'm talking about the first kind of claim (universal laws) to debunk the last type of claim (magic), and I fail to understand why you have a problem with that, and think the last type of claim should be given preferential treatment in any way, shape, or form...

[Mithrae]

Just as a report of a scientific experiment is 'just a claim.' I don't trust scientific conclusions because I have personally replicated all experimental results, and certainly not from a belief that scientists are immune from error or especially trustworthy. Do you?

I trust scientific conclusions because there are thousands of scientists replicating and testing and refining and confirming each others' work. Any single scientist may well be subject to misperception, experimental design flaws, bias or even outright deceit in pursuit of funding. There is a chance that's the case, wouldn't you agree? But the probability that two scientists are wrong or deceptive is smaller than the probability that one is, and the probability that thousands of scientists are all misleading or wildly mistaken beyond known uncertainties becomes exceptionally small. [As a point of interest, that is exactly how I explain things to climate change contrarians on my other forum, when they try to equate scientific consensus with 'truth by popular vote.']

Precisely the same reasoning applies in the case of media reports, or anything else for that matter:
- Observation is the primary means by which we know about reality
- Anything I can't personally observe, I must rely on others' observations
- Any individual's reported observation has some probability of being false
- Many people's observations collectively have a lower probability of being false

If you have some other method of gaining reliable information beyond your personal experience I'd be delighted to hear of it. But otherwise, that is also precisely the same reasoning I use in the case of unusual or paranormal reports. Anything else would be special pleading on philosophical grounds.

(And no, the religion of folk reporting an observation makes no difference to the level of scrutiny and skepticism which should be applied.)

Not all claims are the same. No doubt you've heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That saying didn't just pop up for no good reason, Mith.

The easiest claims to accept are the ones we can test and experience and observe ourselves. We can all see the sun rise in the east and set in the west for example. Verifiable by each and every one of us. Then comes the claims that we can't verify, but are consistent with what we know. Say Willum tells us he ate tacos for lunch today. We didn't see it, but we know tacos exist, and we know people eat them. We can be pretty sure that he can get tacos where he lives, and that he eats lunch on a regular basis. So this is very plausible, and probably accepted with any further proof, for most people. Then comes the claims that we can't verify, but are consistent with what we know, BUT are highly unlikely anyway. Tired Of The Nonsense tells us he hooked up with Jennifer Garner last night after she finished filming a Capitol One Visa commercial. We didn't see it, but we know she exists (or at least accepts she exists), and we know people have sex. We are pretty sure that Tired and Jennifer Garner have sex during their lives. However, even though this is very plausible, most will call BS on it anyway because of who Jennifer Garner is and who Tired is. We don't accept it even though it could happen. Then comes the claims that we can't verify and are not consistent with what we know. I tell everyone I was abducted by Odin and forced to wear a tutu while undergoing anal probing. Not plausible, not consistent with what we know, and very unlikely.

I'm talking about the first kind of claim (universal laws) to debunk the last type of claim (magic), and I fail to understand why you have a problem with that, and think the last type of claim should be given preferential treatment in any way, shape, or form...

No, you're first and foremost ignoring and denying fairly basic and obvious evidentiary criteria: If Adam and Betty confirmed that Tired hooked up with Jennifer Garner, that would clearly be further evidence that his account was true, increasing its plausibility. If another person also witnessed your anal probing, and your bank statement showed your subsequent visit to the proctologist, and several other groups in your area also reported the strange fetishes of someone looking like and claiming to be an ancient deity, it would be little short of stubborn dogmatism to insist the accounts are all false. By all common, historical, philosophical and judicial usage (and scientific, when they are repeatable), reports by multiple credible observers are evidence: Your ongoing regular insistence to the contrary seems to be desperate hope-filled rhetoric at best... although at this point disingenuous might be a more appropriate term.

Secondly your alternative claim - that the repeatable observations of science and common human experience (which cover perhaps one or two percent of Earth's populated land surfaces in the visible spectrum of light, even over the past century) represent such unquestionable universal constraints on reality that they're sufficient basis for blanket dismissal of innumerable otherwise-credible observational reports of exceptions and anomalies - can't even be placed in your categories above. Unless it's your fourth category, since your worldview contradicts thousands of observations made all around the world in all periods of history up to the present (not to mention the consequent worldviews, what is 'known,' of most people who've ever lived; acceptance of occasional paranormal events being one of if not the most common unifying themes).

The common sense viewpoint would be that observations made in one set of circumstances usually bear no necessary relationship to observations made in a different set of circumstances. You can see a feather fall slower than a lead ball a thousand times, and it might provide you with grounds for some extra scepticism of a claim they fell at the same speed, but not for blanket dismissal of a dozen reports that it occurred. You might check a million lottery tickets without finding a winner, and you'd be fairly sceptical of someone's claim to have the right one, but unjustified in burning it sight unseen. You and your peers might look at a billion night skies and even coin the phrase "as black as midnight," and reasonably question Finnish claims of radiant colours in theirs, but logically incoherent in your blind insistence on your thoroughly and endlessly confirmed law constraining the night to inky blackness.



A great pleasure discussing this with you But if anything, further clarifying my thoughts on this (particularly vis a vis how very limited our most common and reliable observations actually are for how reality 'normally' behaves) has further persuaded me that among all those observational reports there is a very real probability that 'miracles' or paranormal events can happen. At this point though, I think we'll just be going around in circles unless and until you can come to terms with these two points above.

[Kenisaw]

I'm simply applying Ockham's razor to the question: When we see apparent order or design in reality - whether at atomic or biological or cosmic levels - invoking some kind of deterministic causal mechanism to explain it seems to be unnecessary if an alternative, the causal mechanism which we live and experience every day, might provide an equally satisfactory explanation. It's nothing approaching proof or knowledge, just the more reasonable view.

Ockham's razor cuts wonderfully well when applied to questions of an earthly nature. Extrapolation from what we do here to what might be in another dimension isn't covered by his razor. Basically you are saying: we observe this is how things work here; therefore it is reasonable to believe they work in the same way elsewhere. That's fine, except that we haven't a clue what exists, how it exists, why it exists in some non-physical dimension. So imposing rules doesn't seem reasonable at all. I am not denying that there is possibility of similarity, only that it is merely a useless guess.

Worse still is to allow a sentient, merciful, loving being to occupy the empty space and act accordingly.

We meaning you and I, sure. There are others who do claim to have caught some glimpse of a higher reality through spiritual insights (and even some folk arrogant enough to imagine that they really understand it ). While many such claims may be fraudulent or delusional, short of presupposing that such insights are impossible or assuming that they must be competing monolithic paradigms rather than complementary glimpses, I don't see any basis for rejecting all such claims.

But even so far as the empirical argument goes it's a bit more than a useless guess. Looking back through some of my earlier posts on the forum, it seems I've so far mentioned only one of three (at least) sides to this issue:

1 > Ontological extrapolation/Ockham's razor, as we've discussed: When we know and experience our own nature as thinking/choosing beings, it is less reasonable to postulate novel types of being unless and until it could actually be shown that thought and choice are not part of their nature, which so far hasn't been done.

2 > The problem of consciousness created by proposing a non-conscious reality: How could non-conscious matter produce conscious experience? Vague appeals to 'emergence' from the complexity of neural networks aside, that's a thorny question which we really don't have an answer to yet, and may never have.

3 > The explanatory scope of memetic variation, in contrast to the numerous 'laws' which must be invoked by materialist theories: Setting aside the complex notion of Christianity's omni- omni- omni- God, the only simple-to-complex mechanisms we can imagine are those which involve selection from reproducible variation, and the only examples known to us are the genetic variation of living matter and the memetic variation of thoughts. Thus the latter provides a more satisfying theoretical basis for explaining our complex reality than invoking numerous 'laws' governing stuff's behaviour.


Again, I wouldn't consider these to be anything along the lines of proof, but from a 50/50 baseline of conscious vs. non-conscious realities, the view of consciousness being intrinsic to reality would easily rise to a 60 or 70% 'probability' in light of these observations, and hence a very reasonable conclusion to reach.

1) Occam's razor doesn't make room for another layer to the onion. If you want to argue that it makes more sense for consciousness to exist because previous consciousness allows it to, or argue that it makes more sense that novel types of beings come from previous beings, all you've done is created a false logic loop. Once you make it a requirement for previous existence of something to explain the current existence of something, you have to stick to your thesis and explain where the previous existence comes from. After all, the thesis states that it makes less sense that it happened by itself, right?

You've just bought a ticket on the false logic loop merry go round...

2)Do you ever worry about the problem of gold coming from a non-gold reality? Gold didn't exist in the early universe. You take the same parts (neurons, protons, electrons) and arrange them in the right structure, and suddenly you have the property we call "gold". The parts of the "gold" are not "gold", anymore than they are "iron" or "hydrogen" or any other element. But in the right structure, that property emerges.

Put enough of certain types of amino acids together, and you get a molecule that folds itself over. There is no folding mechanism in any of the amino acids, or any of the atoms in the molecules, but in the right structure that property emerges.

Put enough peptides together and you get a molecule that actively replicates by separating in half and begins to build again. There is nothing about the peptides or aminos in the peptides or the atoms in the molecules that have a self replicating property, yet that property emerges when a certain structure is present.

If you think that property emergence from certain structures prohibits consciousness out of non-conscious stuff, you need to review your chemistry.

3)I apologize on this one, I can't seem to suss out what your intended comment is here. Memetics doesn't cancel out the laws of the universe, or make them obsolete or useless. They aren't related in any particular way for that matter. but if you disagree I'm sure you will expound on what you intended.

[Mithrae]

1 > Ontological extrapolation/Ockham's razor, as we've discussed: When we know and experience our own nature as thinking/choosing beings, it is less reasonable to postulate novel types of being unless and until it could actually be shown that thought and choice are not part of their nature, which so far hasn't been done.

1) Occam's razor doesn't make room for another layer to the onion. If you want to argue that it makes more sense for consciousness to exist because previous consciousness allows it to, or argue that it makes more sense that novel types of beings come from previous beings, all you've done is created a false logic loop. Once you make it a requirement for previous existence of something to explain the current existence of something, you have to stick to your thesis and explain where the previous existence comes from. After all, the thesis states that it makes less sense that it happened by itself, right?

That is not a correct assessment of the argument, no. We know that it exists - a reality outside our own minds. This point is not about explaining the existence of that reality, nor explaining our own minds. It is about speculation on the nature of that external reality which we know exists. Now admittedly this is difficult to explain, because we are (for want of a better word) indoctrinated on this point. But perhaps a good way is to ask what do we mean by the word 'physical'?

The only definitions I've seen are along the lines of either "relating to the body as opposed to the mind" or "relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind"; some folk suggest that it means things accessible to science (a variant on the latter), others simply assert that everything that exists is 'physical.' If you have some coherent definition besides variations on these I'd love to hear it.

But if not, it follows that the statement "reality is physical" must be either a meaningless tautology (reality is physical because 'physical' means anything that exists), or else a purely negative assertion: Reality is non-mental, because physical one way or another means a contrast with the mind.

Now the purely negative assertion isn't necessarily false, but it is clearly asserting the nature of reality to be different from our minds - different from the one thing which we know most certainly and experience most constantly. And we simply have no evidence for non-mental things. Things outside of our minds, yes; but things outside of any mind? There's no way to test for that; we can't even detect consciousness in humans except by reference to behaviour and neural patterns!

The assertion "reality is mental" is wildly unjustified, no question there.

But the assertion "reality is non-mental" or "reality is physical" is even more unjustified, because it proposes something entirely new, non-mental things for which we have no prior example.

Hence Occam's razor favours the former, however weakly, as the more reasonable speculation.

2 > The problem of consciousness created by proposing a non-conscious reality: How could non-conscious matter produce conscious experience? Vague appeals to 'emergence' from the complexity of neural networks aside, that's a thorny question which we really don't have an answer to yet, and may never have.

2)Do you ever worry about the problem of gold coming from a non-gold reality? Gold didn't exist in the early universe. You take the same parts (neurons, protons, electrons) and arrange them in the right structure, and suddenly you have the property we call "gold". The parts of the "gold" are not "gold", anymore than they are "iron" or "hydrogen" or any other element. But in the right structure, that property emerges.

Put enough of certain types of amino acids together, and you get a molecule that folds itself over. There is no folding mechanism in any of the amino acids, or any of the atoms in the molecules, but in the right structure that property emerges.

Put enough peptides together and you get a molecule that actively replicates by separating in half and begins to build again. There is nothing about the peptides or aminos in the peptides or the atoms in the molecules that have a self replicating property, yet that property emerges when a certain structure is present.

If you think that property emergence from certain structures prohibits consciousness out of non-conscious stuff, you need to review your chemistry.

Extension and form are already properties of molecules. You're merely talking about changes in form - which are explained in terms of molecular interaction - not emergence of new properties. I've seen things like snowflake patterns, colour or sound mentioned in this context of emergence also, but inasmuch as anything new is present in those cases, they are a function of subjective perception and therefore hardly evidence that subjective perception/consciousness itself could 'emerge.'

I'll grant you that the last time I discussed this I assumed (not being a chemist or physicist) that the genuine emergence of objectively new properties may or may not be said to occur at the quantum level - given the different interpretations of QM I suspect that there'd be scientists taking both sides on that one. But unless consciousness is also claimed to originate from a quantum rather than cellular level, all the weirdness that happens at the quantum level can't really be assumed to translate into a macro level even if genuine property emergence occurs there (which is debatable).

If you're interested, I think that the most relevant ancient thread I was involved in is this one:
viewtopic.php?t=20915&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

3 > The explanatory scope of memetic variation, in contrast to the numerous 'laws' which must be invoked by materialist theories: Setting aside the complex notion of Christianity's omni- omni- omni- God, the only simple-to-complex mechanisms we can imagine are those which involve selection from reproducible variation, and the only examples known to us are the genetic variation of living matter and the memetic variation of thoughts. Thus the latter provides a more satisfying theoretical basis for explaining our complex reality than invoking numerous 'laws' governing stuff's behaviour.

3)I apologize on this one, I can't seem to suss out what your intended comment is here. Memetics doesn't cancel out the laws of the universe, or make them obsolete or useless. They aren't related in any particular way for that matter. but if you disagree I'm sure you will expound on what you intended.

The point is, why invoke 'laws of the universe'? More specifically, if you're familiar with the supposed 'fine-tuning' of our universal constants, they imply a degree of complexity (specificity in several different parameters) to the nature of our reality which might be 'explained' either by astounding coincidence (anthropic principle*) or by invoking a quasi-infinite multiverse. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for a complex reality - if anything, the latter essentially is invoking infinite complexity!

By contrast, thoughts are one of only two simple-to-complex mechanisms actually known to us, the other being biological evolution: So in explaining a complex reality, rather than invoking complexity (finely-tuned laws or an infinite multiverse) the more parsimonious approach is to consider a simple-to-complex mechanism. This reasoning does preclude the omni- omni- omni- God of Christianity, at least as generally conceived: It would imply a 'god' who learns and grows.

I think the best ancient thread explaining this line of reasoning would be this one:
viewtopic.php?p=547822



Pretty late, so apologies if I haven't made enough sense!

[ttruscott]

ImCo:

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.

Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?

And where were you when babies were gassed in the Holocaust?

Awaiting my turn to be born and die. GOD has decreed that only sinners under the judgement of death are born as human. Your question implies there is something special about these deaths, so special it makes you a moral authority over anyone who doesn't agree with you - the false logic of moral signaling.

If we were created to be reviled by the creator, to be mocked for our ignorance and to be addressed in boast, then what was the purpose?

No one was created to be "reviled by the creator, to be mocked for our ignorance"... We ended up in the situation where our foolish trust in ourselves while enslaved to sin has made ourselves a target for mocking and revilement.

Job is an illustration of all that is mean in the God of the OT.

The story of Job is the story of YHWH sucking Satan into exposing the incredible depths of evil in that out of jealousy, he would totally monster the most holy old man in the world. While GOD could have sent Satan upon Job without his awareness, to me it fits GOD's loving righteousness better to think that Job volunteered for the job before he was born, forgetting his past life in the spirit pre-earth as we all do.

The point of the sinful but good seed having to live with the evil of the tares is so that the good seed may come into full alignment with GOD's plan to judge those condemned already, the big failing of the sinful elect. Job, by proving Satan's absolute disregard for anyone in his war with YHWH, played into the exposure of Satan's soul that helps the sinful but good seed reject him and accept his banishment to hell for eternity.

when the morning stars sang together
and all the heavenly beings[a] shouted for joy?

The atheist Shelley, whose half-eaten corpse was thrown on an Italian coast when he drowned, wrote better lyrics than the dumb morning stars.

Since you have no idea of the content of their song, I doubt you have any means to compare the poetic differences of the Sons of GOD with Shelley...the false logic of a somewhat sidewise appeal to an authority, Shelley.

Given the brutal destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, these lines that speak of joy sound insane.

The joy stemmed from the creation of the physical universe being the absolute positive proof of YHWH's Divinity and power. It was so stupendous, even those who knew this proof doomed them for their evil of rejecting HIM as a lying demon himself and a false god, sang HIS praises for the glory of it all.

It was proof that the promise of heaven and salvation from sin was real, well worth singing about and Shelley as a creation of GOD maybe sang better than other humans but he did not sing better than the Sons of GOD at the foundation of the world...imhCo.

[ttruscott]

Additionally, you use the pronoun "we" as if there were uniformity of possession. There isn't. Many are broken toys. Should we deduce an incompetent craftsman?

What maker makes broken toys? It is more logical to think that we broke ourselves by getting into things we were warned against.