Complexity? Really?

Debate Room
77

So the first sentence is a circular reasoning fallacy, you’ve assumed your conclusion in your premise, and the second sentence is clearly an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Sorry but that’s not a very auspicious start, and again my apologies but this kind of irrational claims typify most theistic reasoning I encounter. Food for though perhaps, but I guess no one is obliged to be rational if they don’t want to.

The universe is (based on everything I’ve learned) rationally intelligible, attributing that to anything other than intelligence leads to a contradiction. One can only eliminate intent, intelligence by replacing it with material mechanism. However material mechanism is always attributed to laws, yet laws are attributable to what? more laws? This reasoning (reductionism) is futile, it masquerades to some as understanding but it isn’t.

Which part of this strikes you as irrational? It is very rational to infer an intelligent agency for what we observe, to infer material laws as being the reason there are material laws strikes me as irrational.

I think you may have misunderstood determinism, or at least are making a facile representation of it there, but you would need to demonstrate some objective evidence for your assertion, not merely a false dichotomy fallacy. Ironically it is monotheistic belief that asserts we live in a deterministic universe, though some of them also make the contradictory claim we have “free will” of course. I don’t know how much autonomy evolved apes have. but the idea we have none would also need to be supported by sufficient objective evidence, and then you would need to demonstrate sufficient objective that this “fact” led to your assertion this must mean the universe required intelligence.

No, I think I understand determinism, it underpins materialism, and the mathematical description of nature, science. To what would you attribute determinism? it can only be non-determinism.

As for “free will” it strikes me that this exists, will and intent exist (these are self evident to me anyway). Admitting that will, intent exists enables us to explain the presence of the universe without recourse to that universe, and is therefore a better, more rational explanation.

A thing cannot be an explanation for itself, not if we want explanations to be reductionist which in science they always are.

Now some, perhaps you, believe that (at least apparent) will and intent are consequential, the outcome of laws of nature and material processes but this is putting the cart before the horse, it makes more overall sense to me to posit that intent, will, directive agency is what led to the universe.

Anyway since you are a theist I have a pretty standard question, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? Or that any deity is even possible?

The presence of the universe, a rationally intelligible universe is evidence. There cannot be a material explanation for the universe.

1 Like
78

I can see the point he’s making. Yes, General Relativity models gravity very well, but we don’t know if the mechanism it uses for gravity (the warping of spacetime by massive objects) is the actual mechanism. GR is a geometric theory and there are no forces involved. It’s also possible that gravity is an actual force like the electromagnetic force and is mediated by a gauge boson like the postulated graviton. So while we have a theory that accurately predicts the effects of gravity, we don’t know the underlying mechanism. Yet.

79

Well repeating the unevidenced claim won’t help?

You’re back to using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, no one need attribute it to anything in order to disbelieve your claim that it must be derived from intelligence.

Sigh, argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, I can replace it with I don’t know, and still disbelieve your claim.

Reduntant straw man, see above.

It is a basic principle of logic that nothing can be asserted as rational if it contains or is based on a known logical fallacy, you are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, I linked an explanation of that fallacy.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, again, one more time then, I need not infer anything in order to disbelieve your unevidenced assertion the universe requires intelligence. The claim is yours, the burden of proof is entirely yours.

“the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.”

Then you are misrepresenting it as a “necessary” predication for atheism.

Self evident to me? Do you imagine that is an argument?

Than what? Your assumption that atheists must adhere completely to the notion of determinism? I already stated as plainly as I know how that I don’t know how much autonomy humans have, nor do you of course, unless you’re keeping it secret from the rest of the human world.

By using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, so I wonder why you find such irrational notions compelling? Especially since you can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity, let alone the specific one that according to your profile you believe is real? I don’t care what notions you think we are limited to, as i am free to disbelieve even in the absence of an alternative assumption, to claim otherwise as you keep doing is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Oh really? I’d ask you to demonstrate some objective evidence for this assertion, but I’m still waiting for you to answer my previous question.

Can I expect an answer to that at any point?

80

Well I suspect there was an overarching point beyond the actual claim, or else I’ve missed something? It’s impossible to measure the totality of what we don’t know of course, but so what?

1 Like
81

What is intelligent about two hydrogen atoms being attracted to one oxygen atom? Do you mean free floating universal intelligence? Something called intelligence just floating around in the universe. What are you talking about?

2 Likes
82

Let me focus on just these points of yours for the sake of expediency:

what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? Or that any deity is even possible?

Answer: The presence of a rationally intelligible universe, very objective I’d say.

Oh really? I’d ask you to demonstrate some objective evidence for this assertion, but I’m still waiting for you to answer my previous question.

You wrote that in response to this that I wrote:

There cannot be a material explanation for the universe.

Material explanations are expressed in terms of things that already exist. Scientific explanations can only explain (predict) the future state of an existing system, they cannot explain the presence of a system from a prior state where there is no system.

The only way to explain the presence of the universe is in terms of something other than that universe.

One can certainly explain the state of the universe, its state here and there or at some past or future date, but one cannot explain its presence.

If you’re satisfied with a circular argument then that’s fine but I am not and I am not afraid to face the consequences of that line of reasoning.

Not to mention that these “laws” are also beliefs, nothing more.

1 Like
83

I can see the point he’s making. Yes, General Relativity models gravity very well, but we don’t know if the mechanism it uses for gravity (the warping of spacetime by massive objects) is the actual mechanism. GR is a geometric theory and there are no forces involved. It’s also possible that gravity is an actual force like the electromagnetic force and is mediated by a gauge boson like the postulated graviton. So while we have a theory that accurately predicts the effects of gravity, we don’t know the underlying mechanism. Yet.

Indeed, the phrase “space is curved” is just a characterization of nature. The equations of motion of a particle in a gravitational field just happen to look exactly like the equations describing geodesics in four dimensional non-Euclidean spaces.

It is astonishing. incredible but we can’t say “space is really curved” only that it looks like it is!

But my point is that if you look at any theory from theoretical physics, cosmology and so on, the theory is written down in terms of things that already exist - laws of nature.

How could one write down a theory explaining the presence of laws? we can’t explain the presence of the universe scientifically, because we require it to exist in order to explain how it came to exist. The only way to escape from this doomed straitjacket line of reasoning is to attribute the universe to an intent, a will, an intelligent agency, the agency is revealed to us by the presence of the universe.

John Barrow wrote about this a great deal, his book New Theories of Everything discusses these questions, also John Lennox too in the book God’s Undertaker.

1 Like
84

No. There’s no reason to postulate an intelligent agency just because we can’t currently explain how the universe came to exist purely in naturalistic terms. That’s a false dichotomy fallacy.

1 Like
85

What’s going on here…

The assertion is that science can not say what gravity is. This is correct. We have two wonderful theories about how gravity works. We can use these theories to put men on the moon and satellites to the edge of the known universe.

Science does not tell us what stuff is. It describes stuff that we see. It explains and predicts the world around us.

When science does not know something, it is referenced as a force. Electrical force, life force. Gravitational Force. We know how to predict, use, and explain these forces in relation to the world around us because of science. What are they?

What is electricity - the movement of electrons. What is an electron? Something with a property calle ‘charge.’ REFERENCE:

The problem with gravity is the same. Point is - Science does not tell us what stuff is. So what? Science is a method of inquiry into the nature of things. It is an understanding of what things are doing and how they work. Science is not making the claim, “We know what gravity is.”

The only one making a claim to know what something is, is the idiot asserting that it ‘IS’ intelligence. Or, that there ‘IS’ a creator being. The fact that science does not know something does not open the door for inane bullshit claims of supernatural origins.

Fact it this… If science does not know it “NEITHER DO YOU”

86

No. There’s no reason to postulate an intelligent agency just because we can’t currently explain how the universe came to exist purely in naturalistic terms. That’s a false dichotomy fallacy.

There’s every reason to postulate a non material agency when we’ve proven that there cannot have been a material cause. Purely naturalistic explanations are incapable of explaining how naturalistic processes came to exist.

This is not a question of “just because we can’t currently” the fact is that scientific explanations require that something already exists in order to provides the processes used in explanations.

Want to see the real scientific theory of everything? here it is:

image
image900×600 33.3 KB

87

Please give me one reason to postulate a non-material agency. Demonstrate the existence of a non-material agent. Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment. How do you have a non-material agent?

1 Like
88

It isn’t remotely objective obviously, it’s a subjective belief you hold, and you’re using another circular reasoning fallacy.

Ah, so an another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy then, when you claimed “There cannot be a material explanation for the universe.” it was pure assumption based on us not currently having one. Again this rationale is based on a known common logical fallacy, ipso facto it is demonstrably irrational.

Sigh, and you know this how exactly? The physical universe exists as an objective fact, natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, on what basis beyond an argument ad ignorantiam fallacy are you claiming to know there cannot be an as yet unknown material explanation for the universe? NB even for the sake of argument this doesn’t remotely evidence a deity you will note. You’ll be trotting out the KCA next.

Well you are free to find irrational arguments compelling in order to prop up a priori religious beliefs of course, but I lend no credence to irrational arguments of course.

What laws, you’ve lost me sorry?

89

Please give me one reason to postulate a non-material agency.

Sure, postulating a material agency is insufficient.

Demonstrate the existence of a non-material agent.

The universe exists and cannot be attributed to material causes (see above).

Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment. How do you have a non-material agent?

You want an answer in material, familiar terms? there is none, you cannot explain this materially so seeking one is futile.

90

And that in no way opens the door for a supernatural cause. You are attempting to use two different sides of a proposition at the same time. Either the world was caused by natural means or supernatural means. Never mind that there is no evidence for the supernatural.

We have explored the natural, and we do not know how the world came into existence and all that shit you are worried about. So our response is “I don’t know.”

In this vacuum of knowledge, you are inserting ‘supernatural.’ You are doing so with no warrant whatsoever. You cannot demonstrate that ‘supernatural’ even exists. It is not even among the possibilities until you can demonstrate there is something actually there. Your claim,‘Supernatural is an explanation.’ is vapid. It leads us nowhere, gets us nowhere, explains nothing.

4 Likes
91

We have NOT proven that there cannot have been a material cause. If you think you have evidence for this claim, please post citations to legitimate journals, not creationist rags.

1 Like
92

Scientific laws are descriptive not proscriptive.

Well there was a time when we couldn’t explain lightning or earthquakes, yet the belief they must require a supernatural cause turned out to be very wrong, and all the causes we do understand are natural phenomena, not once has anything supernatural ever been objectively evidenced.

An argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy and a circular reasoning fallacy, this relentless use of irrational argument is not very compelling.

Did they resort to using logical fallacies in tandem as you are doing?

You’ve not proven anything, just assumed it, based on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Not currently having an explanation is not nearly the same as no explanation being possible, and yet you are claiming the latter assertion gains credence from the former, that is the fallacy.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy

You seem to making another unevidenced assumption here that this is not possible, one wonders if you have published your work, as the world of theoretical physics would be agog to know this was the case.

It is at best an appeal to mystery, nothing more. It is yet another god of the gaps polemic. We don’t know X, therefor god, not very compelling.

I don’t believe you as you have offered nothing beyond fallacious argument and bald assertion.

Luckily superstitions have largely been neutered, so the days are gone where they get to stifle scientific discourse, though you are of course free to believe whatever makes you happy.

2 Likes
93

Do you really not understand logic? You are confusing two sides of a delima at the same time. Either the universe has a natural cause or a supernatural cause. (This may be a false dichotomy, but let’s go with it for now.) There are two different propositions.

  1. The universe had a natural cause. All evidence to date supports this assumption. The natural world exists and we can explore it. That is what science does.

  2. The universe had a supernatural cause. A separate assertion. Distinct and separate from the first and requiring evidence. The fact that the first assertion has not explained something does not mean this one, the second, is accepted automatically.

The number of stars in the sky is either odd or even. If I tell you that their number is even, and you say you do not believe me. Have you asserted they are odd? No. You just do not believe they are even. Both proposals said, "The number is even.’ ‘The number is odd.’ requires evidence. You cannot assert that because the first has not been proved, the second is automatically true.

You are posing nothing but a ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy. In your case, a ‘creative force of the gaps.’ Your assertion is inane.

4 Likes
94

Oh me me me, I know this over here me me me!

Corrreccttttt…as that would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

1 Like
95

I’m bowing out now, Mr. Sheldon. It this **** (Insert Favorite Explative) **** does not get it after such a clear explanation, I have no time for him. It is my day off. Korean Independence Day. I’m doing a bit of work and then I am going to enjoy my day. Cheers!

3 Likes
96

Can you demonstrate that formally? I’m not willing to just take your word on this.

For what it is worth that is false; if for no other reason: you can do reverse time evolution (make predictions about the past).

Can you please provide this proof explicitly; I seemed to have missed this one too.

4 Likes