Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Christians Believe That God Is Immanant In The Natural World?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 30 of 88 (410468)
07-15-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by anastasia
07-15-2007 1:19 AM


Layers of Causality
That's a stretch, but again you have emphasized what I find strange in a evo/naturalist idealism: you have concluded your studies in the same manner that theists have started theirs. There must be an uncaused first cause. I remind you that you need not go into depth on that one, as it is a familiar concept.
I suppose the question for rational theists is this - If you can accept an initial uncaused cause, and all the evidence points to this being possible of purely natural origins, then why do you feel the need to introduce an additional level of supernatural uncaused cause in the shape of god?
The introduction of god as the uncaused cause seems an unnecessary step and one for which there is less evidence than the natural and more direct alternative.
On a purely physical basis it doesn't make sense to bring god into the equation unless you have other ulterior reasons for wishing to involve him/her/it (i.e. a belief that there is a god and that they MUST have had a role in creating the physical universe somehow)
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by anastasia, posted 07-15-2007 1:19 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Grizz, posted 07-15-2007 12:13 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 33 by anastasia, posted 07-15-2007 9:40 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 38 of 88 (410603)
07-16-2007 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by anastasia
07-15-2007 11:06 PM


Re: Layers of Causality
If we don't know WHAT was the first cause, how can we possibly decide whether we are pushing it backward or forward a step? It is only upon deciding that nature was the first cause, that you can say the supernatural is 'extra'. How can the 'natural' be the cause of anything if nothing natural existed? It's pretty simple. If nature is THE cause, then nature is God. You just don't mention it. I am declaring that WHATEVER is the uncaused cause is not known, and until it is known, God is not an extra step. He is the same step.
For arguments sake consider the following - I propose that you are right. Your god did create the universe. BUT your God is not the initial uncaused cause for which we are looking. Instead what you call God was in fact created by an even more powerful supernatural being. This more powerful being is the initial uncaused cause and is in fact the cause of the God that in turn created our universe. We should in fact be worshipping the creator of the creator.
There is no evidence against this view. There is no reason to think it any more or less true than your creator as the initial uncaused cause.
Yet I suspect that your reaction to this is that it sounds unnecessarily convuluted and unlikely. That I am falsely applying additional layers of causality to make things fit my own arguments and beliefs.
That is exactly how your god hypothesis sounds to me.
Nature is unconscious, uncaring and indifferent. Quantum fluctuations (or whetever other initial natural uncaused cause is under consideration) do not have a plan or a purpose.
Does that really fit your definition of God?
If so we have no real disagreement and you can call nature 'God' and 'God' nature if you want to.
However I suspect that this is not the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by anastasia, posted 07-15-2007 11:06 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by anastasia, posted 07-16-2007 10:26 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 40 of 88 (410648)
07-16-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by anastasia
07-16-2007 10:26 AM


Re: Layers of Causality
Is it appropriate to question the purpose or the plan of the Uncaused Cause?
Why can we not ask that question? If there is a plan why cannot I question it? I do question the very existence of such a plan?
What is known of God is that His ways are unknowable. If we don't know what the first cause is, we don't know if it had plan or purpose.
That presupposes a God. And why are his ways unknowable? This sounds like a convenient way for theists to avoid difficult questions.
All the evidence suggests that nature is unconscious, indifferent and unplanned.
Nature is brutal by any human moral standard. Death, pain, suffering and destruction are not just prevalent they are absolutely intrinsic to the workings of nature. This makes absolute sense if you view nature as unconscious, dispassionate, indifferent and unplanned as it would be if purely mechanistic.
The theistis response to this fact of brutality and 'immorality' is effectively "God's ways are unknowable" which is no real answer at all.
What we know:
Natural events have causes
Do we know that? Does quantum mechanics not teach us that nature is inherently random in some ways? Does it not show that our very linear cause and effect thinking is more a product of our macroscopic environment and subsequent 'design' rather than something fundamental to the universe as a whole?
What causes quantum fluctuations of the sort that are hypothetically the cause of the Big Bang? Do they need a cause?
something without a cause may be considered higher, or 'super' natural. It does not need to be more complex than nature to be 'different' from what is observed so far.
Why? Only if you are trying to justify the existence of the supernatural do you need to go beyond the natural. There is no need and no evidence for it. It is an unneceesary regressive step.
Any Uncaused was the 'creator' of all subsequent effects and causes.
Creator is an emotive term that suggests consciousness at the very least. A natural beginning to the universe, such as a quantum fluctuation for example, is no more a creator than a cloud is the 'creator' of rain or an electron is the 'creator' of electricity.
If God is the Uncaused, God occupies the first position in activity within the universe
If a random quantum effect is the uncaused then there is no need for any gods. We have observable evidence of random quantum effects (evidently not of the literally universal scale). We have no reliable evidence of any gods, let alone the particular Christian God creator you refer to.
If something else is thought to be a better description of the Uncaused, aka God, it still occupies the first position within causality.
Of course I understand what you are saying, but I feel that we are simply using different adjectives for our 'Gods'.
There is a huge difference between a conscious complex supernatural being which we cannot by definition study by any physical methods and random physical processes that we can seek to study, compute and potentially even observe in some way.
Your whole position relies completely on the assumption that there has to be an uncaused cause in the shape of a supernatural conscious being because of your assertion that nature itself cannot have uncaused causes.
There is no reason to believe that nature of the unconscious, indifferent, dispassionate and unplanned variety cannot be the initial uncaused cause.
Adding God as the initial uncaused cause is an unnecessary regressive step when purely, logically and objectively considering uncaused causes.
That much is indisputable.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by anastasia, posted 07-16-2007 10:26 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by anastasia, posted 07-16-2007 8:16 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 43 of 88 (410759)
07-17-2007 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by anastasia
07-16-2007 8:16 PM


Re: Layers of Causality
I don't understand how you say a random quantum EFFECT when we are debating about the initial CAUSE
Cause, effect, event - Whatever. If it is the first "event" then what difference does it make what we call it? Our language is so ingrained with the (mis?)conception of cause and effect that it is not perticularly well equipped to discuss the initial "uncaused cause" (or "uncaused event" or "initial effect" - all of which are quite clumsy phrases)
Unless, of course, when all religions came to be they used the word 'God' to symbolize the initial uncaused. We would then be debating what God was, and not where s/he/it appears chronologically.
I have never seen a definition of God that is comparable to a random unthinking, unconscious, indifferent, unplanned quantum effect. In my limited experience those who worship Gods would object to such a comparison.
Your insistence that they are one and the same ignores nearly all of the generally accepted properties of both natural events and Gods.
Lets sum this up
1) We both agree that unless there is infinite regress there must be a cause/event/effect that itself was not caused by something preceding it
2) We both agree that the universe exists
I am claiming that the obvious conclusion is that the universe/nature itself is the uncaused phenomenon.
You seem intent on insisting that there had to be an uncaused being/god of some sort which then causes the universe to exist.
You regress one step further than I do in terms of causes and effects
You do not do this based on any evidence
You then claim that they are the same thing anyway
Your view only makes sense if
A) We know nature cannot have uncaused events
B) We know that there is a creator of some sort
To my knowledge we do not know either A or B so your position seems fairly weak. Have I misunderstood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by anastasia, posted 07-16-2007 8:16 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by anastasia, posted 07-17-2007 1:41 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 46 of 88 (410877)
07-17-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by anastasia
07-17-2007 1:41 PM


Re: Layers of Causality
Far as I know, pantheism does not worship a sentient or thinking God. In patheism, God is energy or force. There are many philosophies which are based on a connection to the universe and nature.
The terms energy and force as used by such belief systems bear little resemblence to anything physicists would recognise.
1) We both agree that unless there is infinite regress there must be a cause/event/effect that itself was not caused by something preceding it
2) We both agree that the universe exists
Yes, although we could question either.
Absolutely! But we had to find some common ground
Ok. I don't know too much about quantum physics or mechanics at the 'initial' level. If they are effects which occur with in the universe, would they be able to occur before the universe formed?
As I understand it the universe IS the quantum effect in such scenarios. The universe is equivelent to the "virtual particle" that "pops into existence" as the result of quantum fluctuations.
Quantum Fluctuation
Applying this to the universe is of course hypothetical but it is based on extrapolating observed quantum effects in our universe.
A better description would be that I believe the finite can not exist without the infinite. The universe is known to have a beginning, so it makes sense to me to say it must have been caused by something greater than that.
Why? If you accept an uncaused phenomeon what leads you to the conclusion that it must be infinite?
You have introduced a whole new criteria of the finite from the infinite but what is this based on? Why do you believe this?
You regress one step further than I do in terms of causes and effects
You do not do this based on any evidence
At this level of thought, there is no evidence for either scenerio.
There is no evidence for a creator. There is no evidence for a creator of a creator. There is no evidence for the creator of a creator of a creator.......etc. Why do you stop at one uncaused beyond the universe itself? Why not 2 or 3 more regressive steps?
Why go beyond the universe we already have as the uncaused?
Because we don't know either, my view can still make sense. Even if I do regress further than you do. So what?
Like I said why not regress 10 more steps? Surely it is logical to stop at the first uncaused unless there is good reason to go beyond that?
In my view, a universe composed of 'stuff' could not have appeared from nothing unless somehow 'nothing' is an irreducible complexity
You assume that "stuff" cannot come from nothing. This is a BIG assumption and very possibly wrong.
What has complexity to do with anything?
Basically there is no logical justification for the extra regressive step you take.
BUT now you have introduced both finitenes and complexity as extra criteria with no physical evidence based reason to do so.
I can only assume that you are doing this to further add to your belief that "God" requires a role.
You are arbitarily setting up the criteria to justify your predefined conclusion - namely that God is, or has a role, in nature.
BUT the criteria you define are based on nothing more than your beliefs.
There is no reason to conclude that relative complexity or finiteness are criteria for the uncaused under discussion except for your desire to find a role for God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by anastasia, posted 07-17-2007 1:41 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by anastasia, posted 07-17-2007 10:52 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 50 of 88 (410961)
07-18-2007 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by anastasia
07-17-2007 10:52 PM


Single Step Regression
You are missing the point somewhat in your desire to equate nature with God and to find a role for God generally.
It is a question of unnecessary regression vs necessary regression. I will try and spell it out.
For the sake of argument lets assume that infinite regression of cause is not under consideration (it could be but so far neither of us have seriously postulated this)
So we have -
Assumption 1: Infinite regression of cause is not valid
Assumption 2: The observable evidence suggests that the universe does physically exist
Conclusion 1: There must be an uncaused phenomenon at some point in the regressive chain
Conclusion 2: Either the universe is the itself the uncaused phenomenon OR it was created by a phenomenon which itself may or may not have a cause, which in turn may or may not have a cause etc. etc. until we reach an uncaused phenomenon after X number of regressions.
Based on the observable evidence at hand ALONE the rational conclusion is therefore that the universe is itself the uncaused phenomenon as this is the only phenomenon for which we have any physical evidence.
ANY other conclusion, involving any number of prior causes of any sort, relies on additional assumptions for which there is NO evidence whatsoever.
Is God immanant in Nature?
No.
Your attempts to make it seem so are like banging square pegs into round holes with a mallet whilst ignoring the round pegs that would fit perfectly into the available holes.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by anastasia, posted 07-17-2007 10:52 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by anastasia, posted 07-18-2007 11:10 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 52 of 88 (410983)
07-18-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by anastasia
07-18-2007 11:10 AM


The Key Point
Either way you look at it, something caused the universe. There had to be some first phenomenon which propelled the rest, unless the universe has always existed. Are you denying this?
Yes I am denying that. That is the whole point you are missing.
The universe is the uncaused phenomenon. There is no preceding cause or phenomenon or event.
In the quantum fluctuation hypothesis the universe IS the quantum fluctuation. NOT just the result of such an event but the event itself.
It seems that this fundamental point is where we have been getting each other confused.
At some point in the chain of regression there has to be something that is uncaused. Agreed?
We accept that the universe exists.
I am saying that uncaused something IS the universe as it is the only thing that we know to exist.
You insist on going one step further back to invoke God but this is not necessary or rational as there is no evidence for the existence of anything preceding the universe itself.
Additional assumptions? I am assuming the same things you are.
At various points you have used finiteness, eternalness and complexity to justify different assertions or beliefs and the "something from nothing is impossible" assumption is implicit in your whole argument.
A. the universe exists
B. there must have been a first cause
A - Yes
B - No. There must have been an uncaused phenomenon (i.e. the universe itself). That is subtly different (and one regressional step less) than the uncaused cause of the universe you speak of.
I am not making any attempts. I was asking the opinion of fellow Christians. I have no vested interest in the outcome of the conversation.
If I am hijacking your thread down a path you do not want to pursue let me know and I will stop. This was not my intention and I have been quite enjoying (if getting a little frustrated by) the conversation.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and clarity
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by anastasia, posted 07-18-2007 11:10 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by anastasia, posted 07-18-2007 2:47 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 55 of 88 (411073)
07-18-2007 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by anastasia
07-18-2007 2:47 PM


I am maybe trying to prove that there is a need, if we are to avoid infinite regress, to come to a cut-off point in causality. That very need may have been the foundation of all 'god concepts'.
Regress could in theory stop at any point.
We could look for the immanence of the creator of the creator in nature.
But nobody does. Why is that? Why do theists only ever go back one regressive step from the universe itself?
I can see no reason for this other than lack of necessity and desire for simplicity.
We can attempt to explain what we observe. We observe the universe. We cannot observe a creator and science suggests that this is an unnecessary step anyway.
1) We observe the universe.
2) We have a widely successful theory in quantum theory that suggests it is theoretically posible for something such as the universe to come from nothing.
3) We have observed the uncaused and spontaneous quantum "creation" of subatomic particles
Whilst the formation of the universe is admittedly a fairly major extrapolation of the above, it does seem to make the God hypothesis.....well just unneccessary.
I think it is amazing how theologians had a grip on these ideas long before the discovery of anything 'quantum'.
Well unsurprisingly I disagree. Theologians have applied the natural human common sense principle of cause and effect. Quite possibly erroneously as it actually turns out.
Whats more they have not even applied theprinciple of cause and effect properly as any questions as to what caused the creator or how many steps of regression are necessary are met with meaningless mumbo jumbo about infinite eternal omniscient omnipotent ultimately complex beings of which we cannot and (usually) should not ask questions of anyway.
That is not insight. In my opinion it is dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by anastasia, posted 07-18-2007 2:47 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by anastasia, posted 07-18-2007 6:52 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 57 of 88 (411080)
07-18-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by anastasia
07-18-2007 6:52 PM


Nothing?
Or, it makes the theologians right all along. All that we can observe, came from nothing. If you prove that, that's one point in favour of Genesis.
Is a creator really "nothing"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by anastasia, posted 07-18-2007 6:52 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by anastasia, posted 07-18-2007 7:14 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 59 of 88 (411542)
07-21-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by anastasia
07-18-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Nothing?
As already discussed, if infinte regression is not an option, then at some point "something from nothing" MUST occur.
How could it be otherwise?
As already discussed there does not seem to be an inherent problem with the concept of something from nothing occurring naturally depsite it being contrary to common sense.
A creator is one who makes something from nothing.
A creator is an unnecessary and extremely unlikely step in the whole process.
To quote Laplace - There is "no need for that hypothesis"
To change focus - Do you think brutality and suffering is inherent in life and if so how does that equate with the possible immanence of God in nature?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by anastasia, posted 07-18-2007 7:14 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by anastasia, posted 07-21-2007 9:54 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 61 of 88 (411728)
07-22-2007 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by anastasia
07-21-2007 9:54 PM


Cause and Effect
How can something naturally occur from nothing, when nature is all cause and effect?
Quantum theory suggests that nature is not all cause and effect. That is the point.
Is it wrong to say that this idea about 'being contrary to common sense' is just what atheists do when they reach an unexplainable impasse?
Totally wrong. Large areas of science are contrary to common sense. We would barely even need to study science if nature worked in purely common sense terms.
Examples of Scientific Fact Vs Common Sense
1) Acceleration of an object due to gravity is independent of mass
2) An object set in motion will continue moving at the same speed and in the same direction forever if no subsequentforces act upon it
3) Acquired attributes are not inherited
4) A whale is more closely related to a cow than it is to a fish
These are contrary to common sense too. They are still established scientific facts however.
Everything about quantum theory suggests that nature functions in ways that are wholly contradictory to common sense.
In the case of quantum theory that includes our common sense assumptions about cause and effect.
I don't know why, if you have all the 'parts' of God, you think you don't have God.
I have no idea what the parts of God are. All we have is a speculative but plausible theory as to how the universe was created by unconscious natural processes.
If a primitive society worshipped a volcano God and you then explained all the natural processes that formed and acted on the volcano in question (presure, viscosity etc. etc.) would you accept their argument that you had just described all the parts of their volcano god this proving it's existence?
Or would you deny that the volcano god actually existed and state that natural, unconscious and explainable processes were in fact in effect????? Honestly?????
In other words, if you want to prove that God is not in nature by saying nature is 'evil', it won't work. At least not for me.
In all honesty I am not sure where I am going with this. I do not have an overarching point I am trying to make and I would not describe nature as 'evil' in any case
I suppose I am interested to know how a theist does reconcile the fact that nature is so full of pain, suffering and brutality with the idea that a benevolent God is immanent in nature.
Surely you can see how to the non-theist this does seem contradictory and therefore an argument either for the absence of a benevolent god OR for the absence of it's immanence in nature?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling clarity etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by anastasia, posted 07-21-2007 9:54 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by anastasia, posted 07-22-2007 3:30 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 63 of 88 (411927)
07-23-2007 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by anastasia
07-22-2007 3:30 PM


Effective Cause
So, in the same way that I say 'I don't know how God happened, He just is', I would like the consistency of hearing 'I don't know' on your side, rather than 'the first event happened by quantum mechanics'
Oh absolutely I don't know. At this point nobody does. That is the fun of it all. Ignorance is the driving force of scientific discovery.
If I have at any point even hinted that any such thing is more than a speculative theory or untested hypothesis I did so unintentionally.
So, in the same way that I say.........
BUT the two hyptheses are not equal in a very very important way.
The naturalistic hypothesis is derived from the fundamental principles of the most spectacularly successful and far reaching practical and predictive theory of modern times, namely quantum theory.
That does not 'prove' the quantum universe hypothesis is correct at all, but it does give it a foundation that is indisputably superior to that of the 'god hypothesis' which has no evidence based starting point whatsoever.
What I wanted to illustrate is that any of us can find answers which defy common sense
In fact, once you really look at a whale, you can readily explain why it isn't a fish.
But that is not what I said. You are cherry picking elements of my examples to make them sound silly.
Does your common sense tell you that a whale is actually relatively closely related to a cow? Surely not, but nevertheless that is true. Does common sense tell you that the Earth goes round the Sun? But it does.
The point is that the findings of science are often counterintuitive and contrary to common sense. That is why we need science in the first place. We cannot just rely on common sense to understand the world around us. Common sense can be deceptive.
But it would be common sense to say that things happen for a reason, unless we prove that this is not always true.
It has been proven that this is not ALWAYS true. In fact it isn't even USUALLY true. At the quantum level it isn't true at all.
Common sense is wrong regsrding cause and effect.
The most obvious and relatively mundane example is radioactive decay. This is an inherently probabilistic quantum process that has been widely observed.
There is no way to predict which particular atoms will decay because direct cause and effect are just not in operation at that level of reality.
I can't use this 'suggestion' to your maximum advantage without knowing more about it
If you really want to know more the following article is a decent place to start. The link takes you to page 7 of a 9 page article as it that is the most relevant to this particular conversation but the whole article is worth a read if you have time.
http://findarticles.com/...qa3651/is_199601/ai_n8756371/pg_7
BTW I make no claims to be an expert in any of this. I did physics at undergraduate level far too long ago and remain interested in such matters but there are many better qualified than me here at EvC and beyond.
For one thing, can quantum mechanics conceivably be in operation before anything existed?
Now that is an excellent question. Who knows? If not does that 'prove' the existence of God?
I suppose if the principle of cause and effect is effectively just a limitation of human perception, as it appears to be within the universe, then is there any reason to impose it on anything? Including the universe itself?
I guess my problem is that if someone could tell me 'how' something happened, I will have to go back to regression and ask 'how did THAT happen'
If you are willing to accept the uncaused in the shape of a creator why is it so hard to accept the uncaused in the shape of the universe?
We know the universe exists. If anything is to be assumed to be uncaused surely it is the one thing we are sure actually exists rather than any number of creators for which we have no evidence of existence at all!
I don't get it. If someone thought the volcano was caused by an underground angry God, and I showed them how it was caused naturally, the only thing I could prove is that there is no need for a god to be making the volcano. I know what you are saying, but this is subtly different. I do not have clear proof that there was a natural event which caused the universe, and was itself uncaused. Even if I did, I would not know how to tell the difference between something which looks to have just occurred, and something which has occurred by an unseen hand.
The difference you apply is one of certainty not of principle. The above suggests that the only thing that allows your belief in God as the creator of the universe to remain intact is the lack of certainty regards the universe forming by natural processes and your belief that there never can be any certainty as to any such naturalistic theory.
200 years ago it was famously stated that we could never ever know what the stars were made of or how they were formed. Today we do. Who knows what the future of cosmology and quantum theory holds but there have been many gods left by the wayside of history as knowledge of the natural world has increased. A god of gaps is an ever diminishing entity.
At least, it is no greater of a difficulty than asking why a benevolent God could create the brutality, pain and suffering
True. But that is a question I am interested in hearing answered.
Is there another thread I should be looking at for that?
Maybe it is my understanding of the word immanence that is at fault.
Darwin is said to have lost his faith due to his experience of nature and in particular is quoted as citing parasitic organisms 'designed' to eat their host from the inside out.
Why would a benevolent god immanent in nature create such a creature?
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling etc.
Edited by Straggler, : Add link
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by anastasia, posted 07-22-2007 3:30 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by anastasia, posted 07-23-2007 2:58 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 66 by anastasia, posted 07-27-2007 3:14 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 65 of 88 (412218)
07-24-2007 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by anastasia
07-23-2007 2:58 PM


Re: Effective Cause
I am sorry if I am rambling, I am pretty sick today,
I hope you are feeling better soon
I don't feel that anything will prove the existence of God, perse.
For what it is worth I don't think anything can disprove the existence of God perse either. All any scientific finding can do is remove the NEED for a supernatural answer. That in itself 'proves' nothing whatsoever.
so I will get back to the rest of the post.
Cool. I look forward to your reply but no need to rush on my account. I realise my last post was quite long winded
Be happy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by anastasia, posted 07-23-2007 2:58 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 67 of 88 (413183)
07-29-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by anastasia
07-27-2007 3:14 PM


Re: Effective Cause
What I was asking, speculatively, was whether science is looking for an explanation of how the universe began?
Definitely. It is one of the great unanswered questions. It would be a crime not to be!!!
High energy particle physics (most closely resembling the conditions of the very early universe) and quantum cosmology (the search for the theoretical basis of any such explanation) are the most relevant fields of study.
At the moment there is a lot more speculative theory than there is physical evidence to justify.
That much has to be acknowledged whichever side of the debate one happens to be on.
I hope that experiment catches up with theory in time. I hope that theists also wish this. Ignorance is ultimately good for no-one.
Say tomorrow it was confirmed that a random quantum fluctuation caused the universe, would we, hypothetically, be saying the universe was uncaused?
Firstly I have no idea how this could be "proved" or "confirmed".
At best it could be mathematically and experimentally demonstrated that this was very possible and indeed likely.
However, with the above qualification assumed, the answer to your question is effectively yes.
Quantum theory is inherently and intrinsically random.
The equations of quantum mechanics are summations of probabilities. They do not describe deterministic linear cause and effect of the type that we (erroneously) take for granted. They effectively decribe uncaused events.
You have already mentioned that we don't know if quantum mechanics can exist outside of the universe.
Is it therefore true that we would be looking for something 'pre-existing' and 'uncaused' in itself?
The universe would be the uncaused in itself.
We have no evidence of anything else outside the universe existing. Therefore science has no requirement to explain or look for anything beyond the universe itself.
In short the answer to your question is - No.
Because, I suppose, right now we are only looking at the basic 'shapes'. Pre-existant, uncaused, and not obligated by the laws of nature.
Cause and effect is a human construct. Not a law of nature.
BUT even if we assume cause and effect IS a law of nature
Why would we expect any law of nature to exist outside of the universe itself?
Do you see the contradictory nature of your question?
You are basing the need for a cause on a "law of nature" that does not exist outside of the nature that has been caused!!!
SUMMARY (utterly and unashamedly biased )
Scientific
Assumption: There is an uncaused
Theory: The universe itself is the uncaused
Basis: Experimentally unproven speculative theoretical basis derived from highly established and vindicated wider scientific principles (i.e. quantum theory)
Theistic
Assumption: There is an uncaused
Assumption: God is the uncaused
Theory: God caused the universe
Basis: No physical evidence or scientific theoretical basis whatsoever making it totally unsubstantiated
I see you are admining a thread on parasites and other such things in nature which covers the other elements touched upon in our discussion. I shall read that thread with interest and hope that the fundies don't hijack it down pointless paths.
Hope you feel better. Stay happy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by anastasia, posted 07-27-2007 3:14 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 07-29-2007 9:43 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 69 of 88 (413345)
07-30-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by anastasia
07-29-2007 9:43 PM


Re: Effective Cause
Is it contradictory to believe the universe is not caused, and also to search for the 'cause' of the universe?
Is the quantum fluctuation hypothesis I have outlined a 'cause'?
I would say it is an explanation that seeks to decribe how uncaused things CAN happen.
Remember how he uses that quote about science assuming there will be an answer? That scienctists CAN discover how things happened?
Yes this is true. Absolutely. History also suggests that we have a pretty good track record of overturning examples of supposedly unanswerable questions. Often eliminating superantural explanations in the process.
Enough of a track record to persevere with this assumption until proven to be wrong anyway.
Anyway IF we do not assume there is an answer how will we ever find ANY answers?
Imagine if Newton had NOT sought an answer as to why the planets orbit the Sun? Or if Darwin had NOT sought to explain the variety of life? Because in both cases they just attributed these things unquestioningly to God's will?
How sad would that be?
I have no idea whether or not science will be able to answer the question of the origin of the universe with anything other than theory and speculation.
BUT I do know that if we don't even TRY we definitely won't answer anything.
You keep saying this. Science has no need to explain anything beyond the universe. Fine. BUT, for the longest time, it was assumed that the universe must have been started by something outside of it. If it can't be shown to have started itself, what do you do?
Science can only explain that which can actually be shown to exist.
If it can be shown that the universe COULD be uncaused and verify this possibility in some way experimentally (If I knew exactly how to do that I would be collecting a Nobel prize rather than writing here) then there would be no physical NEED for supernatural involvement.
There may well be historical, cultural or personal reasons for believing in a God or the supernatural (I have not heard any that convince me but that is another issue entirely)
All science will ever do is demonstrate that there are no PHYSICAL reasons to believe in a creator or cause.
What I mean to say is that there is a possibility that nature itself will NEVER explain how the universe came to be, because it may be that the answer is not in nature. It may be that we can't use natural equations or mathematics to explain things, because we don't know that they have any validity outside of the universe.
Indeed this may be true.
So - OK then lets close down all the theoretical physics departments. Shut down all the High energy particle colliders. Stop asking the interesting questions about the origins and evolution of of the physical universe and assume that it is all unanswerable.
Surely you don't want that do you?
Creationists of the fundamental lunatic sort would love that to happen but I am pretty sure you would not?
I have painstakeningly told you that I am putting aside biases, just to discuss the concept of an uncaused. You don't need to sum up every post with an implication that I am arguing for an agenda.
So then to summarise - Science Vs God so far..........
Only kidding
Sorry if I have been overzealous at times.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 07-29-2007 9:43 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by anastasia, posted 07-31-2007 1:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024