My Beliefs- GDR

I may have been too subtle for you. I realize my views aren't scientific but the point is that they are just as scientific as naturalistic theories that have no scientific basis.

The point was that the by saying that some day science will answer the questions that can't be answered now is not science. It is strictly speculation and is no more scientific than what I proposed.Again I ask. Science has shown us that everything that happens in a naturalistic world has a cause and yet many here are quite happy to say that our existence happened without an initial cause.

Well then the fact the evolutionary process bears the appearance of design is evidence.It is one way or the other. Making dinner gives the appearance that my wife loves me but it still take a subjective belief about what I experience and observe just as what I experience and observe in life, (amongst other things), lead me to believe in a designer. In both cases it is either suggestive of or evidence for the conclusion reached. I think I explained that in my other posts. I know it’s not science. The point was that what you guys are saying is science isn’t either. Actually I didn’t. First I said this: Then I said this:The first sentence is simply one reason that I am a theist which does not require that the plan is what we would think of as good. It is in my case Christianity, (others could come to the same conclusion by other means), that leads me to believe that it is a good thing.

But your favourite bit of sciency sounding woo, QM, is real a exampe of stuff happening without causation. Hawking uses this property to describe how the universe can be self creating.The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) And 2000 years ago, your Christian thinkers had earth as the centre of a tiny universe, with God sat on a cloud, tantalising just out of reach. I'm amazed that you can't see that your thinking and theirs are exactly the same and equally wrong.

But we've already been through this in quite a lot of detail. Message 165You even agreed that the notion of causality you are invoking in order to arrive at your 'creator' is wrong. But your position depends on invoking subjectively derived entities for which there is no objective evidence whatsoever. And my position involves only those things whose existence is objectively evidenced.So the two positions are patently neither evidentially equivalent nor equally subjective.

It is! --- but so is the fact that it bears the appearance of evolution. In order to distinguish between creationism and evolution, we have to look at things other than the well-adaptedness of organisms to their habitat and lifestyle. It's not subjective. Everyone would agree that if your wife behaves as though she loves you, this is good evidence that she loves you. If, on the other hand, she asked for a divorce and threw rocks at your head, this would be evidence that she doesn't love you. Well then your point is wrong, in that what I have said is in fact science. Yes, but you also wrote the thing I quoted and replied to, which was this: Now that does set up a false association, because there you say that "a plan" would give meaning to our existence, which it wouldn't necessarily, and that the absence of a plan would imply our mortality, which it wouldn't necessarily. My point was that you don't just want "a plan", but a particular plan, one that suits you. In your latest post you seem to be agreeing with me while thinking that you're disagreeing with me: you don't just want any old plan, you want one in particular.

But is that what anyone's said? I certainly didn't say it.What I have said is that if we did know the answer, it would most likely be the sort of answer that science always gives us. And that is a scientific conclusion, because it's empirically based.By analogy: suppose I lose my spectacles. I may never find out how that happened, but if I can't, then it is scientific to think that the cause probably involves me being careless in some way rather than them being stolen by magic leprechauns, because my experience tells me that the former happens frequently and the latter never happens. I do not claim that I will definitely one day know the answer, that would be silly. But I do, on empirical grounds, claim that I know what sort of answer the answer would be if I knew it. Don't stop there. Science has shown us that everything that happens in a naturalistic world has a naturalistic cause. Let's not be selectively empirical.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think that scientists would say that what is observed within the realm of QM only appears to happen without causation. However if you believe that there is no physical causation for what is observed in the study of QM are you agreeing that the metaphysical exists?I really enjoyed reading the Hawking article and will go over it again. Thanks.Actually as far as causation of the universe is concerned I’m not sure that it needed one as I have come to the view that there is more than what we perceive and that likely the universe just always was as part of something more.I’m more concerned about the cause of life and of the conscious perception of our reality, which may very well be tied up with the origins of our universe as we perceive it. Christian thinkers like nearly everyone else of that time believed that way. They didn’t have modern science to inform them. We know a lot more now. Definitely our theology should be informed by our science. It is no different than people believing that we were the result of instant creation whereas the vast majority of people including Christians believe that we have evolved over millions of years.

You're wrong, most scientists would say that there is no cause. It certainly seems this way. You might want to look up the concept of hidden variables. Obviously he is not. Because he's not saying "there is no physical causation, therefore the causation must be metaphysical (whatever that means)" but rather "there is no causation". And yet when I say that people call me an atheist. Which is perfectly accurate, but why do you say it?

And Chinese people!

The world as many experienced it long ago was suggestive of it being flat. Still want to hold on to that line of reasoning? This again is an either-or fallacy that you keep bringing up. There is no objective evidence for any planner, so there is no either or question. As I understand the word evidence? That's rich! So now you have a different definition for evidence? One that includes incredulous reasoning? Without objective evidence this is no better than those who thought the world was flat. No, it is based on objective evidence and the lack of objective evidence for a planner. You really need to study biology for a bit, GDR. And they say Americans are falling behind in science. Seems like Canada is on it's way as well. You've missed my point. It is suggestive of love, let's say that. But love is a known thing to exist. When you say nature is suggestive of a planner, since there is no objective evidence for a planner, it is not the same thing. Your analogy fails to prove it's point because love is known but planners are unknown, unevidenced and imagined. No, in fact quantum mechanics proves just the opposite. Interestingly enough, the ball has been moving the entire time, so has the table, and the Earth they sit on. Along with the solar system the Earth finds itself in. Relativity my dear Watson...relativity. Like the fact that the billiard ball has been moving the entire time? Yes, you are right. But first, I think one should brush up on a few scientific theories, otherwise the Earth will seem flat and volcanos the result of angry gods. It's a hypothesis not a theory. This is nonsense. I won't go further than to just say it's nonsense, because to go further would just be to insult someone who seems to not know much about these subjects.You can imagine whatever you want, GDR. Unfortunately it's just a cobbled up mess of words you vaguely understand which you've tried to use out of context to make sense of something that you barely grasp yourself.- Oni

Way beyond my pay grade - and yours - I'm only reporting what science says about it. At the moment, science says QM is acausal. I don't believe anything, least of all the existence of the metaphysical. Science tests reality, if stuff can poof itself into existence then that's reality. Well jolly good for you! The editor of Nature is on the edge of his seat ;-) But that is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. Christian 'thinkers' where making stuff up then, based on what they knew then. Which is exactly what you are doing now - simply making sciency stuff up to fit into a private little model in your head. All that does is make religious beliefs seem slightly less ridiculous to its believers - eventually there will be no place to hide your god.

If the universe is part of a universe with more than one time dimension then I agree that our universe does not need a first cause as it always existed.However, we still need a cause for life and particularly for conscious life. The fact that life evolved is a separate question. Also see my last reply. We both agree on the objective evidence. The question is essentially why the objective evidence exists and why we perceive it the way we do.

However you phrase it, however you try to re-define the issue, we will always come back to the same simple fact.You are invoking the existence of an entity for which there is no objective evidence, an entity which is necessarily a subjective human creation.This is an epistemological approach that we know to have been an abject failure and one which we most definitely should not adopt in in place of a scientific approach if we are remotely interested in either accuracy or reliability of conclusion.History tells us this unequivocally. If causality is an emergent property of our universe (as per Message 165) then talking about a first cause in the way that you are is nonsensical. Do you mean we need to study how consciousness arose in evolutionary terms? Or "Why is there something rather than nothing?" - A question which Tom himself would have to ask should he find himself being that "something".But in the absence of any objective evidence for Tom the turtles stop with that which is objectively evidenced. Invoking the existence of anything un-evidenced is just subjective wishful thinking.

My point in saying that was that, as you seem to agree, evolution gives the appearance of design and so that is evidence. Others were saying that it is not evidence so I went with that it is suggestive of design. In either the case of evolution or my wife loving me though, it is still a subjective conclusion whichever conclusion we come to. You’re right in a sense that a plan does not have to require immortality. However, a plan does imply that there is some sort of end point even if we are just here for the amusement of a designer. If we do accept the likelihood of a designer then it makes sense that we would want to discern as best we can what the plan is and then we are forced to form our subjective beliefs on whatever information is available to us. Yes and so then you wind up needing an infinite number of natural causes to explain the existence of life and it again, is turtles all the way down. But you agreed that everything that happens in a naturalistic world has a naturalistic cause and now you are saying that there is no causation in the world of QM. The universe as we perceive exists and there are IMHO reasonable grounds to believe that it has always existed. Life still had to emerge and evolve regardless of whether or not Tom created the universe or not. The important question is whether or not Tom is responsible for life whether or not he is responsible for the existence of non-living matter.My own view is a bit like that old philosophical question about the tree falling in the forest and there is no one there to hear it so does it make a sound. Ignoring the question of other life forms hearing it I would argue that it doesn’t because it would only create movements in the air that aren’t sound until they are perceived that way but a brain. I think that possibly the universe is like that and it only exists in the way that we perceive it because we perceive it. If that is true then as some writers that I have read have suggested it is consciousness that is the fundamental aspect of our universe.