Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Reasons.org: Is the Universe the Way It Is Because It’s the Only Way It Could Be?

Categories
Fine tuning
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Reasons.org

Hugh Ross writes:

Question of the week: How do you respond to the argument against fine-tuning as evidence for God by those who say the universe and its laws of physics are the way they are because that’s the only way they could be?

My answer: As I have documented in my books, The Creator and the Cosmos4th edition, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, there are hundreds of independent features of the universe, its laws of physics, and its space-time dimensions that must be exquisitely fine-tuned to make the existence of humans, or their equivalent, possible in the universe. However, that pervasive fine-tuning is not the only way the universe and the laws of physics could be.

From a biblical perspective, the angelic realm has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Similarly, the future home of Christians, the new creation (see Revelation 21–22) has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Readers can see our book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, for the scientific physical evidence for angels and the angelic realm.

As I explain in my books on fine-tuning, the universe can be fine-tuned in a different way to allow for the existence of certain kinds of bacteria but not allow for the existence of animals and humans. I also show how the laws of physics can remain unchanged but the universe structured so that no physical life is possible anywhere, anytime in the universe.

As I demonstrate in Designed to the Core, it is not just the laws of physics and the universe as a whole that are fine-tuned to make the existence of humans possible. All the universe’s subcomponents, from those on the largest size scales to those on the smallest size scales must be fine-tuned for humans to possibly exist.

Unlike the universe, the observed sample size of the universe’s subcomponents is not one. For example, there are a trillion trillion stars in the observable universe. So far, however, astronomers have detected only one star, our Sun, that possesses the fine-tuned history and features that make it possible for the existence of humans on a planet orbiting it. The Sun is not the only way stars can be. The same argument can be made for our Laniakea Supergalaxy Cluster, our Virgo Cluster of galaxies, our Local Group of galaxies, our Milky Way Galaxy, our local spiral arm, our Local Bubble, our planetary system, our planet, and our moon. The fine-tuning of the universe and all its subcomponents also vary according to the intended purposes for humans. As I show in Why the Universe Is the Way It IsImprobable Planet, and Designed to the Core, the fine-tuning that allows billions of humans on one planet to be redeemed from their sin and evil within a time span of several tens of thousands of years is orders of magnitude more constrained than the fine-tuning that allows for the existence of a tiny population of technology-free humans with lifespans briefer than 30 years.  

Reasons.org

Dr. Ross refers to scientific observations that show evidence of fine-tuning, not just for the existence of life, but to sustain life as we know it on Earth, with millions of species of plant and animal life, and a multi-billion population of humans with a technologically advanced global civilization. Often, arguments against intelligent design boil down to bad theology. Dr. Ross provides here a very brief connection between physical design parameters and a biblically-based theology.

Comments
it is not just the laws of physics and the universe as a whole that are fine-tuned to make the existence of humans possible. All the universe’s subcomponents, from those on the largest size scales to those on the smallest size scales must be fine-tuned for humans to possibly exist.
Fine-tuned for humans to exist? The overwhelming majority of the observable Universe is implacably hostile not just to human beings but all terrestrial life. Even our little world is not exactly risk-free. I would say it's something of a stretch to infer that this was all set up with us in mind - much like Adams's puddle.Seversky
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
@41
I’m not sure this accurately describes the situation, and a variation of the “E” word is there again, like continuing to repeat it over and over gives it more gravitas.
Fair enough -- I guess I do have 'emergence on the brain'. Then allow me to rephrase my 39 as follows: From the claim “the universe, galaxy, and solar system had to have specific conditions in order for life to appear on this planet” it doesn’t obviously follow that “therefore, these conditions were chosen in advance by some intelligent being because it intended that life appear on this planet”.PyrrhoManiac1
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
"the universe, galaxy, and solar system had to have specific conditions in order for life to emerge on this planet" I'm not sure this accurately describes the situation, and a variation of the "E" word is there again, like continuing to repeat it over and over gives it more gravitas. Andrewasauber
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
PM1 @39. Do you see a difference with the 'puddle argument'?Origenes
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Anyway, getting back to the OP:
it is not just the laws of physics and the universe as a whole that are fine-tuned to make the existence of humans possible. All the universe’s subcomponents, from those on the largest size scales to those on the smallest size scales must be fine-tuned for humans to possibly exist.
Can anyone explain why this isn't a fallacy of post hoc ergo prompter hoc? From the claim "the universe, galaxy, and solar system had to have specific conditions in order for life to emerge on this planet" it doesn't obviously follow that "therefore, these conditions were chosen in advance by some intelligent being because it intended that life emerge on this planet".PyrrhoManiac1
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
“I’m a Marxist–of the Groucho, Chico and Harpo kind. Let’s see how badly the pinheads on this blog can misconstrue that…. ?“ I felt that like a dad joke right to the brain.AaronS1978
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
PM1@35, I agree. Stereotyping and labeling are just lazy tactics at best and dishonest at worst. No single individual is a perfect fit for any stereotype. I have a friend who is a Republican but supports pro-choice and gun control. I have another friend who is a Democrat but opposes gun control. My views have been developed over a lifetime of experiences, not by a political party or by whatever label KF, BA77 or others apply to me.Sir Giles
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
@31
I’m a Marxist–of the Groucho, Chico and Harpo kind. Let’s see how badly the pinheads on this blog can misconstrue that….
But are you also a (John) Lennonist?PyrrhoManiac1
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
@26
Instead of skirting around and saying that you’re not any type of party, when you both definitely are, wear it on your sleeve like I do instead of attempting to hide that you’re biased.
I appreciate your point that it's important to be aware of one's biases and express them clearly and sincerely. But, I also think that it's important to be aware of the role of stereotyping about what we imagine various labels to mean. Liberals have all sorts of stereotypes about what conservatives desire and believe, and conservatives have their own stereotypes about what liberals desire and believe. The stereotypes reinforce polarization, which in turn reinforces the stereotypes. And the polarization has multiple dimensions, including geography (rural/urban split), economic, etc. It's really easy to believe all sorts of terrible things about liberals (or conservatives) if you don't know any and all you know is what you hear on Fox (or MSNBC). Communication is hard enough as it is without stereotypes and assumptions getting in the way. That's not to discourage from disclosing their political views, but I won't be doing so myself.PyrrhoManiac1
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Seversky at 33, "You can't always get what you want." - Mick Jaggerrelatd
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho MarxSeversky
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
CD at 31, I suspected as much... :)relatd
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
I'm a Marxist--of the Groucho, Chico and Harpo kind. Let's see how badly the pinheads on this blog can misconstrue that.... ;-)chuckdarwin
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Aaron: Sir Giles you’re definitely liberal you’ve said some very liberal things and it’s disheartening to see that you voted for Socialism but you have also made it very abundantly clear you lean one way.
Actually, I would classify myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. When I vote, I vote for the individual in my riding that presents the best arguments for government policy. Sometimes that is conservative, sometimes Liberal and sometimes New Democrat (socialist). I support LGBQ, women's rights, pro-choice and gun laws. I oppose government over-reach, government funding of the arts, etc.Sir Giles
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
AS1978 at 26, Don't assume anything about me, OK? The political parties in the United States are now cults. I shun them. I vote for issues that matter not just to me but everyone. Again, assuming anything is not gaining knowledge. I hope I'm clear on that. There are different flavors of ice cream but not different types of Catholics. Got that? By virtue of Baptism and other Sacraments, Catholics are only Catholics. If you enjoy 'party politics wars' fine. I don't.relatd
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
SG at 23, The Bible is the Word of God. It is the Word of God. The Catholic Church has received many questions over the centuries and has answered these questions. It has been given the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. You don't appear to either know or understand that. The Church is unafraid of questions. It has been called: The greatest truth-telling organization in the world. And what do you actually know about "most Christians" and what they believe? A Gallup poll? Anything else? I don't think you are in a position to comment on 'most Christians' as a group.relatd
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
@26 correction “fish up” gotta love talk to textAaronS1978
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
@16 and 17 I’m pretty sure I could finish up that old thread about abortion and clearly find examples of what you both are politically Relatd you’re definitely conservative and yes, you have said some outstanding about liberals, you’ve made that abundantly clear Sir Giles you’re definitely liberal you’ve said some very liberal things and it’s disheartening to see that you voted for Socialism but you have also made it very abundantly clear you lean one way Instead of skirting around and saying that you’re not any type of party, when you both definitely are, wear it on your sleeve like I do instead of attempting to hide that you’re biased I’m a pissed off libertarian Catholic that leans towards conservative (although I think a lot of conservatives are stupid) I do not like Democrats and I certainly do not like socialists as I have an economics background. Trump was an idiot, and Biden is a clown.AaronS1978
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
Specifically, this 'radical' shift from a necessitarian view of the universe, to a contingent view of creation, represented a radical shift from the 'top-down' deductive form of reasoning of the Ancient Greeks, (which was the predominant form of reasoning for a few thousand years up until that time), to a 'bottom-up' inductive form of reasoning.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (Bacon vs Aristotle – Scientific Revolution) – video Excerpt: Deductive reasoning, which uses general premises to arrive at a certain conclusion, has been around since Aristotle. In his book Novum Organum (1620, translated ‘new method’), Sir Francis Bacon advanced a new way of philosophical inquiry known as inductive reasoning, in which the inquirer comes to a probable conclusion based on several specific observations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg
And indeed, 'bottom-up' inductive reasoning to a general truth, via repeated experimentation, ever since it was championed by Francis Bacon, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining more accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, "educated guesses" that follow from Aristotle’s deductive form of reasoning.
Francis Bacon, 1561–1626 Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water. https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html
Thus, the ancient Greek's necessitarian belief that "The Universe (is) The Way It Is Because It’s The Only Way It Could Be" actually prevented them from from ever making the crucial breakthrough into modern science, whereas, on the other hand, it was only when the Christian's belief that the universe is 'contingent' upon the will of God, and that the universe "could have been otherwise", that experimental science finally found fertile ground, took root, and flourished. As Stephen Meyer noted, contingency "was a huge concept" that was important for the founding of modern science. "It could have been otherwise."
“That (contingency) was a huge concept (that was important for the founding of modern science). The historians of science call that ‘contingency’. The idea that nature has an order that is built into it. But it is an order that is contingent upon the will of the Creator. It could have been otherwise. Just as there are many ways to make a timepiece, or a clock,,, there are many different ways God could have ordered the universe. And it is up to us not to deduce that order from first principles, or from some intuitions that we have about how nature ought to be, but rather it is important to go out and see how nature actually is.” – Stephen Meyer – 5:00 minute mark – Andrew Klavan and Stephen Meyer Talk God and Science https://idthefuture.com/1530/
And indeed, the Christian belief that the universe is 'contingent' upon the will of God played an integral role in Sir Isaac Newton's founding of modern physics.
“Newton’s Rejection of the “Newtonian World View”: The Role of Divine Will in Newton’s Natural Philosophy – (Davis, 1991) Abstract Excerpt: Finally, Newton held that, since the world is a product of divine freedom rather than necessity, the laws of nature must be inferred from the phenomena of nature, not deduced from metaphysical axioms — as both Descartes and Leibniz were wont to do. http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm ‘Without all doubt this world...could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God... From this fountain (what) we call the laws of nature have flowed, in which there appear many traces indeed of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures, but learn them from observations and experiments.",,, - Sir Isaac Newton - (Cited from Religion and the Rise of Modern Science by Hooykaas page 49).
At the 16:47 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Stephen Meyer, (who has a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge,, which was Newton's alma mater), states that, (contrary to popular belief), Sir Isaac Newton himself believed that God was “constantly sustaining the universe by the word of His power”.
Stephen Meyer Answers Questions about the Judeo-Christian Origins of Science – video https://youtu.be/YBwRC8qJSoI?t=994
Seeing that the 'divine will' of God, (sustaining the universe in its continual existence), i.e. 'contingency' played such an integral part in Newton’s ‘science’, (and although modern science has certainly come a long way since Newton first started the Scientific Revolution), let’s just simply say that Newton would be very pleased to see the recent closing of the “freedom of choice” loophole within quantum mechanics,
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Abstract: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally held with the presupposition of ‘contingency’), and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
Oct. 2022 – And although, (via Godel), it is now known that there will never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between quantum mechanics and general relativity, all hope is not lost in finding the correct ‘theory if everything’.,,,, https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-766384
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
As to this question: "Is The Universe The Way It Is Because It’s The Only Way It Could Be?" The belief that the universe does not have a necessary existence, but that 'the universe could have been otherwise', i.e. 'contingency', was an essential presupposition that was necessary for the rise of modern science in medieval Christian Europe. First a little background,,,, at the founding of the University system, which was an outgrowth of Christianity,
Another development in the history of Christian education was the founding of universities. The origins of the university can be traced to the 12th century, and by the 13th century the medieval university had reached its mature form. Universities were founded during the rest of the Middle Ages throughout Europe and spread from there to other continents after the 16th century.,, Universities provided instruction in the liberal arts and advanced study in the disciplines of law, medicine, and, most importantly, theology. Many of the great theologians of the era, notably St. Thomas Aquinas, were associated with the universities. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/Forms-of-Christian-education
At the founding of Universities in Medieval Christian Europe, ancient Greek philosophy was vigorously discussed and debated. As the following article notes, during the 12th to 16th Century, “Scholasticism is best known for its application in medieval Christian theology, especially in attempts to reconcile the philosophy of the ancient classical philosophers (particularly Aristotle) with Christian theology.
Scholasticism Scholasticism is a Medieval school of philosophy (or, perhaps more accurately, a method of learning) taught by the academics of medieval universities and cathedrals in the period from the 12th to 16th Century. It combined Logic, Metaphysics and semantics into one discipline, and is generally recognized to have developed our understanding of Logic significantly.,,, Scholasticism is best known for its application in medieval Christian theology, especially in attempts to reconcile the philosophy of the ancient classical philosophers (particularly Aristotle) with Christian theology. However, in the High Scholastic period of the 14th Century, it moved beyond theology, and had applications in many other fields of study including Epistemology, Philosophy of Science, philosophy of nature, psychology and even economic theory. https://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_scholasticism.html
During the period of intense discussion and debate in the Medieval Christian universities about the similarities and differences between Greek philosophy and Christian theology, one of the main conflicts that was found to exist between ancient Greek philosophy and Christian theology was the realization that Greek philosophy held to, basically, a deterministic and necessitarian view of creation, wherein the universe itself was considered to be eternal in its existence, whereas in Christian theology it was/is held that the universe was created by God and that the universe is, therefore, 'contingent', and/or dependent, upon the will of God for its existence. As the following article notes, “Aristotle,,, believed in the eternity of the world,,,, This view conflicted with the view of the Catholic Church that the world had a beginning in time. The Aristotelian view was prohibited in the Condemnations of 1210–1277”
Eternity of the world Excerpt: The question of the eternity of the world was a concern for both ancient philosophers and the medieval theologians and philosophers of the 13th century. The question is whether the world has a beginning in time, or whether it has existed from eternity. The problem became a focus of a dispute in the 13th century, when some of the works of Aristotle, who believed in the eternity of the world, were rediscovered in the Latin West. This view conflicted with the view of the Catholic Church that the world had a beginning in time. The Aristotelian view was prohibited in the Condemnations of 1210–1277. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_of_the_world
And in fact, it was this necessitarian and/or deterministic view of the universe in which the universe was held be eternally existent that prevented the ancient Greek philosophers from ever making the crucial breakthrough into experimental science. As the following article makes clear, “Both Greek and biblical thought asserted that the world is orderly and intelligible. But the Greeks held that this order is necessary and that one can therefore deduce its structure from first principles. Only biblical thought held that God created both form and matter, meaning that the world did not have to be as it is and that the details of its order can be discovered only by observation.”
Is Christianity Unscientific? – Peter S. Williams “Both Greek and biblical thought asserted that the world is orderly and intelligible. But the Greeks held that this order is necessary and that one can therefore deduce its structure from first principles. Only biblical thought held that God created both form and matter, meaning that the world did not have to be as it is and that the details of its order can be discovered only by observation.” http://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/is-christianity-unscientific
In fact, it was only with the Church’s quote unquote, ‘outlawing’ of Aristotle’s deterministic and necessitarian view of creation, in which the universe itself was held to be eternally existent, that experimental science was finally able to find fertile ground, take root, and eventually flourish in Medieval Christian Europe,
The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010 Excerpt: …With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,, If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences.,,, http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/
As the preceding article goes on to explain, in the Christian’s view of creation, “The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.”
The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010 Excerpt: The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. - ibid
Stephen Meyer put it like this, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”
Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. the scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
The exact 'logical details' behind this 'radical' shift in reasoning from the Ancient Greek's 'necessitarian' view of the universe, in which Greek philosophers "pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”,,,,
“The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.” – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415
,,, (this 'radical' shift) to the Christian's 'contingent' view of creation, (in which it was held that the universe 'could have been otherwise'),,, the 'logical details of this 'radical' shift apparently took a few centuries to work out. But this 'radical' new form of reasoning was eventually, and famously, elucidated by Francis Bacon in 1620 in his book "Novum Organum". Which is translated as ‘New Method’. In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work 'Organon', which was Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism.
The Organon and the logic perspective of computation – 2016 Excerpt: The works of Aristotle on logic are collectively known as the Organon, that is, the ” instrument ” or ” tool ” of thought. In the ” Prior Analytics “, Aristotle introduced a list of inference rules that concern with the relation of premises to conclusion in arguments (syllogisms). His aim was to determine which kinds of arguments are valid. The validity of an argument is characterized and inferred based on its logical form (deduction) and for this reason Aristotle is considered as the father of formal logic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303407444_The_Organon_and_the_logic_perspective_of_computation
bornagain77
December 7, 2022
December
12
Dec
7
07
2022
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
Relatd: Perhaps you could explain the characteristics of a ‘fundamentalist’ aside from believing what’s written in the Bible.
It is pretty obvious. A fundamentalist never questions what is written in the Bible, as opposed to most Christian’s who view the Bible as a guide as to how to lead their life.Sir Giles
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Sir Giles (Matthew 7:1-5)
Here, we see Christian fundamentalists (ie, KF, BA77, Relatd, etc) demonize and vilify anyone who has a view that differs from their personal religious views and label the opposition as atheists, materialists, nihilists, perverts, Democrats, progressives, pedophiles, groomers, anarchists, trolls, and any number of isms, in an attempt to justify dismissing their arguments.
Also Sir Giles (in a transparent attempt to justify dismissing Relatd's arguments):
But you are a fundamentalist. ... That, by definition, makes you a fundamentalist..
Origenes
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
SG at 20, I think your meaning goes beyond the Bible. Perhaps you could explain the characteristics of a 'fundamentalist' aside from believing what's written in the Bible.relatd
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
Relatd: A fundamentalist? You do realize there are a number of Christian denominations. I am a Catholic.
And, if I am not mistaken, you believe everything written in the Bible. That, by definition, makes you a fundamentalist.Sir Giles
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
Relatd:
I am sure I never called anyone a Democrat ...
Even in the heat of debate, there are, of course, limits to what one can say.Origenes
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
SG at 17, A fundamentalist? You do realize there are a number of Christian denominations. I am a Catholic.relatd
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
Relatd: Ah, the bait. I am sure I never called anyone a Democrat or a groomer.
But you are a fundamentalist.
By the way, I have no political party affiliation.
Neither do I. I have voted for liberals, conservatives and socialists.Sir Giles
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
SG at 15, Ah, the bait. I am sure I never called anyone a Democrat or a groomer. By the way, I have no political party affiliation.relatd
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Relatd: You should be ashamed of yourself. Tar and feather anyone recently in real life? You just did it here.
But, and it is telling, no attempt to argue that I am incorrect.Sir Giles
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
SG at 12, You should be ashamed of yourself. Tar and feather anyone recently in real life? You just did it here.relatd
December 6, 2022
December
12
Dec
6
06
2022
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
1 8 9 10 11

Leave a Reply