Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Experience, Rational Debate & Science Depend On The Supernatural

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’m going to lay out three basic arguments for belief in the supernatural. First, science itself would not be possible were it not for the effects of unseen, higher-order supernatural causes. Second, science and rational debate would not be possible unless we all have faith in the supernatural – unseen spirits not bound to material causes. Third, each of us has direct personal experience of the supernatural every waking second of every day.

Let’s first define what “supernatural” means. From Merriam-Webster:

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.
unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

1: Science depends on measuring supernatural effects

We call these observable, reliable and measurable effects physical laws, forces and universal constants, but those terms are misleading, much like referring to “chance” as a causal agency. Those terms do not represent causal objects or energies we can point at, but are rather descriptions (or models) of observed patterns of behavior of matter and energy for which there is no known or observable cause. The names of these patterns and models are used as if they apply to causal things, but this is a conceptual error. When we say “gravity causes X to fall”, it is not gravity causing it because gravity is the description of the physics of the event. Something “causes it to fall”, but it is not gravity; it is whatever causes the pattern of behavior we call “gravity”.

What is the “natural world”?

The natural world is the set of phenomena that can be described and predicted according to behavioral and interactive constants. However, those laws and constants do not describe where or how such laws and constants exist in the first place, or what they are, or even how they are affecting physical phenomena. These invisible and mysterious causes are supernatural both by definition and logically because they: (1) necessarily relate to an order of existence beyond the observable natural world (since they cause the behavior that defines what we call “the natural world”, (2) are unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature (since science depends upon observing behavioral patterns, and behavioral patterns cannot explain what causes such patterns in the first place), and  (3) these patterns are attributed to invisible, unknown agents (which we erroneously refer to with objectifying terminology –  forces, constants and laws).

The science of the natural world depends upon an unknown, unseen superset of mysterious agencies causing the predictable, reliable, rationally understandable patterns of behavior we observe and describe as the set of natural-occurring phenomena.

2: Science & rational debate depend upon faith in the supernatural

Conducting science requires one to accept that humans have a free will capacity to identify objective facts about the universe and integrate them into theoretical systems that can be properly verified or disproved via true/false statements about experimental outcomes according to abstract principles assumed to be universally valid.  Logically, this means humans must have a capacity that transcends thought as the mere product of happenstance chemical interactions.  IOW, scientists must have faith that humans have the capacity to override whatever thoughts interacting chemicals happen to produce and instead force them down correct, truthful paths from an assumed objective viewpoint. Such a transcendent observational and willful capacity is necessarily supernatural, as the natural is only capable of producing whatever happenstance thoughts and “wilfulness” interacting chemicals happen to produce.

Rational debate depends upon the same assumption; that humans have some kind of non-physical agency which can supervise and override physical thought processes down paths which are correct according to abstract principles which are considered objectively binding. Such an agency is unseen and would necessarily have the power to intervene in the natural patterns producing thoughts and generating conclusions.

It is only by faith in such a supernatural agency and in the supernatural authority of abstract principles accepted as objectively valid that we can expect to be able to overcome the happenstance course of physical cause and effect in the course of our rational and scientific endeavors.

3: Everyone directly experiences the supernatural daily

Each of us experience ourselves as a seat of consciousness with direct, top-down, intentional, prescriptive control (to varying degrees) over the behaviors of many elements of our bodies and thinking processes.  We don’t know how to make various cellular or chemical reactions occur that are necessary for motion and thought. Somehow, without any technical or mechanical knowledge at all, with no understanding of how to initiate or control any of the various chemical and mechanical resources, simple intention can operate what is probably the most highly advanced and complex piece of equipment in the universe with amazing precision. Like a ghost inhabiting a doll out of a movie, our will alone can set physical forces in motion, control them, and stop them on command – no physics, chemistry or mechanical knowledge required whatsoever.  It is precisely like magic.

Furthermore, our will can instantly access any of virtually countless memories without any understanding whatsoever of how the memory process works or how the data retrieval process works.  We can simply intend to write or say something on a subject and gain immediate access to a seemingly never-ending stream of information corresponding to our intent. We can imagine things that do not even exist in the real world, our minds effortlessly rendering a massive virtual reality for us to experience as we daydream or sleep-dream. We cannot see this agency; we cannot explain how it can immediately differentiate from innumerable, variant intents to magically set billions of cellular processes and chemical interactions on a precise course to find memories, find or generate thoughtful, relevant information, or direct our body to precisely achieve a limitless variance of actions.

We experience this self-will as transcending mere physical causation from a higher order of existence, being able to direct the matter and energy of our bodies at will.  We have power over our physical and mental nature exactly like a supernatural ghost in a machine, capable of the most wondrous and amazing feats of physical complexity, creativity and computation without any understanding of how any of it is physically initiated, maintained or controlled.

——————————

That all of these things are considered “mundane” hides their astounding, miraculous, supernatural nature.

Comments
WJM 'justice', 'altruism', 'love', are all beautiful and fill me with the same feelings of humanity and togetherness they fill you with, I assume. These feelings evolved in a natural way on the African savannah many tens of thousands of years ago as a more efficient way to survive. Our social existance made us careful, mostly sharing, and highly CURIOUS. Of these emotions I value our natural curiosity as the most satisfying. Jesus said that 'the meek shall inherit the earth'. I say they will not, and that it is the 'curious' that will inherit the earth. You, and your fellow design advocates come across as inherantly, incurious.rvb8
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
seversky
Why can’t an infinite regress exist?
Infinity cannot be instantiated in time/space/history. The number of physical events that have occurred will always be of a finite quantity.StephenB
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Gordon Cunningham, without one shred of physical evidence that natural causes can create any non-trivial information, proclaims:
"Of course they are. They, (the equations describing the universe), were all derived by humans. As such, they have a natural cause."
Regardless of what GC falsely believes, Humans writing mathematical equations to describe the universe is certainly NOT 'natural' and is therefore certainly not reducible to a 'natural cause'.
"Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation." Alfred Russel Wallace - An interview by Harold Begbie printed on page four of The Daily Chronicle (London) issues of 3 November and 4 November 1910. An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will - July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/ "Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine." Kurt Gödel As quoted in Topoi : The Categorial Analysis of Logic (1979) by Robert Goldblatt, p. 13 Cantor, Gödel, & Turing: Incompleteness of Mathematics - video (excerpted from BBC's 'Dangerous Knowledge' documentary) https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1119397401406525/?type=2&theater
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.”
Further quote by Godel
“In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.,,, Mind is separate from matter.” Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996. [9.4.12]
Of supplemental note: "There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
“A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens… Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented… there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012) "Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities." - Ian Tattersall, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, May 2009
Scientists simply have no clue how we acquired our unique mental abilities
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
Moreover, it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic, that is unique to man, that is found to be foundational to life:
Information Enigma (Where did the information come from?) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
As well, as if that was not 'spooky enough', information, not material, is found to be foundational to physical reality:
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made 'in the image of God', than finding that both the universe and life itself are 'information theoretic' in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information. I guess a more convincing evidence could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God. But who has ever heard of such overwhelming evidence as that?
Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1119619634717635/?pnref=story Turin Shroud Quantum Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' on a Solid Oval Object Under The Beard - video http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=J21MECNU
Verses and Music:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. Casting Crowns - The Word Is Alive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9itgOBAxSc
bornagain77
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Seversky, for one, it serves notice that the observed natural order is not self explanatory on cause. For two, you are surely aware that here are serious worldviews that are non naturalistic. For three, you must know that there is a class of experience and phenomena that is beyond the usual course of the world and is at minimum candidate supernatural. This sort of 1984 newspeak game to lock out even terms that would allow discussion outside the materialist's circle, is a big red warning flag. KF PS an infinite stepwise finite stage regress cannot traverse an infinite span. Infinite regress is absurd as it would have to end the endless. This is readily seen for two endless tot he RH side punch tapes that are numbered 0, 1, 2 etc. Let the pink one stay at step 0, and advance the RH one any arbitrarily large but finite k in k steps. Then observe the match: PINK 0, 1, 2 . . . BLUE: k, k+1, k+2 . . . THAT IS FROM K ON IS IN FULL ENDLESS 1:1 CORRESPONDENCE WITH FROM 0 ON, AND AS THE COUNTING NUMBERS ARE ENDLESS AND TRANSFINITE OF CARDINALITY ALEPH NULL, THAT WHICH MATCHES THEM 1:1 WILL BE THE SAME. NO FINITE STEPWISE SUCCESSION CAN EVEN BEGIN TO SPAN THE TRANSFINITE. Went caps lock, I will leave it there.kairosfocus
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 33
Infinite regress: Basically, it means that a chain of causes cannot go on forever. God, the first cause and the uncaused cause, is the point where the chain stops–and must stop.
Why can't an infinite regress exist? We probably agree that the concept is both unimaginable and unsatisfying but those are not necessarily reasons why it should not exist. Positing an uncaused first cause to block a regress raises more questions than it answers as far as I can see. It also sounds like trying to define the problem out of existence. If the uncaused first cause exists, has it always existed or was it bounded in some way? If the former then we are straight back to an infinity, if the latter then the question of what preceded or caused it is legitimate. Personally, I find both an infinite regress or an uncaused first cause to be equally unsatisfactory but, for the moment, I can't think of any better alternatives.Seversky
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
William J Murray @ 28
I don’t see what your point is. Some philosophers wish to get rid of the term “supernatural” by asserting that all which exists is “natural”. So?
What purpose does it serve? If everything that exists has a 'nature' which makes it itself and not something else and is accessible to scientific scrutiny then that is the natural world. That includes what are popularly thought of as supernatural entities, such as ghosts or spirits or souls, right up to God. I can see no reason for setting aside a domain called the supernatural other than to preserve some of these alleged phenomena from investigation.
Let me ask you seversky; if god exists and keeps the universe running via divine will, and can alter anything in the universe via that will, would you consider such alterations “natural”?
Yes, I would and I would consider the god who so acted to be a natural being.Seversky
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
BA77: "The equations that describe the universe are certainly nothing that I would describe as being purely ‘natural’." Of course they are. They were all derived by humans. As such, they have a natural cause.Gordon Cunningham
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
The equations that describe the universe are certainly nothing that I would consider as being purely 'natural'.
The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws - Luke A. Barnes - Fall 2015 Excerpt: Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature. These constants represent the edge of our knowledge. Richard Feynman called one of them — the fine-structure constant, which characterizes the amount of electromagnetic force between charged elementary particles like electrons — “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.” An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics. Many have tried and failed. ,,, Tweaking the Constants Let’s consider a few examples of the many and varied consequences of messing with the fundamental constants of nature, the initial conditions of the universe, and the mathematical form of the laws themselves. You are made of cells; cells are made of molecules; molecules of atoms; and atoms of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons, in turn, are made of quarks. We have not seen any evidence that electrons and quarks are made of anything more fundamental (though other fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson of recent fame, have also been discovered in addition to quarks and electrons). The results of all our investigations into the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, which is essentially one long, imposing equation. Within this equation, there are twenty-six constants, describing the masses of the fifteen fundamental particles, along with values needed for calculating the forces between them, and a few others. We have measured the mass of an electron to be about 9.1 x 10^-28 grams, which is really very small — if each electron in an apple weighed as much as a grain of sand, the apple would weigh more than Mount Everest. The other two fundamental constituents of atoms, the up and down quarks, are a bit bigger, coming in at 4.1 x 10^-27 and 8.6 x 10^-27 grams, respectively. These numbers, relative to each other and to the other constants of the Standard Model, are a mystery to physics. Like the fine-structure constant, we don’t know why they are what they are. However, we can calculate all the ways the universe could be disastrously ill-suited for life if the masses of these particles were different. For example, if the down quark’s mass were 2.6 x 10^-26 grams or more, then adios, periodic table! There would be just one chemical element and no chemical compounds, in stark contrast to the approximately 60 million known chemical compounds in our universe. With even smaller adjustments to these masses, we can make universes in which the only stable element is hydrogen-like. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we would be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction. If the up quark weighed 2.4 x 10^-26 grams, things would be even worse — a universe of only neutrons, with no elements, no atoms, and no chemistry whatsoever. ,,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-fine-tuning-of-natures-laws
bornagain77
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
Just Uploaded Video:
Atheistic Materialism - Where All of Reality Becomes an Illusion - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1213432255336372/
bornagain77
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
CG
Other than the first few microseconds, it has done a pretty good job explaining the the Big Bang.
Can you summarize that explanation and its implications? If not, I will be happy to do it for you. (I notice now that WJM has already explained it very well @30).StephenB
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
GC
And if it is not ‘out of bounds’ I should be allowed to ask, ‘what caused the first “uncaused” cause?‘
Uncaused means uncaused and first means first. If a cause could precede the first cause, then the first cause wouldn't be first; If a cause could cause the uncaused caused, then the uncaused cause wouldn't be uncaused. It will help if you familiarize yourself with three terms: Law of Identity: (Ontology) A thing cannot be what it is and also be something else at the same time and in the same sense. (A cause cannot be both caused and uncaused). A cause cannot be both first and not first) Law of Non-Contradiction: (Epistemology) A statement cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same sense. (Referring to statements and propositions about ontology) Infinite regress: Basically, it means that a chain of causes cannot go on forever. God, the first cause and the uncaused cause, is the point where the chain stops--and must stop. If you do not understand these foundational principles, then it is impossible to reason properly or interpret evidence in a rational way. The first order of business is to understand that something cannot come from nothing. Can you comprehend that point?StephenB
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
WJM: "Can you give me an example of something that naturalistic science has explained, GC?" Other than the first few microseconds, it has done a pretty good job explaining the the Big Bang. Can you give me an example of something that the supernatural explains?Gordon Cunningham
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
You however, seem quite happy to equate justice, fairness, altruism etc, as evidence of supernaturalism? they are not. These “abstract” ideas are much more easily explained in a “natural” argument!
Then by all means show us this argument, and please restrict yourself to naturalistic terminology, phrasings and meanings when doing so. Please start out with the concept of "justice". You might begin by showing us where in the natural world justice resides or, at the very least, is demonstrated. By "natural world", I mean outside of the world of human abstract thought and laws based on that abstract thought because it is the nature of that abstract thought which is under debate. So, to start, where in nature does justice reside or where is it demonstrated?William J Murray
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
rvb8 said:
I don’t know why it’s a moron’s question. Are you not in the slightest bit curious as to? ’where did God come from?
I don't think I said anything about god in the OP. If you are asking me "what causes the supernatural", it's a categorically improper question. It is the natural world which is characterized by the concept of naturalistic "cause and effect". Asking where something supernatural "came from" or "what caused it" would likely be a nonsensical question outside of the natural world of cause and effect.
WJM says the supernatural is ‘unknown’ and ‘unseen’.
Well, that's the definition I used to set up the debate.
Mung gets angry when I ask ‘what caused the first cause’. This all comes across as mightily incurious.
What it comes across as is an inability on your part to understand certain abstract concepts and arguments. God is classically argued to be the uncaused seat of existence and being itself, beyond our subset universe of temporal cause and effect. Asking "what caused god" is like asking "can god make a rock so heavy god cannot lift it?" - it is a nonsensical question.
Science deals with the manegeable. And by manageable I mean testable, the empirical. Your ‘uncaused cause’ is exactly beyond natural (supernatural) and therefore logically out of bounds.
Science and logic are not the same thing. God may be beyond the ability of science to test directly, but science is not limited to directly testing a thing. It can also test for the proposed consequences of the nature of a thing - like looking for perturbations of the orbits of stars to indicate if there is an unobserved gravitational source nearby. The concept of god is certainly not outside of the scope of logic to argue for or against, regardless of any available scientific facts or evidence. It was a long-standing claim that god created the universe back when science thought that the universe was eternally existing. Then we found scientific evidence that the universe was in fact not eternal; it had a beginning about 15 billion years ago, which supports the theory that god created the universe. It also logically indicates that something before/outside of the space-time causal continuum caused the space-time continuum, which precisely dovetails into theistic arguments that premise god as the supernatural, uncaused causal root (first cause) of the universe. It is entirely scientific to make such an inference based on the evidence, especially when you throw in the scientific fine-tuning evidence.
And if it is not ‘out of bounds’ I should be allowed to ask, ‘what caused the first “uncaused” cause?‘
You're allowed to ask it all you want, but if you cannot understand the answer - that the uncaused cause of our space-time universe must itself sit outside of the continuum of causes (the explanation for a thing's existence must rest outside of the thing itself), then our answers will not satisfy you. Please understand this, GC. It's pretty basic. The explanation for a thing's existence must rest outside of that thing. A thing cannot cause itself to exist. We live in a space-time continuum - meaning, a continuum of cause and effect through time and space. The causal explanation for the existence of a space-time continuum must reside outside of that space-time continuum. Logically, this indicates an uncaused cause that resides outside of the limitations and properties of a space-time continuum that created (or perhaps more accurately, is creating) the space-time continuum which is the universe.William J Murray
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
GC said:
I still have not been convinced that this isn’t just the long standing argument that if we can’t explain it, it must be supernatural. I’m afraid that I am far too curious a person to accept that at face value.
Can you give me an example of something that naturalistic science has explained, GC?William J Murray
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Seversky @17: I don't see what your point is. Some philosophers wish to get rid of the term "supernatural" by asserting that all which exists is "natural". So? Let me ask you seversky; if god exists and keeps the universe running via divine will, and can alter anything in the universe via that will, would you consider such alterations "natural"?William J Murray
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
GC, why do you seem to almost always start from appeal to belittling? I suggest you correct that approach. Then I suggest you provide a cogent alternative analysis of cause and being if you cannot abide the summary above. I have invited a discussion of world-roots i/l/o the nature of being and cause, which leads to comparative difficulties analysis. What do you have and how is it factually adequate, coherent and explanatorily balanced? As for assuming on necessary beings and coherence with the universe, no I did not merely assume but invited a discussion of alternative world roots. All you did is to suggest oh it is really incompatible, without doing any actual grounding of that claim. And per inference to best explanation at worldviews level, that here are but few main options and finding which best meets the tests of factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory balance is in fact evidence of truth or falsity. For instance, it is readily seen that evolutionary materialism is self referentially incoherent, and so necessarily false, once it has to address reasonable, responsible freedom a condition of serious discussion. Likewise, when a worldview cannot cover a good slice of credible facts, it is evidence of untruth. And, while there is no worldview option that can be proved as a geometry theorem is proved, we can have that which is a reasonable responsible view and that may even under circumstances such as living encounter with God and life transformation thereby, be morally certain. The no evidence gambit -- another bad habit-- fails. I made no argument about a vs the cause, but spoke to cause and contingency vs necessary being. Then placed it in worldviews comparative difficulties context. I add, here are my actual words:
I note here, A first cause is not the same as THE first cause of the realm of nature. That is we here are looking at fundamental modes of being/ non-being (and by extension, candidate being), possible vs impossible and contingent vs necessary . . . [--> notice, mention, distinction and bridge without any elaborate argument]
As for if we cannot explain it must be supenatural, that is the god of the gaps strawman tactic. No, an explanation of modes of being is an explanation that gives a rich understanding. Further, the understanding of the natural order as contingent, credibly, points to a need for what is beyond it, thus a world-root. There is a serious candidate on the table. Your alternative is: _______________ ? It is credible because: ______________ ? (I/l/o comparative difficulties across world view live options.) KFkairosfocus
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
KF, you did The old verbal, logic two-step but even if we assume that a necessary being is not incoherent with the universe (highly debatable) it's coherence is not evidence of its truth. Your entire argument about A and THE cause is simply an argument over the words A and THE. Not really of much value. I still have not been convinced that this isn't just the long standing argument that if we can't explain it, it must be supernatural. I'm afraid that I am far too curious a person to accept that at face value.Gordon Cunningham
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
It is in the right ditection arguing that the supernatural is common. However only subjective statements refer to the supernatural. Also, agency is not a cause, but creates a cause with it's accompany effect, by choosing. When somebody decides to shoot a gun, then shooting the gun is the cause, which has all the accompany effects. Cause and effect belong together as 1 thing chosen.mohammadnursyamsu
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
rvb8 (attn: evnfrdrcksn), I spoke to the causal root of the realm we know as nature. This raises the issue of modes of being. I note here, A first cause is not the same as THE first cause of the realm of nature. That is we here are looking at fundamental modes of being/ non-being (and by extension, candidate being), possible vs impossible and contingent vs necessary. Where, possible beings would exist in at least one possible world, were it instantiated. Impossible beings have such a contradiction of core characteristics (think square circle) that they can be in no possible world. Of possibles, contingent ones depend on external enabling on/off factors [think fire triangle or better, tetrahedron] and so would exist in some possible worlds but not in all possible worlds. Necessary beings, by contrast are connected to the framework for a possible world to exist, and are also independent of external enabling factors. If a world is, it will have a cluster of NBs inextricably intertwined in its causal roots. For instance, for a world to exist there must be distinct identity (say of A) and thus, two-ness: W = {A|~A}. The context is that CB's are caused, NBs are NOT CAUSED but are facets of the root of a real world. Thus, the question, what CAUSED THE first cause, is ill formed and incoherent. (Not everything is caused, only contingent beings, which typically tend to have beginnings, composite characters and ends. Hence, the observation, that which begins to exist has a cause.) Such used to be well understood, but in our time, has been too often given short shrift. In this context, credibly, we live in an actual world, which is therefore possible and may in principle be described comprehensively by a cluster of detailed, accurate assertions that will by being true be compatible with one another. Beyond, these true assertions may be connected by meta-level explanatory frameworks that ideally will allow prediction and influence/control. Such, too must seek to be coherent and to exhibit economy without becoming simplistic. We see here how a world-understanding project will address inter alia both natural and cultural history, science and worldview-analysis. For the last, the methodological key will be comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory balance of power and simplicity without becoming simplistic. This world unfolds across time in causally connected chains, and so far as we understand credibly had a beginning (often suggested as about 13.7 or 13.8 BYA). Thus our experienced cosmos is credibly contingent and requires an adequate causal root. Even through a multi-verse speculation or a we are part of a simulation the-matrix or Plato's Cave world, we see the same contingency and need for causal root. Multiply this by the premise: non-being (a genuine nothing) has no causal powers, so if there were ever utter non-being, such would forever obtain. Consequently, as a world is, something always was, a NB causal root of reality. There is no cause of THE first cause, or notion that everything is caused, or assertion of its self-origination per self-cause, but instead an assessment of nature of being and of causal roots of worlds. The issue is candidate, world-root level necessary beings. Candidate, to focus attention on comparative difficulties and to bring forth a principle of NBs. Namely, that a serious candidate NB will either be impossible (as a square circle is impossible) or else actual once any world exists. Likewise, such a NB will not have a beginning nor can it cease to be: ponder, what on/off enabling factor had to be switched on for two-ness to begin to exist, or to turn it off from existing? When did | + | --> || and so also, immediately W = {A|~A} begin to be so, and under what circumstances would it -- yes, there is but one inextricably intertwined and fused truth there -- ever fail of being so? Did 2 have a beginning? A causal history of its beginning? A growth, life and eventual death? In short, once a world is, we are looking straight at something of eternal character. The issue is, which serious candidate NB will we have at the root of our world-understandings? And, per comparative difficulties, why? Thus, what is the credible causal root of reality in this world? For simple instance, the flying spaghetti monster parody used to mock ethical theism is patently not a serious candidate NB, being composite, material and the like. It only became popular because of widespread ignorance of first principles of modes of being. In a previous world in which educated people understood such ABCs it would never have been more than a joke in a pub where students gather. Similarly, the notion of a world popping out of nothing is deeply problematic. As I hinted, trying an infinite past chain of causally successive finite stages to reach the present implies spanning a transfinite interval in finite stage cumulative steps and runs into serious trouble. That is, you try to traverse and end the endless in finite steps; landing in serious incoherence. (And yes, I am prepared to defend this point.) By contrast, the eternal [--> NB!], immortal [--> NB!], inherently good creator-God, a maximally great and so the supreme being (who inter alia eternally contemplates the world of true abstract principles and propositions etc . . . i.e. an eternal mind), is a serious candidate. The issue, then is, is the God envisioned by ethical theism an impossible or a possible being? If the latter, he is actual and in fact would be a very good candidate to be causal root of a reality involving morally governed, responsibly and rationally free creatures such as we are: the inherently good and maximally great creator God. But also, those who reject such a God, implicitly imply that he is either a non-serious candidate NB [not a serious option] or else that he is impossible [something that has never been shown in any credible fashion]. In short, we are back to the natural world being rooted in that which is beyond nature, the super-natural. KF PS: It should be clear that ethical theism is a responsible, reasonable world-understanding and worldview, with the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and service by doing the good is a serious position to take.kairosfocus
June 19, 2016
June
06
Jun
19
19
2016
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT
careful, rvb8...they're gonna call you a troll and delete your comments if you keep asking them reasonable questions.evnfrdrcksn
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
I don't know why it's a moron's question. Are you not in the slightest bit curious as to? ’where did God come from?‘ WJM says the supernatural is 'unknown' and 'unseen'. Mung gets angry when I ask 'what caused the first cause'. This all comes across as mightily incurious. Science deals with the manegeable. And by manageable I mean testable, the empirical. Your 'uncaused cause' is exactly beyond natural (supernatural) and therefore logically out of bounds. And if it is not 'out of bounds' I should be allowed to ask, 'what caused the first "uncaused" cause?‘rvb8
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
...you are going down the impenetrable ‘what caused the first cause’ maize. Good luck! What caused the first uncaused cause is a question only a moron could ask. Not that there is ever any dearth of morons.Mung
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
Thank you KF. "beyond the natural“ is good and clear. "is its causal root”, a little less clear, do you mean, "is its own cause"? Because if you do, you are going down the impenetrable 'what caused the first cause' maize. Good luck! WJM, a little less clear, "abstract non-physical principles" is not a synonym of "supernatural". You however, seem quite happy to equate justice, fairness, altruism etc, as evidence of supernaturalism? they are not. These "abstract" ideas are much more easily explained in a "natural" argument!rvb8
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
If we accept the premise that something has always existed, then we can ask about the nature of that which can actually always exist. If we deny the premise that something has always existed, then we admit that something can come from nothing, an idea that is anathema to science. So who are the true science deniers?Mung
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Folks, Perhaps, it would help to distinguish syllables: super-natural, i.e. that which 1: is beyond the natural and in this case 2: is its causal root, governor (hence, ordering laws) and sustainer. Where the issue pivots on the premise that self-origination is not coherent, and spontaneous origin from utter non-being (a true nothing) is equally dubious. If a world now is, something always was, something that is a necessary being root of the natural order. Which is beyond that order. By logic of being. KF PS: The proposal of an infinite past natural chain of cause is inherently deeply problematic, entailing traversing endless succession in finite, cumulative successive stages -- the incoherence of ending the endless in finite steps. It also leaves the issue of coherent, unified ordering law unanswered. So yes, while many are naturalists, they have not answered the question. PPS: And particularly as, to reason together we need to be responsibly and rationally free, naturalists -- evolutionary materialists -- need to cogently ground a mind capable of responsible rationality on blind mechanical necessity and/or chance in computing substrates. The GIGO principle and the inherently non rational [as in not ground-consequent inference], but instead blindly mechanical cause effect chain nature of computational processing leads straight to self referential incoherence, self falsification and explanatory failure.kairosfocus
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
William J Murray @ OP
Let’s first define what “supernatural” means. From Merriam-Webster:
of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil. unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc. attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
I'll see your Merriam-Webster and raise you one Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Naturalism
The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003). So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.
[My emphases]Seversky
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
SB @ 15: That brings to mind the great line uttered by Prof. Lennox in conjunction with the assertion by Hawking that, "Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Lennox's priceless retort: "Nonsense, even when spoken by highly credentialed scientists, remains nonsense." Nothing could be truer than in reference to Krauss' entire book about something from nothing. Well said.AnimatedDust
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
GC
StephenB, unless I am misreading WJM, that is not what he is saying.
We are saying the same thing in a different way.
He is saying that whatever is behind the physical laws must be supernatural.
Which is another way of saying that a supernatural lawgiver must exist in order for a natural law to come into existence and remain in existence.
I am just pointing out that throughout history there are many things that we attributed to the supernatural that we now know are not.
You are missing the point. There are many things that we once attributed to God's direct action that were later found to be the product of a natural law, which logically requires a supernatural lawgiver.
It is possible that at the root of everything is the supernatural, but I think that it is premature to make this claim.
How can anything come into existence unless a pre-existent being brings it into existence? You were thinking what?--that things bring themselves into existence out of nothingness?StephenB
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
GC: The supernatural is a necessary, axiomatic ground both for the existence and maintenance of the natural and for our experiential and explanatory capacities which require transcendence from natural cause and effect sequences and reference to abstract non-physical principles that must be held as binding, prescriptive and universal. So no, it is not an argument from ignorance; it is an argument from firsthand experience, knowledge about the universe and logic. The more we know about our existence, the more it is clear that the supernatural must (1) house and support the natural and (2) be accessible from within the natural. It's clear we must be supernatural beings residing within a material, natural world with meantal/informational/spiritual access beyond the physical. Otherwise, we're just solipsistic biological automatons doing and thinking whatever happenstance material interactions produce. There's no third option. Either the supernatural exists, or we are delusional bits of animated matter, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.William J Murray
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply