Nature Cannot Account for Nature. Duh.

_{Barry Arrington
August 10, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Kirk Durston writes:

[S]cience reveals that nature, composed of space, time, matter, and energy, had a beginning. Scientism requires a natural explanation for the origin of nature, a logical impossibility. One cannot provide a natural explanation for the origin of nature without assuming the existence of nature in that “natural” explanation — a circular fallacy.

Yet another way materialism makes people stupid. It requires them to say there is a natural explanation for nature itself.

Comments

Thanks, BA. OT, but you might also like this: We are mistleodp_{August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

leodp, Dr Atheist LOL :) shared to fbbornagain77_{August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

The premise of causality is foundational to science. But naturalism must insist, contrary to both science and reason, that nature caused nature. Hence scientism. But this is not, "an open question". If nature had a beginning, it was also caused to begin. Materialists simply refuse to answer. Dr. Atheist teaches his students that the laws of nature, "were, are and always will be" (echoing Sagan's "Cosmos") here: Dr. Atheistleodp_{August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

FYI – BuzzFeed Article: I Asked Atheists How They Find Meaning In A Purposeless UniverseHeartlander_{August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
It is not unreasonable to infer that the natural world had a natural origin.
Natural processes only exist in nature, so that would be a problem for a natural origin to nature.Virgil Cain_{August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Bob O For philosophical and logical reasons, God is described as self-existing, self-explained, eternal and uncreated. Counter points to that are: 1. Nature is eternal and self-explained (refuted by science) 2. The origin of nature is Nothingness (but nothing has no potential) A self-explained, eternal, completeness of Being is a better explanation than Nothing. Therefore the best explanation is God.Silver Asiatic_{August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Incidentally, I think the same logical form of the argument could be used for an explanation, for example:
Religion reveals that nature, composed of space, time, matter, and energy, had a beginning. Religion requires a supernatural explanation for the origin of nature, a logical impossibility. One cannot provide a supernatural explanation for the origin of nature without assuming the existence of the supernatural in that “supernatural” explanation — a circular fallacy. (my change to the original in italics)
Bob O'H_{August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT}

One cannot provide a natural explanation for the origin of nature without assuming the existence of nature in that “natural” explanation
I agree with this - it seems obvious that if you're going to explain the origins of something then you have to assume that that something exists. But I don't see that it's circular. As far as I can parse it, Durston's argument seems to confuse two arguments (and I might be wrong, to some extent I'm guessing what the full argument is): 1. Nature exists. This is a natural explanation for how it came about, therefore nature exists, and 2. Nature exists. This is a natural explanation for how it came about, therefore we can explain why nature exists The former is circular, but I've never see anyone make that argument. I wonder if the context of the quote will make Durston's argument and logic clearer. Or perhaps he could turn up in teh comments to help clarify.Bob O'H_{August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

TT: The case of the Lewontin 1997 NYRB review of Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World provides a major double example of precisely the Scientism BA has been concerned about, As Merriam-Webster quite properly defines: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities). The brush-aside and dismissal fail, and I have responded to your further remarks in that thread. KFkairosfocus_{August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

GEM: "TT: Nope, scientism is an unfortunately apt term... So, given that you are responding in this way (a meaningless OP references Lewontyn) refute my statement that: "...people who use such terms (scientism, IDiot, etc,) use them because they are too intellectually immature to discuss the subjects on their own merit." To be fair, I might amend that and say ..."in their own words and thoughts".tintinnid_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

not only does nature not account for nature but, more personally and more obviously a falsification of naturalism, nature cannot account for our free will podcast - Are Humans Simply Robots? Nancy Pearcey on the “Free Will Illusion” http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/08/are-humans-simply-robots-nancy-pearcey-on-the-free-will-illusion/#more-30001 Casey Luskin interviews Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Fellow Nancy Pearcey. Discussing her new book, Finding Truth: Five Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes, Pearcey points out the inconsistency of evolutionary materialists who hold that free will is simply an indispensable illusion.bornagain77_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

TT: Nope, scientism is an unfortunately apt term for one of the errors of our day: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/science-worldview-issues-and-society/tt-scientism-which-i-think-is-a-bogus-term-or-not/ KFkairosfocus_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

"tintinnid @ 5. You don’t understand the terms being used..." Barry, with respect, not accepting, and not understanding, are not the same thing at all. You wield the term "scientism" like a weapon. But it has no effective meaning other than that given to it my you and others who oppose how science is practiced. It has no more meaning than the term "IDiot" that is often used to describe people who support ID. Frankly, I think that people who use such terms (scientism, IDiot, etc,) use them because they are too intellectually immature to discuss the subjects on their own merit. I realize that being this blunt will likely get me banned on UD (as it has in the past), but I hope that the amnesty, although I am very late in taking advantage of it, was not just more blowing smoke.tintinnid_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Seversky @ 8 hooks together two propositions: [1]
We have overwhelming evidence for the existence of nature.
[2]
It is not unreasonable to infer that the natural world had a natural origin.
It is blindingly obvious that as a matter of very simple logic, proposition [2] does not follow from proposition [1]. Therefore, proposition [2] is just hanging out there as bare unsupported statement trying to disguise itself as an argument. I am reminded of the car insurance commercial where the guy in his underwear who has just locked himself out of his hotel room tries to hide behind a potted plant. The shear absurdity of the attempt makes it funny. "We have nature; therefore nature must have created itself." I don't even have to erect a counter-argument. The assertion, like the guy standing behind the potted plant, is absurd on its face. So I won't bother responding to Sev's non-argument. Instead, I invite our readers to ponder the psychology behind it. Seversky seems to believe he has explained something when he plainly has not. He seems completely satisfied with an absurd assertion that any child could pick apart with a moment's reflection. Here's the really interesting question. What motivates materialists to do this? It beggars belief; yet it happens all the time. Seversky is obviously not an idiot; sometimes he makes decent arguments and comes up with penetrating observations. Yet, here is this apparently intelligent man saying something so absurd there is no need to even rebut it. How can this be?Barry Arrington_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

tintinnid @ 5. You don't understand the terms being used in the debate. What's more disturbing, you don't show the slightest urge to educate yourself. Here's a hint: Google "scientism." It has a commonly accepted meaning (not the one you ascribe to it). Until you do, you are just embarrassing yourself.Barry Arrington_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

[S]cience reveals that nature, composed of space, time, matter, and energy, had a beginning. Scientism requires a natural explanation for the origin of nature, a logical impossibility. One cannot provide a natural explanation for the origin of nature without assuming the existence of nature in that “natural” explanation — a circular fallacy.
There is no circularity. We have overwhelming evidence for the existence of nature. It is not unreasonable to infer that the natural world had a natural origin. In practice, I think most materialists, when pressed, will admit that we simply don't know how and why it all began and, for the moment, we will just have to live with it as an open question.Seversky_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

tin
By using the term “scientism”, all you are doing is saying that anyone who follows the scientific process is a displaying “scientism”.
NoSilver Asiatic_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Nice quote by George Smoot, BA77. His book "Wrinkles in Time" is a wonderful account of his COBE leadership and what led up to it. Spoiler Alert - he ends the book with that wonderful story of Scientists, after reaching the top of the mountain of cosmological understanding, look and see Theologians already there smiling in appreciation of the truth:) Edit...yes, Smoot just another Theistic Scientist confirming yet another groundbreaking Science fact - in this case the CMB. Edit some more...Stephen Hawking called Smoot's discovery "the scientific discovery of the century, if not of all time". One Last Edit...Maybe Hawking updated his claim after Krauss discovered "something from nothing"? Lol no:)ppolish_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

"You are quite correct that science does not require a natural explanation for the origin of the universe. We are not talking about science. We are talking about scientism. They are not the same thing." But are you not assigning a characteristic to "scientism" (which I think is a bogus term) that is based on your opinion as opposed to observed evidence? Racism is quite easily defined. A person who thinks that people from a different race are somehow inferior is demonstrating racism. A person who unjustifiably discriminates against someone of the opposite sex is displaying sexism. By using the term "scientism", all you are doing is saying that anyone who follows the scientific process is a displaying "scientism". If that is the case, I am guilty as charged. And proud to be guilty as charged.tintinnid_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Of related note is this comment I read last night:
Faith, Fact, and False Dichotomies - Austin L. Hughes - 2015 Excerpt: Coyne issues the following challenge to his readers: “Over the years, I’ve repeatedly challenged people to give me a single verified fact about reality that came from scripture or revelation alone and then was confirmed only later by science or empirical observation.” I can think of one example, which comes from the work of St. Thomas Aquinas (whose writings Coyne badly misrepresents elsewhere in his book). Based on his exposure to Aristotle and Aristotle’s Arab commentators, Aquinas argued that it is impossible to know by reason whether or not the universe had a beginning. But he argued that Christians can conclude that the universe did have a beginning on the basis of revelation (in Genesis). In most of the period of modern science, the assumption that the universe is eternal was quietly accepted by virtually all physicists and astronomers, until the Belgian Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître proposed the Big Bang theory in the 1920s. Coyne does not mention Lemaître, though he does mention the data that finally confirmed the Big Bang in the 1960s. But, if the Big Bang theory is correct, our universe did indeed have a beginning, as Aquinas argued on the basis of revelation.,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/faith-fact-and-false-dichotomies
A few notes along the same line:
"Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 Big Bang Theory - An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning - April 2012 Excerpt: Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning.,,, They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. "Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past," they say. They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. "A simple emergent universe model...cannot escape quantum collapse," they say. The conclusion is inescapable. "None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal," say Mithani and Vilenkin. Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place). http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27793/ "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176
Among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)
The Uniqueness Of The Bible Among 'holy books' and Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Y ,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236 The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’
Verse and Music:
Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4-Him - Can't Get Past The Evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiRQxEOWdDw
bornagain77_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

[S]cience reveals that nature, composed of space, time, matter, and energy, had a beginning. Scientism requires a natural explanation for the origin of nature, a logical impossibility. One cannot provide a natural explanation for the origin of nature without assuming the existence of nature in that “natural” explanation — a circular fallacy.
A few things often follow from this ... 1. Feigned incomprehension. All of a sudden, they don't understand the issue. Clouds of ambiguity, deliberate misunderstanding and minutiae roll in to obscure the obvious contradiction and stupidity of materialism. 2. Multiverse - which is an imaginary universe-generator. The origin of this would remain unexplained. 3. Nature is eternal. But that is contradicted by the science indicating a beginning for nature. 4. Quantum weirdness. Quantum events cause things to come into existence from nothing - but this requires physics to exist before anything physical does, and physical forces remain unexplained. 5. We don't know. If you don't know, and since God is the best explanation, then you should stop being an atheist.Silver Asiatic_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

tin @ 1: You are quite correct that science does not require a natural explanation for the origin of the universe. We are not talking about science. We are talking about scientism. They are not the same thing.Barry Arrington_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

"Scientism requires a natural explanation for the origin of nature,..." No, "science", does not require this.tintinnid_{August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply