And there you have it!

_{William Dembski

August 23, 2009

Eyes Rolling, Religion, Science}

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

Janna Levin, Columbia astrophysicist, gives us the cutting-edge science on the origin of the universe: there was nothing, really nothing, nothing at all … but the potential to exist. Was it Aristotle who said that nothing admits no predicates? So where did nothing get the potential to exist and then bring the universe into existence? Not to worry. Janna does give us this assurance: “We know that something happened.” Yes, this is science at its best. Let’s not bring God or design into this discussion — we wouldn’t want to be accused of “acting stupidly.” Oh, one more thing, she’s an assistant professor (go here). Want to bet that she doesn’t have problems getting tenure? Compare this to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State.

YouTube Source

Comments

Thank you, Diffaxial, for defending me — and thank you, StephenB, for attacking me. This has been a delightfully insane read. For the record, I have never believed that an ordinary car can be part of an ordinary crankshaft. I expect StephenB to shortly find that statement to contradict what I have said earlier. I expect myself not to care — but who knows? Have a nice day, all!Lenoxus_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

StephenB, thank you for your kinder, gentler response.
Let me provide another description that I think fairly captures what I wrote. In any quantum event, physically necessary conditions MUST exist such that the event MAY happen, but will NOT NECESSARILY happen. That is, everything MUST be in place that would allow the event to happen, even though the event still may not happen. On the other hand, if those conditions are NOT in place, the event cannot happen under any circumstances.
That necessary conditions allow an event to occur without necessarily forcing it to occur has never been in dispute. Your restatement says nothing about whether an event can occur without sufficient conditions, which is the point at issue.
”So, when a particle appears in a quantum vacuum, it is spontaneous but not uncaused because it has many necessary conditions. To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. In other words, something cannot come from nothing.” So, when a particle appears, that means that both the necessary and sufficient conditions were present.
That last statement does not follow from the previous statements. From the statement, "To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever," it follows that an event with necessary conditions is caused, regardless of whether it has sufficient conditions. Therefore, an event with necessary but insufficient conditions is caused, and therefore not precluded from occurring. We can formalize this lest there be any misunderstanding. If we define N as "necessary conditions present", S as "sufficient conditions present", and C as "event is caused": 1) ¬(N ∨ S) ⇔ ¬C 2) N ∨ S ⇔ C 3) N ⇒ C 4) N ∧ ¬S ⇒ C Which of the above do you dispute? There are several statements in the earlier thread that seem to make your position clear. Consider the following statement in which you explicitly talk about a caused event that occurs under insufficient conditions:
If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, then that event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused.
Given that, I don't see how you can now assert that events cannot occur under insufficient conditions.R0b_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

What about "a thing is" or if that has a hidden qualification I haven't found yet, then "it is". This would be another absolute truth.lamarck_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 98:
So, I put it to you.
You do make a great straight man. Okay, I'll play. 1) "I assert that you accept the possibility that streets can get wet without a cause..." That is factually incorrect. I stated "I certainly don't believe that" above. Because I am the arbiter of what I believe, that question is closed. 2) ...because you reject reason’s rule that would forbid that possibility. Not applicable, because I don't believe that streets can get wet without a cause. I do believe that "every effect has a cause" as an a priori 'law' fails, as it is a tautology (because the definition of effect is "a change that is a result or consequence of an action or a cause.") However it succeeds beautifully as an empirical generalization at the macrophysical level of wet streets, quantum indeterminacy not withstanding (as I stated above), and has long been a powerful heuristic that was crucial to the development of the scientific mindset. Therefore it is the soul of rationality to conform ones beliefs and behavior to such reliable generalizations. 3) "I further submit that such a position is unreasonable and irrational." As it is not my position, I don't feel compelled to defend its rationality. I would observe that it is irrational to attribute to persons irrational positions they don't hold, and then accuse them of irrationality. 4) "I submit again that you will not respond to that characterization" See above. You're O for 4. You'd do better with a sharper accusation. For example, you might assert "your belief that streets can't just get wet and your statements about quantum physics are inconsistent and hence irrational" or "your belief that streets can't just get wet themselves is irrational in light of your assertion that my rule of right reason is a tautology" and we'd have something to discuss.Diffaxial_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial: We have already been through this numerous times. You say that my characterization of OTHER Darwinists is unfair inaccurate and and I say that it is fair and accurate. On the other hand, I have a another Darwinist right in front of me, you, who refuses to answer questions in exactly the same way other Darwinists refused to answer questions. How can you speak for other Darwinists if you cannot or will not even speak for yourself. So, I put it to you. I assert that you accept the possibility that streets can get wet without a cause because you reject reason's rule that would forbid that possibility. I further submit that such a position is unreasonable and irrational. I submit again that you will not respond to that characterization because [A] is it accurate and [B] you can provide no rational defense for it. So, to evade the issue, you obssess over my comments about other Darwinists and ignore my comments about your position.StephenB_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

---Rob: "Which of the above statements is inaccurate, and why?" I am going to try to be a little kinder and gentler with my responses. Statements 1) and 2) are incorrect because they do not precisely reflect what was said. Here is the passage that you seem to object to. ---"In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUARANTEE the event." Let me provide another description that I think fairly captures what I wrote. In any quantum event, physically necessary conditions MUST exist such that the event MAY happen, but will NOT NECESSARILY happen. That is, everything MUST be in place that would allow the event to happen, even though the event still may not happen. On the other hand, if those conditions are NOT in place, the event cannot happen under any circumstances. And later: ----"So, when a particle appears in a quantum vacuum, it is spontaneous but not uncaused because it has many necessary conditions. To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. In other words, something cannot come from nothing." So, when a particle appears, that means that both the necessary and sufficient conditions were present. Otherwise, it would not or could not have happened. To be sure, the event was spontaneous and unpredictable, but it was not, as Darwinists claim, uncaused. In order for an event to be uncaused, both the necessary and sufficient conditions must be absent. I find nothing in either of those statements to justify your interpretation.StephenB_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

MIssed a tag.Diffaxial_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 92:
Oh, so now you say its OK to use words that other don’t use in order to provide the right context.
Certainly, in this instance to make explicit what is implicit in your false and misleading characterization of others' statements. Your intent in this offending passage...
Indeed, when I asked these same bloggers if an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft, they insisted that such a thing is, indeed, possible.</blockquote ...was for your readers to come away believing that Darwinists have asserted that an (ordinary) automobile could be part of an (ordinary) crankshaft, violating one of your oft repeated rules of right reason. "Ordinary" is implicit by means of cooperative linguistic convention, such that the burden is on the speaker/writer to alert the reader when he is using words in other than a conventional sense. You display a high level of verbal competence and are certainly aware of your responsibility to clarify. It is therefore inescapable that you wrote with the intention that your readers come away with an impression that you knew to be false, as no participant, Darwinist or otherwise, has either stated or implied that they believe ordinary automobiles can be parts of ordinary crankshafts in a way that violates the part-whole relationship. The motive behind your false and misleading statements is the desire to claim that Darwinists are incapable of reasoning and rationality.
Diffaxial_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

StephenB, before I respond to anything else, let's clear up the sufficiency issue. Here are the facts as I see them: 1) In the earlier thread, you said that the conditions for quantum events are physically necessary but not sufficient, and gave an example of a particle appearing in a quantum vacuum. 2) It follows that you accept that events can occur under conditions that are necessary but not sufficient. 3) If is now your contention that if an event happened, sufficient causal factors AND necessary causal factors had to be present. 4) The position taken in (3) contradicts the position taken in (2). Which of the above statements is inaccurate, and why?R0b_{August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

----“Rob: “What rules of logic are you talking about? Are you referring to your rules of right reason? If so, they seem more like assertions about physical reality than rules of logic.” If you don’t know what rules I am talking about by now, I don't think repetition would help. In any case, thank you for confessing that you don’t know that logic has standards. ----“When has any “Darwinist” contradicted anything in that passage? They state that the principle that it represents cannot be assumed and does not apply to the real world. ----“Do you understand the difference between saying that something is ill-defined and saying that it’s false? Do you understand the difference between pointing out the implications of something and taking a position on whether that something is true or not? Seriously, I would like an answer on whether you understand these distinctions.” Yes. That is why I feel the need to provide concrete examples from time to time: Hence, an automobile is "more than its parts" and streets don't just "get wet, and so on. Very few people here have ever accused me of being ambiguous or claimed that they didn't know what I am talking about, unless it is a last resort to avoid debate. Strategic ambiguity is not my game, but Darwinists live by it. ----“And what did we say that made you think that we had never heard of it?” [necessary, sufficient causes]. The fact that Darwinists claim that quantum events are causeless, and because they, at least those here, clearly don't understand anything about the metaphysical foundations of science. Indeed, even after being informed about the matter, they immediatly go into denial. ----“What Darwinist would be not be impressed to see Darwinism rationally demonstrated to be wrong?” Every Darwinist that visits this site. ---“If you think I’ve misstated your rule, then we can go back to this thread and review exactly what you said.” and again: ----“If so, how do you reconcile your comments there with your current position?” and again: ----“StephenB disagrees with you [kairosfocus] on that as he accepts that quantum events can result from insufficient causes. Your disagreement with StephenB brands you as clearly irrational. Here is what I wrote, which, of course, includes that which you purposely left out. "With regard to the self-evident truths that undergird science, they not only work, they are essential to understanding anything at all about what may or may not be going on. If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, then that event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused. In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUANRANTEE the event. So, when a particle appears in a quantum vacuum, it is spontaneous but not uncaused because it has many necessary conditions. To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. In other words, something cannot come from nothing." And here is kairosfocus’ response on the very same thread: ----And, SB at 302 raises a very key point on the difference between the roots of thinking (which must be there for us to analyse observations and compare alternative explanations, picking which we find to be currently best on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory elegance) and the observations, descriptions, explanations and predictions (or, retrodictions . . . ) of science: The metaphysical foundations for science have nothing to do with “verbal descriptions” and “macroscopic objects.” They are the self-evident truths through which verbal descriptions and macroscopic events are understood. You are conflating metaphysical truths with physical realities that can be observed and measured, an error, by the way, that stems from rejecting the metaphysical foundations themselves . . . . Quoting me he writes, “If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, then that event [I add: relative to our state of understanding , ability to predict and ability to observe] is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused. In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUARANTEE the event. So, when a particle appears in a quantum vacuum, it is spontaneous but not uncaused because it has many necessary conditions. To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. In other words, something cannot come from nothing. -----“kairosfocus responds again: “Correct. Bearing this in mind, let us now turn to Q-mech and alpha decay and cause-effect bonds; starting with a simpler case to illustrate key concepts, a fire: random outcomes observed in quantum phenomena are comparable to that of a the outcome of tosses of a die, and hence at least in principle determined and knowable at some level (albeit difficult or impossible to discern at a practical level), you are profoundly mistaken. As the late Heinz Pagels put it, even “the perfect mind of God” cannot predict the specific outcome of individual quantum events.” This is the same man that you claim holds a different viewpoint than myself on exactly the same subject, even though he quoted me with approval word for word. Further, you ignored that which was right in front of you and went looking for what you hoped, and wasn’t, a misplaced preposition to invalidate several written paragraphs that cannot possible be misunderstood. Please stop wasting my time with these futile attempts at a gotcha. If you want a reasonable discussion, I will oblige you without any abusive snippey, but I have a low threshhold for nonsense-----and your notion that I have been inconsistent or that Kf and I are not on the same epistemological page on matters of necessary and sufficiant causes--is clearly nonsense.StephenB_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial:" NOW you’ll accept accountability for your words?" Of course. I said I don't REMEMBER using it, so if I used it fine. As I said, it conveys the meaning very well. GET IT. Now, will you address the substantive issues, or are you going to run and hide forever. ---"You omit crucial contextual information from this very statement, namely that Lenoxus was imagining an enormous sculpture of a crankshaft rather than an ordinary crankshaft. It is to constrain such distortions of the intentions behind the posts of other contributors that I have included “ordinary” in my paraphrase " Oh, so now you say its OK to use words that other don't use in order to provide the right context. Finally, you get it. So, quit dodging the issue that, in effect, you made default claims that were not expressed explictly. In fact, you deny all principles of right reason and any example, apt or not, that expresses that denail. The issue is that which you will not address: Darwinists cannot reason IF A, then B MUST be true because, by rejecting reason’s first principles, they cannot rule out C through Z.StephenB_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Clive, I agree. I've never been a fan of pomo.R0b_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

R0b,
It’s interesting to watch StephenB criticize the postmodern mindset that he attributes to his opponents. To me, StephenB seems afflicted with a pre-modern mindset. There was a time when confidence was placed in models/rules/beliefs/assumptions simply because they seemed reasonable, or “self-evident”, whatever that means. Modern science has largely cured us of that naivete.
The belief that the post-modern system of thought is by definition truer or more advanced than any system of thought which came before it, merely because it is modern, will itself be outdated and wrong by its very system, just give it time. :) I love these kinds of debates, they show the absurdity of post-modernism.Clive Hayden_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

R0b, Maybe this will help,
[T]he view in question is just the view that human thought is not true, not a reflection of reality. And this view is itself a thought. In other words, we are asking ‘Is the thought that no thoughts are true, itself true?’ If we answer Yes, we contradict ourselves. For if all thoughts are untrue, then this thought is untrue. There is therefore no question of a total scepticism about human thought. We are always prevented from accepting total scepticism because it can be formulated only by making a tacit exception in favour of the thought we are thinking at the moment — just as the man who warns the newcomer 'Don't trust anyone in this office' always expects you to trust him at that moment... However small the class, some class of thoughts must be regarded not as mere facts about the way human brains work, but as true insights, as the reflection of reality in human consciousness. One popular distinction is between what is called scientific thought and other kinds of thought.....
You can read the rest here: http://books.google.com/books?id=e19zlwlOVwUC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=one+popular+distinction+is+between+what+is+called+scientific+thought+and+other+kinds+of+thought&source=bl&ots=IBe8wum8bh&sig=INcEF5ngJEfTXs8wH5JsD2aV5Sw&hl=en&ei=SfeWSregAYOyNtqn4YkD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=one%20popular%20distinction%20is%20between%20what%20is%20called%20scientific%20thought%20and%20other%20kinds%20of%20thought&f=falseClive Hayden_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
It is interesting that Rob’s first sentence tells us that science has outgrown the rules of logic
What rules of logic are you talking about? Are you referring to your rules of right reason? If so, they seem more like assertions about physical reality than rules of logic.
Logic does not stop being logic
Please point me to the logic by which you have supported your assertions.
I picked this up from Wikipedia...Everyone gets this except the Darwinists.
Thank you. When has any "Darwinist" contradicted anything in that passage?
Thank you for confessing that you think something can come from nothing, that physical events can occur without causes, and that a thing can be and not be at the same time.
Do you understand the difference between saying that something is ill-defined and saying that it's false? Do you understand the difference between pointing out the implications of something and taking a position on whether that something is true or not? Seriously, I would like an answer on whether you understand these distinctions.
I introduced the concept of necessary and sufficient causes to you and the other Darwinists who apparently had never heard of it.
And what did we say that made you think that we had never heard of it?
In any case, why would irrational Darwinists be impressed when I expose their irrationality? You are making no sense at all.
What Darwinist would be not be impressed to see Darwinism rationally demonstrated to be wrong? I'm sorry this doesn't make sense to you.
That does not follow at all. Your confusion is remarkable.
It follows quite naturally, although I should have said "your rule allows physical events without sufficient causes" rather than "physical events can occur without sufficient causes". Rule: For every event E, it is the case that E resulted from sufficient causes OR (inclusive) E resulted from necessary causes. How does "E0 resulted from necessary but not sufficient causes" contradict the above rule? Please point out my remarkable confusion. If you think I've misstated your rule, then we can go back to this thread and review exactly what you said.
That is my position and always has been.
Are you the StephenB who commented on the aforementioned thread? If so, how do you reconcile your comments there with your current position?R0b_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 79:
You and others Darwinists do, indeed, “INSIST” that the part-whole relationship is not one of reason’s principles.
"Insist" arose in your statement, "Indeed, when I asked these same bloggers if an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft, they insisted that such a thing is, indeed, possible." In light of the meaning you intend your readers take from the above, namely a statement referring to ordinary automobiles and ordinary crankshafts, this is a false and misleading statement.
Lenoxus stated outright that an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft in an attempt to deny the principle. So, he was not taken out of context.
You omit crucial contextual information from this very statement, namely that Lenoxus was imagining an enormous sculpture of a crankshaft rather than an ordinary crankshaft. It is to constrain such distortions of the intentions behind the posts of other contributors that I have included "ordinary" in my paraphrase of your example. Cheeseparing is not my aim.
For your part, all you have to do is declare, in principle, that an automobile cannot be a part of its crankshaft on the grounds that the whole is always greater than any one of its parts.
There are further, more accurate alternatives beyond "either an automobile can be part of its crankshaft or an automobile cannot be part of its crankshaft" that, upon reflection, I would advocate. But not now, because... StephenB @ 79:
I don’t think I used the word, “absolutely true?” (Actually the term is not too far off, but I think I will play your game and pretend that since I didn’t use that exact formulation, I should not be held accountable for the meaning it conveys. See how that works? It’s called laboring over the trivial to avoid substance, which defines your agenda
StephenB @ 66:
I said, “it is clear that they ‘think’ that streets could “just get wet.” That is absolutely true.
...you can't get your OWN words straight, much less others'. NOW you'll accept accountability for your words?Diffaxial_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Rob, Just for fun, rreflect on the fire triangle as a simple model of sufficiency and necessity of causal factors in action. To start a fire, make sure that each factor is present: heat, fuel oxidiser. (Go back to boy scout days . . . or use the now classic Ishikawa fish bone causal chain diagrams ) To put it out, rob it if any one. (that's how fire fighting works.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

R0b,
The rules are fine for philosophical musing, but StephenB shouldn’t be surprised if the scientific community (including evolutionary biologists) is unimpressed.
Yeah, since when should the philosophy of science ever have any bearing on what scientists steeped in scientism believe, nevermind that scientism is a philosophy, just like the rest of your post is. I had a guy tell me once that philosophy didn't get any work done, that it was science that actually did things, and of course, I told him that he was welcome to hold that philosophy :) just as you're welcome to hold your scientism philosophy, but don't be surprised when the rest of us who know philosophy are not impressed by yours.Clive Hayden_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Rob @82. You do not understand what your read, so you should not comment on it until you absorb it. kairosfocus wrote, "If an event DID happen, sufficient causal factors, AND necessary causal factors had to be present." That is my position and always has been.StephenB_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

----Rob: “It’s interesting to watch StephenB criticize the postmodern mindset that he attributes to his opponents. To me, StephenB seems afflicted with a pre-modern mindset. There was a time when confidence was placed in models/rules/beliefs/assumptions simply because they seemed reasonable, or “self-evident”, whatever that means. Modern science has largely cured us of that naivete. Nowadays, we understand better the need to support empirical beliefs with data, mathematical beliefs with math, and logical beliefs with actual logic.” Modern science can hardly cure the rules of right reason on which it rests. It is interesting that Rob’s first sentence tells us that science has outgrown the rules of logic and in the second sentence that science should be supported by the same logic that it has outgrown. This is Darwinism at its best folks. Reread his paragraph and weep for him and all postmodernist partisans. ----“StephenB cannot support his philosophical rules thusly, in part because they’re devoid of operational or formal definitions. “The whole cannot be less that any of its parts” is either a trivial tautology or false, depending on how you flesh out the definitions. A sum can be less than some of its terms, and a product can be less than some of its factors. Does that falsify the rule? We have no way of knowing, as the rule is ill-defined.” They are not “my” rules. They are as old as Aristotle. Logic does not stop being logic and reason does not stop being reason----except, of course, for Rob. Poor insular Darwinists. I picked this up from Wikipedia: Whole-Part Relationship "A whole-part relationship indicates that one entity is composed of one or more parts which are themselves instances of that or another entity. Typically, a part can only be "attached" to one whole at a time. The parts can be said, in some very real way, to make up the whole. In object-technology, whole-part or composition relationships have very specific meaning and use—typically denoting sole ownership over a set of object instances as well as certain copy, update, and delete semantics. In psychology and semantic modeling whole-part relationships reflect construction of larger entities out of smaller ones. These uses of the term are parallel to each other but not identical. ________________________________________ Example: A car is made up of a body, three or four wheels, a steering mechanism, a braking mechanism, and a power-train. This is essentially a definition by parts for a car. In mechanical assemblages, the parts are the major subassemblies of the whole. In naturalistic objects, the parts are the major pieces into which a person would mentally dissect the object." Everyone gets this except the Darwinists. ----Rob: “The same goes for “a thing cannot be and not be”, “something cannot come from nothing”, and “physical events cannot occur without causes”. When pressed to flesh out that last rule, StephenB defined “causes” as “either necessary OR sufficient cause”, which means that physical events can occur without sufficient causes. He seems not to see how this dilutes to the rule to the point of vacuity. Unless StephenB can conceive of an event that’s devoid of necessary conditions, the rule allows any event the he can conceive of.” Thank you for confessing that you think something can come from nothing, that physical events can occur without causes, and that a thing can be and not be at the same time. I wasn’t “pressed” to flesh out the rule; I introduced the concept of necessary and sufficient causes to you and the other Darwinists who apparently had never heard of it. ----“The rules are fine for philosophical musing, but StephenB shouldn’t be surprised if the scientific community (including evolutionary biologists) is unimpressed.” Obviously, you are unaware of the metaphysical foundations for modern science. Normally, I would recommend a book, but in this case, I think it would be futile. In any case, why would irrational Darwinists be impressed when I expose their irrationality? You are making no sense at all. ----“StephenB defined “causes” as “either necessary OR sufficient cause”, which means that physical events can occur without sufficient causes.” That does not follow at all. Your confusion is remarkable.StephenB_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Where did you get that nonsense?
Here:
In any quantum event, physically NECESSARY conditions exist that are not SUFFICIENT to make that event occur, meaning that the conditions cannot GUANRANTEE the event. So, when a particle appears in a quantum vacuum, it is spontaneous but not uncaused because it has many necessary conditions.
[Emphasis in original]R0b_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

---Rob to kairosfocus: "StephenB disagrees with you on that, as he accepts that quantum events can result from insufficient causes. Your disagreement with StephenB brands you as clearly irrational." Where did you get that nonsense? My position on necessary and sufficient causality is exactly the same as kairosfocus' position.StephenB_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Darwinists cannot reason in the abstract because they refuse to rule out logical impossibilities indicated by the reason’s rules.
It's interesting to watch StephenB criticize the postmodern mindset that he attributes to his opponents. To me, StephenB seems afflicted with a pre-modern mindset. There was a time when confidence was placed in models/rules/beliefs/assumptions simply because they seemed reasonable, or "self-evident", whatever that means. Modern science has largely cured us of that naivete. Nowadays, we understand better the need to support empirical beliefs with data, mathematical beliefs with math, and logical beliefs with actual logic. StephenB cannot support his philosophical rules thusly, in part because they're devoid of operational or formal definitions. "The whole cannot be less that any of its parts" is either a trivial tautology or false, depending on how you flesh out the definitions. A sum can be less than some of its terms, and a product can be less than some of its factors. Does that falsify the rule? We have no way of knowing, as the rule is ill-defined. The same goes for "a thing cannot be and not be", "something cannot come from nothing", and "physical events cannot occur without causes". When pressed to flesh out that last rule, StephenB defined "causes" as "either necessary OR sufficient cause", which means that physical events can occur without sufficient causes. He seems not to see how this dilutes to the rule to the point of vacuity. Unless StephenB can conceive of an event that's devoid of necessary conditions, the rule allows any event the he can conceive of. The rules are fine for philosophical musing, but StephenB shouldn't be surprised if the scientific community (including evolutionary biologists) is unimpressed.R0b_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxisl: “Let us review.” Let’s do. ----“You state that daft Darwinists have insisted that the part-whole relationships can be violated. Why just the other day they insisted that an ordinary automobile can be part of an ordinary crankshaft. Notice how you had to use the word “ordinary” in order to convey the meaning even though I don’t recall using that word. Sometimes, we have to use words that others didn’t use in order to characterize their position. This is especially true with Darwinists who try to use words to convey two different meanings at the same time in order to avoid debate, like you do with the word “natural.” That means that reasonable people must cut through the fog, and I don’t hesitate to do that, especially when the irrational obfuscation cries out for clarity. You and others Darwinists do, indeed, “INSIST” that the part-whole relationship is not one of reason’s principles. Thus, for you, and the others, it doesn’t apply to the real world. Lenoxus stated outright that an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft in an attempt to deny the principle. So, he was not taken out of context. For your part, all you have to do is declare, in principle, that an automobile cannot be a part of its crankshaft on the grounds that the whole is always greater than any one of its parts. Or, if you like, you can say that an automobile is always greater than any one of its parts on the same grounds. Can you do it? If not, then the charge stands. -----“You state that it is absolutely true that daft Darwinists think that streets can really wet themselves without cause. Why just the other day postmodernists asked, “Why can’t the streets just get wet?” or “Can you provide me with evidence that moisture, like the cosmos or life cannot just come from out of nowhere” or “you are wrong because quantum particles can appear without a cause,” and so on. -----“Yet no one has.” You have refused to state that it is impossible, so clearly you allow for the possibility. That means that you think it could be true. You cannot say that IF the streets are wet, something MUST have caused it. Vivid picked up on that. [Again, I don’t think I used the word, “absolutely true?” (Actually the term is not too far off, but I think I will play your game and pretend that since I didn’t use that exact formulation, I should not be held accountable for the meaning it conveys. See how that works? It’s called laboring over the trivial to avoid substance, which defines your agenda.)] Darwinists cannot reason IF A, then B MUST be true because, by rejecting reason’s first principles, they cannot rule out C through Z. I am not easily distracted. ----“And NOW you say DARWINISTS think that anything at all can happen. Actually, I would modify that. Darwinists think that anything at all could happen-----except design. Also, some Darwinists have a certain talent for alliteration. I like your formulation, “Daft Darwinists,” for example. It’s got style.StephenB_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
If an event DID happen, sufficient causal factors, AND necessary causal factors had to be present.
StephenB disagrees with you on that, as he accepts that quantum events can result from insufficient causes. Your disagreement with StephenB brands you as clearly irrational.R0b_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

In other words, Darwinists think that anything at all can happen except design.
Let us review. You state that daft Darwinists have insisted that the part-whole relationships can be violated. Why just the other day they insisted that an ordinary automobile can be part of an ordinary crankshaft. Yet no one has. You state that it is absolutely true that daft Darwinists think that streets can really wet themselves without cause. Why just the other day postmodernists asked, “Why can’t the streets just get wet?” or “Can you provide me with evidence that moisture, like the cosmos or life cannot just come from out of nowhere” or “you are wrong because quantum particles can appear without a cause,” and so on. Yet no one has. And NOW you say DARWINISTS think that anything at all can happen. Gotcha.Diffaxial_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Footnote: 1] Unless all NECESSARY causal factors are present, an event CANNOT happen. 2] If SUFFICIENT causal factors are present, the even WILL happen. 3] If an event DID happen, sufficient causal factors, AND necessary causal factors had to be present. (The two sets of factors need not be equivalent. Overkill is possible.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

vividbleau, out of curiosity, do you believe that streets can be wet without sufficient cause?R0b_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

"Yes, and in the name of science, which assumes uncompromising causality as one of its metaphysical foundations. Clearly, you get it." Actually to embrace acausality at any level is the death knell for science. Vividvividbleau_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "I can hear it now: “Why just last week I was discussing this with Diffaxial, and he insisted that causeless wet streets were possible!” As a tribute to our long standing relationship, I will withhold the word "insist," and speak only in generalities {Darwinists] i.e. Darwinists allow for the possibility that streets can just "get wet," And, [that the whole need not be greater than one its parts], [that a thing can be and not be], [that causation can come and go] In other words, Darwinists think that anything at all can happen except design. You know the drill by now. They can't reason If A then B, because they can't rule out C through Z.StephenB_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply