10 Jan 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasOne good reason is this: There are several theories saying many universes exist and just like millions of people playing the lottery which has only one in ten million chance of winning, but win they do because so many people play.
How would you account for the initial conditions being as they are? What established the cosmological constant?
In a multiverse, with quadrillions of universes, ours is the flat universe lottery winner, there are other universes out there that would have the speed of light at one meter per second, the fine structure constant at 30 instead of 127, etc., which says life can never exist there so again, a matter of chance, we come along in this universe because we won a universal lottery. Oops, no god needed.
10 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasAnd supernaturalism allows one to by-pass empirical observation, and reasonable inference therefrom, and just assert that anything is possible. ( Some supernaturalists wisely make an exception for laws of logic, in order to avoid having an incoherent God.) With supernaturalism, there is just no real need for any epistemic justification for anything, and any system based on supernaturalistic premises can simply be rendered indefeasible by fiat. How nice.
Monism is compatible with naturalism.
If supernaturalism were “rampant” among scientists, perhaps polytheism would be a reasonable “scientific” conclusion…
I’m not sure that supernaturalism is necessary for theism (mono- or poly- ); it might be necessary for some theists to “overcome” otherwise contradictory assertions, or hold onto particular precious theological beliefs—but I’m not sure about that either. For some, perhaps it’s just an “easy out”.
Mistaken or not, it seems to be only dualistic theists who think they need resort to a supernatural category. Neither secular atheists nor religious non-dualists do.
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by sonhouseLet me get this straight: you've invented a quadrillion universes to explain the eccentricities of the one known universe, and this strikes you as a rational solution?
One good reason is this: There are several theories saying many universes exist and just like millions of people playing the lottery which has only one in ten million chance of winning, but win they do because so many people play.
In a multiverse, with quadrillions of universes, ours is the flat universe lottery winner, there are other universes out there ...[text shortened]... chance, we come along in this universe because we won a universal lottery. Oops, no god needed.
11 Jan 09
3 edits
Proposition:
Without an assumption of non-supernaturalism, you cannot justify to yourself the belief that you understand what you yourself are thinking.
Think about it.
Or—
Without an assumption of non-supernaturalism, you cannot know that you actually believe what you believe that you believe. This would seem fairly devastating for anyone who holds: (1) that salvation has something to do with holding a set of exclusivist beliefs, and (2) that one has a justifiable belief that one is saved.
[Just as the introduction of the supernatural means that no one can trust their ability to reason from observation to correct conclusions about reality, it would also mean that no one can trust their ability to reasonably decipher the correct meanings of their own “observed” thoughts, let alone any communication from someone else. These words you are reading, for example, might have some meaning that is not at all decipherable under any “naturalistic” norms of language—and not just that they may have alternative decipherable meanings under one or more sets of such norms. Supernaturalism throws all epistemology out the window, and not just those portions that one might believe can be safely jettisoned. The supernaturalist cannot really justify her own beliefs to herself—even supernaturally.]
__________________________________________
Note: I am using the clumsy term non-supernaturalism, since “naturalism” seems to a be term with meanings other than the non-admission of the supernatural (especially in epistemology).
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by vistesdAnd supernaturalism allows one to by-pass empirical observation, and reasonable inference therefrom, and just assert that anything is possible.
And supernaturalism allows one to by-pass empirical observation, and reasonable inference therefrom, and just assert that anything is possible. ( Some supernaturalists wisely make an exception for laws of logic, in order to avoid having an incoherent God.) With supernaturalism, there is just no real need for any epistemic justification for anything, and an ...[text shortened]... need resort to a supernatural category. Neither secular atheists nor religious non-dualists do.
The supernaturalist's beliefs regarding the known universe are looking more and more rational every day, i.e., the notion that the universe was "fine-tuned" by a Creator seems much more plausible than, say, the possibility that our universe is the one "successful" universe out of countless "failed" universes, or that our universe is literally a computer simulation created by a super intelligent species from a different universe.
Unless physicists can explain how the initial conditions of our universe weren't fine-tuned (since they appear to be fine-tuned), naturalism as a world-view will founder.
Christian cosmology from Aquinas onward has declared that the universe had a beginning long before the "big bang" was a glimmer in Lemaître's eye. Far from asserting that anything is possible, Christian cosmology has asserted only one possibility, i.e., God. Naturalists assert that anything is possible except the existence of God, yet the empirical data suggests that the world was "fine-tuned" to get the resulting "flat" universe we know and love today. At what point does naturalism the ideology get in the way of the proper functioning of science itself? By that I mean, at what point do scientists seriously consider the evidence for a Creator?
Because at this point, considering no one has any idea how or why the initial conditions of our universe arose as they did, there's really no reason not to explore every possibility thoroughly.
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasWe know for a fact that there is one universe with life. We don't know at all if that there are another universes, with or without life.
Let me get this straight: you've invented a quadrillion universes to explain the eccentricities of the one known universe, and this strikes you as a rational solution?
But because we don't know doesn't prove the existance of another universe, nor the non-existance of another universe. We simply don't know anything about it.
But we can speculate, make more or less trustworthy hypothesis, but we know nothing more that there are one universe harbouring life.
My opinion is that we live in one universe along with infinitly many other universes, a multiverse in a suprauniverse. Some have life, some is life-less.
I find it somewhat humourus if one person from a life-less universe told that there are no life anywhere in the whole supraverse, because there is no life there. He doesn't know more than we do.
So the fact that we live in a universe with life doesn't prove that someone has to be the creator of it.
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas(1) You didn’t mention non-dualist beliefs. 😉
[b]And supernaturalism allows one to by-pass empirical observation, and reasonable inference therefrom, and just assert that anything is possible.
The supernaturalist's beliefs regarding the known universe are looking more and more rational every day, i.e., the notion that the universe was "fine-tuned" by a Creator seems much more plausible than, they did, there's really no reason not to explore every possibility thoroughly.[/b]
(2) I am now arguing that supernaturalism means that no beliefs can be justified in any way—no beliefs that admit the supernatural (not just these or those beliefs, or beliefs just about the supernatural). The supernaturalist cannot even validly justify her beliefs to herself.
That is, that the introduction of the supernatural category throws all epistemology out the window. Once the supernatural category is introduced, anything goes—except whatever the supernaturalist declares by fiat does not go… As you say, the supernaturalist cosmologist may assert only one possibility—and another supernaturalist can assert another (perhaps based on different supernaturalist writings); there is just no way to actually (epistemically; rationally) justify those assertions, and no valid epistemic justification can be had for deciding among them.
(3) While I am not convinced that dualistic theism per se requires supernaturalism, certain theistic claims might.
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasI understand your reasoning, but the fine-tuning problem posed by the cosmological constant doesn't have anything to do with whether we are here or not, as far as I know. It is regarding the initial conditions of our universe; the unalterable laws that govern the cosmos. The degree to which these laws needed to be "fine-tuned" in order to give rise to a flat universe is so infinitesimally precise (1 part in 10 to the 120th power) that physicists are at a loss to explain how such precision came about "naturally".
We know for a fact that there is one universe with life. We don't know at all if that there are another universes, with or without life.
But because we don't know doesn't prove the existance of another universe, nor the non-existance of another universe. We simply don't know anything about it.
But we can speculate, make more or less trustworthy hypoth at we live in a universe with life doesn't prove that someone has to be the creator of it.
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdIn a sense, wouldn't the multiverse theory be a form of supernaturalism? If our entire definition of what is natural is derived only from the known universe, and we have absolutely no evidence of any other universes besides our own, then the proposed existence of other universes is by definition a supernatural explanation, is it not? Yet scientists are seriously considering the multiverse theory.
(1) You didn’t mention non-dualist beliefs. 😉
(2) I am now arguing that supernaturalism means that no beliefs can be justified in any way—no beliefs that admit the supernatural (not just these or those beliefs, or beliefs just about the supernatural). The supernaturalist cannot even validly justify her beliefs to herself.
That is, that th ...[text shortened]... ced that dualistic theism per se requires supernaturalism, certain theistic claims might.
If science is a tool for elucidating cause and effect, what does it matter whether the individual who employs that tool is a supernaturalist or not? The supernaturalist gains his beliefs from revelatory sources, or perhaps intuition, but the scientific process works on the level of falsifiability. If the scientific process takes a naturalist to the doorstep of the divine, how long before he stops looking for a different door and begins to knock? Or will he be shipwrecked forever by his naturalism?
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasOf course, scientists develop and test theories. Sometimes that testing may take decades. Any “theory” that is per se unfalsifiable is not a valid theory. Some scientists think that string theory, for example, is not a valid scientific theory because it is per se unfalsifiable. Time will tell… I am not a scientist and I don’t know anything about manifold universes, one way or the other.
In a sense, wouldn't the multiverse theory be a form of supernaturalism? If our entire definition of what is natural is derived only from the known universe, and we have absolutely no evidence of any other universes besides our own, then the proposed existence of other universes is by definition a supernatural explanation, is it not? Yet scienti ...[text shortened]... for a different door and begins to knock? Or will he be shipwrecked forever by his naturalism?
Any belief based on the supernatural is per se unfalsifiable . Another supernatural spin can always be introduced. So whether or not scientists take a wrong turn, or even do bad science, is no justification for seeking sanctuary in supernatural “explanations”.
But—any supernatural claim or belief can be deconstructed just on that basis alone. For one thing, any offered counter-belief, also based on the supernatural, is also equally unfalsifiable. One supernatural belief system cannot be used to falsify another—but both will likely eventually resort to adding supernatural “spins” ad infinitum, circular reasoning, or closure by simple fiat.
[One might argue that supernatural belief system B1 is superior because B2, say, leads to pernicious effects. But believing the truth is not logically barred from leading to pernicious effects either; the truth does not have to be more congenial than falsehood.]
EDIT:
Or will he be shipwrecked forever by his naturalism?
Take a closer look at my second post on this page. The supernaturalist is shipwrecked immediately. The supernaturalist ship essentially deconstructs itself.
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas…Let me get this straight: you've INVENTED a quadrillion universes to explain the eccentricities of the one known universe,
Let me get this straight: you've invented a quadrillion universes to explain the eccentricities of the one known universe, and this strikes you as a rational solution?
...… (my emphasis)
Now if sonhouse suggested multi-universe hypothesis is correct, then, in the physical sense, he no more “INVENTED” a quadrillion universes than he “INVENTED” the one known universe.
The mere fact that he may have “INVENTED” the hypothesis of the existence of a quadrillion universes is no discredit to the hypothesis because ALL hypotheses are “INVENTED”!!!
……and this strikes you as a rational solution?..…
Why wouldn’t it be a ‘rational’ solution?
The hypothesis explains the known facts -grant you this doesn’t necessarily mean that the hypothesis is correct and I am not suggesting it is correct -it may or may not be correct, -but in what way is it ‘irrational’ (if that is what you are suggesting).
But, the multi-universe hypothesis is just one solution; another would be that the physical constants are what they are because they couldn’t be any other value just like the mathematical constant PI cannot be any other value: read my second to last post on page 3 of this thread that is a replay to one of your posts.
11 Jan 09
5 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehas…The degree to which these laws needed to be “FINE-TUNED” in order to give rise to a flat universe is so infinitesimally precise
I understand your reasoning, but the fine-tuning problem posed by the cosmological constant doesn't have anything to do with whether we are here or not, as far as I know. It is regarding the initial conditions of our universe; the unalterable laws that govern the cosmos. The degree to which these laws needed to be "fine-tuned" in order to give r ...[text shortened]... power) that physicists are at a loss to explain how such precision came about "naturally".
...… (my emphasis)
Sorry, you claim that the universe has to be “FINE-TUNED” has been totally debunked (by me):
Read my second to last post on page 3 of this thread that is a reply to one of your posts.
You may also like to read my last post on page 3 of this thread that is a reply to one of knightmeister posts because he made a vaguely simular error that I then debunked.
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasEdit:
We know for a fact that there is one universe with life. We don't know at all if that there are another universes, with or without life.
But because we don't know doesn't prove the existance of another universe, nor the non-existance of another universe. We simply don't know anything about it.
But we can speculate, make more or less trustworthy hypoth ...[text shortened]... at we live in a universe with life doesn't prove that someone has to be the creator of it.
"My opinion is that we live in one universe along with infinitly many other universes, a multiverse in a suprauniverse. Some have life, some is life-less."
Oh there are at least two noble metaphysical/ philosophical systems backing up this estimation of yours! And surely no religion is associated with them!
Nothing Holy
😵
11 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI didn't realise I conversing with the spokesperson for generations of scientists, whose own capacity for scientific comprehension should be measured by the plethora of ground-breaking books and papers he must have had published.
With such a primitive understanding of science, its not difficult to see why you lapsed into Christianity. Scientists aren't trying to disprove creation. I don't think such a thing could be done. What they're doing is demonstrating that life could arise naturally by simulating the conditions of an early earth. The byproduct of that would be that a supernatu e doing the Miller-Urey experiment, from 1952, which did produce a number of amino acids.
It is perfectly reasonable to see irony in the fact that a group of scientists were trying to 'create' life in a laboratory. It's not my fault that your immense intellect cannot appreciate the perspective.
And to help you on your apparently rocky journey of discovering how not to persistently and arrogantly presume that you know me; there were 2 reasons that I "lapsed" into christianity. The relevant one is that I became increasingly disillusioned with the bleak emptiness of atheism. The other is for another thread or time.