The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Ouroboros]

We don't know the beginning of the Universe. Big Bang is the most likely theory, but other theories have been suggested, and some of them have brought an interest in the scientific community.

Personally, I have a hard time taking any theory seriously at this time, including the Big Bang. I think science is still in it's infancy when it comes to this.

Agree. The reason why Big Bang is (was) compelling is that it fit the observed evidence of the Universe, but there has been some new discoveries which doesn't fit. So the question right now is: should the Big Bang theory be retrofitted to support the new evidence, or should they look for a new theory completely?

 

While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the universe's history. The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.[52]

 

Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:

 

* models including the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.[53]

* brane cosmology models[54] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.[55][56][57]

* chaotic inflation, in which inflation events start here and there in a random quantum-gravity foam, each leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[58][59]

 

Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning.

From Wiki

[oddbird1963]

We don't know the beginning of the Universe. Big Bang is the most likely theory, but other theories have been suggested, and some of them have brought an interest in the scientific community.

Personally, I have a hard time taking any theory seriously at this time, including the Big Bang. I think science is still in it's infancy when it comes to this.

Agree. The reason why Big Bang is (was) compelling is that it fit the observed evidence of the Universe, but there has been some new discoveries which doesn't fit. So the question right now is: should the Big Bang theory be retrofitted to support the new evidence, or should they look for a new theory completely?

 

While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the universe's history. The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.[52]

 

Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:

 

* models including the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.[53]

* brane cosmology models[54] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.[55][56][57]

* chaotic inflation, in which inflation events start here and there in a random quantum-gravity foam, each leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[58][59]

 

Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning.

From Wiki

 

 

I'm glad you guys are around to keep me updated on these subjects.

[oddbird1963]

Whoops. Wrong thread.

[LNC]

Why cannot the explanation be a supernatural one?

I don’t see that we have any need for the supernatural LNC. It seems to me that if a supernatural realm exists and it has a relation with the natural world or interacts with it in any way, then the supernatural is just an unknown aspect of the natural world. Also, it seems to me that the natural world is plenty rich and mysterious enough without having to resort to supernatural explanations.

 

I don't see how that can follow that the supernatural is just an unknown aspect of the natural world, that would violate the definition of it being supernatural. Is there a reason that you believe that a supernatural realm could not exist? If so, what would those reasons be and what evidential support would you have for them? Sure there are mysteries in the natural realm that we cannot explain, but that seems to be an irrelevant issue as to whether a supernatural realm exists.

[LNC]

Nature: I can see, touch it, test it, measure it, it's here.

 

Supernatural: I can not see, or touch it, or test it, or measure, I don't know if it's here

 

So which one begs the question? The one which constitute reality, or the one that is imaginary?

 

It's you who should defend your a priori assumption. I don't have to defend Nature, because you can just open your eyes, and it's there.

 

That reminds me of one of the lines from one of my favorite movies of last year, Horton Hears a Who. I believe it was the Kangaroo who said, “If you can’t see it, hear it or feel it, it doesn’t exist.” Was that true? No! The Kangaroo was proved wrong and Horton was proved right. Now, you will say that this is just a kid's movie and what does that have to do with reality. I say that it has plenty to do with reality. Does that mean that if we cannot see, touch, test or measure something that it doesn't exist? I find that illogical. We couldn't measure or test for quarks until fairly recently, so did they simply come into existence at that point or did they exist such that we were incapable of seeing (still can't), touching (still can't), testing for or measuring? I don't think you would hold this to be the case, would you?

 

So, just because we cannot see, touch, test or measure something, it doesn't necessarily follow that it doesn't exist. Otherwise, why bother searching for the Higgs boson particle which fails all of your tests. Therefore, even though you cannot see, touch, test or measure the supernatural, it doesn't follow that it doesn't exist. I hope that answers your question regarding why you are begging the question.

[Shyone]

 

That reminds me of one of the lines from one of my favorite movies of last year, Horton Hears a Who. I believe it was the Kangaroo who said, “If you can’t see it, hear it or feel it, it doesn’t exist.” Was that true? No! The Kangaroo was proved wrong and Horton was proved right.

 

I have never considered that defense: Using a fantasy to prove a fantasy.

[oddbird1963]

Would somebody please tell me how in the hell an "immaterial being" can be said to exist?

 

 

I suppose if you presuppose a "ghost in the machine" view of the mind, then god could be analogous to that "ghost." But the ghost in the machine concept is not nearly a given and serves as a poor analogy on which to base the assertion the "God is an immaterial being."

 

If by immaterial one means "pure energy" then that is no help. Energy and matter are related to one another by e=mc². So if by immaterial one means energy, that is essentially admitting that god is physical and subject to the laws of this universe.

 

Once again, how can an immaterial being be said to exist?

 

Are you saying that you don't believe that any immaterial things exist or just immaterial beings? I don't mean pure energy as energy falls into the category of the material realm as you pointed out. I mean a truly immaterial being. Yes, I believe that it is most logical to explain the existence of our minds as an immaterial of us in who we are. I don't believe that a mind can truly be reduced to the brain or even an emanation of the brain (i.e., property of the brain) as that would remove free will and choice from us. If that were the case, then our conversation here would be meaningless, just words on the screen over which we had no control or purpose for writing. I don't think that I can accept that as a valid thought, can you?

 

Can you give me a reason that an immaterial being could not exist?

 

My question was "How can a immaterial being be said to exist?" I did not put together the words "immaterial" and "thing." So your first question is a puzzler.

 

Your response is in terms of mind, which you believe to be essentially a "ghost in the machine." Recent scientific evidence brings this view of mind into question. Your concerns about free will vs. determinism aren't really pertinent here. It's just that the independent immaterial mind serves as a poor analogy for an "immaterial being."

 

"Material being" makes sense. Simply pre-pending a negating syllable to a word in a phrase that makes sense does not mean the negation of that phrase makes sense. I understand how a material being can be said to exist. But you have not yet explained how an immaterial being can be said to exist.

 

"Material being" is English. There are plenty of material beings around to serve as proof and to study. "Immaterial being", though derived from English words so far might as well be Jaberwokky.

 

When you put together words in a nonsensical way and then posit that the being exists, it seems like you should be able to provide some explanation of how such a being could be said to exist. I'm still waiting for you or somebody who believes in immaterial beings to provide such an explanation.

 

Perhaps you are equating God with immaterial being? Is that it? "Immaterial being" is just another term for God?

[Ouroboros]

Nature: I can see, touch it, test it, measure it, it's here.

 

Supernatural: I can not see, or touch it, or test it, or measure, I don't know if it's here

 

So which one begs the question? The one which constitute reality, or the one that is imaginary?

 

It's you who should defend your a priori assumption. I don't have to defend Nature, because you can just open your eyes, and it's there.

 

That reminds me of one of the lines from one of my favorite movies of last year, Horton Hears a Who. I believe it was the Kangaroo who said, “If you can’t see it, hear it or feel it, it doesn’t exist.” Was that true? No! The Kangaroo was proved wrong and Horton was proved right. Now, you will say that this is just a kid's movie and what does that have to do with reality. I say that it has plenty to do with reality. Does that mean that if we cannot see, touch, test or measure something that it doesn't exist? I find that illogical. We couldn't measure or test for quarks until fairly recently, so did they simply come into existence at that point or did they exist such that we were incapable of seeing (still can't), touching (still can't), testing for or measuring? I don't think you would hold this to be the case, would you?

 

So, just because we cannot see, touch, test or measure something, it doesn't necessarily follow that it doesn't exist. Otherwise, why bother searching for the Higgs boson particle which fails all of your tests. Therefore, even though you cannot see, touch, test or measure the supernatural, it doesn't follow that it doesn't exist. I hope that answers your question regarding why you are begging the question.

I love that answer. It's the first time I actually find a human side to you. Very good.

 

And I agree. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I keep an open mind to the supernatural. It's not like I have closed my mind and refuse to ever think of the possibility, not at all.

 

The thing is though: if in nature we can find support for the idea of boson particles, quarks, or superstrings, and they can be presumed to exist because of indirect observations. But also that the theories are consistent with what we can test, see, measure, prove, experiment with, etc, then of course these things are very likely to be true.

 

However, to assume that N-Rays exists just because someone says so, doesn't immediately make them exist.

 

There is of course a probability to the existence of the things we can't see. And if the probability for God to exist increases somehow, I would change my mind. But the problem is, I'm actually waiting for a god, or gods, or supernatural entities of any kind, to make themselves known to me, but they consistently refuse. Why is that? I'm not worthy?

 

And on another note, a quote from Martin Gardner, a philosopher who refuse the arguments to prove God's existence, but accept God solely on the basis of fideism, "For Kierkegaard, whose fideism so strongly influenced Barth and Unamuno and Heiddegger, the desire to find rational evidence for God betrays a weakness of faith." In other words, if you succeed in proving God with your different arguments, then you have lost the honest and pure faith. Read Heb 11:1.

[NotBlinded]

Nature: I can see, touch it, test it, measure it, it's here.

 

Supernatural: I can not see, or touch it, or test it, or measure, I don't know if it's here

 

So which one begs the question? The one which constitute reality, or the one that is imaginary?

 

It's you who should defend your a priori assumption. I don't have to defend Nature, because you can just open your eyes, and it's there.

 

That reminds me of one of the lines from one of my favorite movies of last year, Horton Hears a Who. I believe it was the Kangaroo who said, “If you can’t see it, hear it or feel it, it doesn’t exist.” Was that true? No! The Kangaroo was proved wrong and Horton was proved right. Now, you will say that this is just a kid's movie and what does that have to do with reality. I say that it has plenty to do with reality. Does that mean that if we cannot see, touch, test or measure something that it doesn't exist? I find that illogical. We couldn't measure or test for quarks until fairly recently, so did they simply come into existence at that point or did they exist such that we were incapable of seeing (still can't), touching (still can't), testing for or measuring? I don't think you would hold this to be the case, would you?

 

So, just because we cannot see, touch, test or measure something, it doesn't necessarily follow that it doesn't exist. Otherwise, why bother searching for the Higgs boson particle which fails all of your tests. Therefore, even though you cannot see, touch, test or measure the supernatural, it doesn't follow that it doesn't exist. I hope that answers your question regarding why you are begging the question.

LNC, you keep accusing us of mixing science with metaphysics yet you do this constantly.

[NotBlinded]

I think if formal cause was actually understood, many questions could be answered. I'm pretty sure LNC sees the capacity of a "thing" to be programmed into it, when that may not be the case. The formal cause for existents may self pre-exist.

 

And he states this:

 

An inanimate object which is not in motion will not take on the property of motion without another causal agent according to Plato and Aristotle, the object would remain at rest. That is why it is logical to posit a personal agent.

I would like him to point out a object that is not in motion without relativity.

 

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about when you say:

 

I'm pretty sure LNC sees the capacity of a "thing" to be programmed into it, when that may not be the case. The formal cause for existents may self pre-exist.

 

What kind of thing might that be in the real world?

 

On the second point I think you are mixing concepts between the philosophical idea that I referred to with Plato and Aristotle and the epistemological concept as you portray through relativity. Again, I see that as more of an epistemelogical issue in that the thing only appears to be at rest, whereas, Plato and Aristotle were speaking conceptually of an object truly at rest.

What kind of thing might that not be in the real world? Why do you need to add an outside agent to an existent in order to satisfy the formal cause? You are not taking your insights into this deep enough. You are skipping out and adding another agent as if this agent is somehow controlling all processes going on in every little speck of sand through every sentient being. We have discussed this before and it is the processes obeying a command and this is obviously a reflection of your worldview. Lawgiver and law-abiders. Nouns and verbs.

 

Lets take this even deeper LNC. Let's get into some metaphysics here, which you do all the time so don't accuse me of confusing the two. Come along and play with me here. What processes in your body are really voluntary? When you decide to move your fingers do you know how you do that? Do you just decide or do you have to think about deciding to decide? Do you have to turn your brain on every morning to start all the processes or does your organism just kick on without thought? Of course it does. It's spontaneous isn't it? Everything is a process and this process doesn't need an outside agent controlling it (including our idea of us). It's this illusion of a separate controller that emcompasses your worldview. As oddbird calls it, "a ghost in the machine". God, being, whatever name, didn't decide anything because it isn't separate from process. It IS the process. It just happens.

 

Taken deeper the formal cause pre-exists in everything. There are no objects truly at rest. Science now knows this, we know this; Plato and Aristotle may not have known this. As others here have also been saying, the effect is in the cause. Davka stated this on the previous page. "Nature apparently has the ability for genuine spontaneity." Why can't this "agent" be part and parcel of existents? Wouldn't that be more logical than having a programmer/lawgiver sitting in front of some massive computer pumping out DNA, adjusting electrons, protons, ions, etc, having a few of them skip orbits, or some that will attach to others, on and on ad infinitum with complete knowledge? Again, do you have to turn your brain on every morning? You claim this being to be immaterial correct? Where does immaterial exist other than in material itself?

 

Hans posted this in response to bornagainatheist:

 

2) Things don't come into existence. The transition into existence. We categorize things and clump them together as unique, distinct, and discrete entities while they're not. A "tree" is many things, not just one kind. It grows into it, like you said

 

Tie this all together and you may be able to see that no one has ever seen a cause. There are no separate events in nature.

[Rev R]

***leading up to***

 

Tie this all together and you may be able to see that no one has ever seen a cause. There are no separate events in nature.

 

well, I'm impressed

[skepticalme]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

 

2. The Universe began to exist.

 

3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

 

Why is it that the Universe needs a cause but God does not? If the Universe is the result of a "First Cause", why does that cause have to be a who, why not a what? This argument doesn't support or refute the existance of God.

[Ouroboros]

Why is it that the Universe needs a cause but God does not? If the Universe is the result of a "First Cause", why does that cause have to be a who, why not a what? This argument doesn't support or refute the existance of God.

It's because William Craig argues that there can't be an infinite past, that time must have begun at some point, and he's using Hilbert's Hotel Paradox.

 

And science agrees that time and space began at the first Planck Time. The problem though is that time, as we know it, only really works above Planck time and space. It doesn't seem to work the same way on the quantum level (particles moving backwards in time, light exiting a tube before it enters it, spooky action/entanglement, quantum tunneling, etc), so I think it's safe to say that we don't know fully what time is. We know a lot about it, but not enough to draw strict logical conclusions from it.

 

And if we can't completely pinpoint what time is, nor what space is, then how can we fully define what a cause is?

[NotBlinded]

Why is it that the Universe needs a cause but God does not? If the Universe is the result of a "First Cause", why does that cause have to be a who, why not a what? This argument doesn't support or refute the existance of God.

It's because William Craig argues that there can't be an infinite past, that time must have begun at some point, and he's using Hilbert's Hotel Paradox.

 

And science agrees that time and space began at the first Planck Time. The problem though is that time, as we know it, only really works above Planck time and space. It doesn't seem to work the same way on the quantum level (particles moving backwards in time, light exiting a tube before it enters it, spooky action/entanglement, quantum tunneling, etc), so I think it's safe to say that we don't know fully what time is. We know a lot about it, but not enough to draw strict logical conclusions from it.

 

And if we can't completely pinpoint what time is, nor what space is, then how can we fully define what a cause is?

You know, I heard something that made me laugh. Let me tell you what it was...

 

When we perform calculus, we take an arbitrary point instance in order to measure a regularity with another regularity. I find that extremely funny. That's funny isn't it? I mean to pick a point of origination of effects by radom selection and then using the comparisions of regularities (which are effects themselves) to arrive at some cause (that can only be known while using effects) is almost absurd.

 

I don't know if I said that right, but maybe you'll get what I'm thinking. Maybe I find it funny because it's like looking for a ghost when the cause is IN the effects, IMO.

[Ouroboros]

You know, I heard something that made me laugh. Let me tell you what it was...

 

When we perform calculus, we take an imaginary point instance in order to measure a regularity with another regularity. I find that extremely funny. That's funny isn't it? I mean to pick a point of origination of effects by radom selection and then using the comparisions of regularities (which are effects themselves) to arrive at some cause (that can only be known while using effects) is almost absurd.

I think you're way ahead of me!

 

Did you mean "imaginary" as in i in complex numbers, or imaginary as just in random?

 

I don't know if I said that right, but maybe you'll get what I'm thinking. Maybe I find it funny because it's like looking for a ghost when the cause is IN the effects, IMO.

Especially if the argument is that the First Cause and the "First Event" (if we can use that word) were unison, simultaneous, or any other words we could use to say they were identical. How can we know a "cause" from an "effect" if they were within the same Planck Time? It could just as well be that the Universe Began To Exist was the Cause to God Begin to Exist. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause, and God began to exist when the Universe began, so the Universe was The First Cause. Who can tell the difference?

[LNC]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

Empirical evidence exists for the laws of nature. Empirical evidence exists for the laws of physics. Empirical evidence exists for the theory of evolution. Empirical evidence exists for the theory of abiogenesis. These things are not open to serious challenge from a scientific or rational standpoint. we may ask questions about how things owrk in the natural world, but the fact they they do work is no mere conjecture.

 

No empirical evidence exists for the supernatural, god, Heaven, Hell, the soul, or life after death. Anyone defending the existence of any or all of these things has, in the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, a lot of 'splainin to do.

 

What do you consider empirical evidence? How do you determine what qualifies as empirical evidence and what does not? How do you gather empirical evidence for a past event (e.g. abiogenesis)? What, by your definition, would count as empirical evidence for the supernatural?

 

Can you explain how and why the laws of nature and physics exist? Can you point me to the empirical evidence for abiogenesis? It's funny that you say that these "things" are not open to serious challenge, yet, I find that abiogenesis is still hotly debated out there and far from being an empirically proven hypothesis. Maybe you could 'splain some of these things to me.

[NotBlinded]

You know, I heard something that made me laugh. Let me tell you what it was...

 

When we perform calculus, we take an imaginary point instance in order to measure a regularity with another regularity. I find that extremely funny. That's funny isn't it? I mean to pick a point of origination of effects by radom selection and then using the comparisions of regularities (which are effects themselves) to arrive at some cause (that can only be known while using effects) is almost absurd.

I think you're way ahead of me!

 

Did you mean "imaginary" as in i in complex numbers, or imaginary as just in random?

 

I don't know if I said that right, but maybe you'll get what I'm thinking. Maybe I find it funny because it's like looking for a ghost when the cause is IN the effects, IMO.

Especially if the argument is that the First Cause and the "First Event" (if we can use that word) were unison, simultaneous, or any other words we could use to say they were identical. How can we know a "cause" from an "effect" if they were within the same Planck Time? It could just as well be that the Universe Began To Exist was the Cause to God Begin to Exist. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause, and God began to exist when the Universe began, so the Universe was The First Cause. Who can tell the difference?

Yeah, I changed the word imaginary to arbitrary. Since no one can trace an event back to any cause what-so-ever, a point is chosen along this occurance.

 

When it's said that anything begins to exist must have a cause implies a causer, or Causer (new word!). Cause and effect are two parts of the same event. You can't have a cause without an effect and there are no effects without causes. The only thing separating the two are these measurements of regular changes with other regularites, such as time. We take, Plank time (I'll have to look into what that is), arbitrarily I presume, and then go from there.

 

Don't let me fool you. I don't know hardly anything about this at all but philosophically. Even then, the math makes no sense to me. That's probably why I find it amusing. You know, ignorance is bliss and all...

[Shyone]

 

Can you explain how and why the laws of nature and physics exist? Can you point me to the empirical evidence for abiogenesis? It's funny that you say that these "things" are not open to serious challenge, yet, I find that abiogenesis is still hotly debated out there and far from being an empirically proven hypothesis. Maybe you could 'splain some of these things to me.

First, abiogenesis. It depends on what you call evidence, perhaps, but consider:

 

1. At one time there was no life, then small fossils appeared.

[Note, no life -> life = abiogenesis. You think goddidit, but that's still abiogenesis]

2. Concentrations of gases in the atmosphere changed as life became abundant which confirms that life has impacted the environment

3. Amino acids and complexes form in the atmpospheric conditions present before life began.

4. Spontaneous formation of RNA in labs shows how the chemistry of life can occur without divine intervention (unless you think God was fiddling with the chemicals in the lab too).

 

Life is chemistry from bottom to top. That life began is not seriously debated except when Christians shoot themselves in the foot by claiming life could not have ever started. But of course it did. We are here. So the question is how, not whether, life started.

 

So there is "evidence". It consists of the study of the chemicals of life, how the form, how the assemble, and possible mechanisms for self organization.

 

As far as "why the laws of physics exist", they are the properties of mass and energy. The Question is the problem. It's like asking, "Who makes the sun rise?"

 

The answer is not a mystical beast that fantastically shoots the fireball across the sky, but - the earth rotates. There is no "who". And for the laws of physics, they are what they are because mass is what it is. There is not a good reason to ask why.

 

But, since people ask, study particle physics, energy, relativity, quantum physics and all the rest of that stuff that deals with what matter is and energy is. One thing you'll never find is an equation that has "goddidit" anywhere in there.

[Franko47]

Franko 21:3 "And lo, your world turns like the wheel of a chariot; below heaven and above the darkness. Thus you have night into day, and day into night. And all the creatures I have formed learn to live amidst their surroundings; for I have made all nature sustain life and advance as to my wishes...

 

 

If only.

[Ouroboros]

As far as "why the laws of physics exist", they are the properties of mass and energy. The Question is the problem. It's like asking, "Who makes the sun rise?"

My brother would answer, Jesus. No, seriously, he would.

[Guest Davka]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

Empirical evidence exists for the laws of nature. Empirical evidence exists for the laws of physics. Empirical evidence exists for the theory of evolution. Empirical evidence exists for the theory of abiogenesis. These things are not open to serious challenge from a scientific or rational standpoint. we may ask questions about how things owrk in the natural world, but the fact they they do work is no mere conjecture.

 

No empirical evidence exists for the supernatural, god, Heaven, Hell, the soul, or life after death. Anyone defending the existence of any or all of these things has, in the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, a lot of 'splainin to do.

 

What do you consider empirical evidence? How do you determine what qualifies as empirical evidence and what does not?

 

Empirical evidence is replicable evidence gained by means of

- observation,

- experience, or

- experiment

 

Wikipedia "Empirical"

Merriam-Webster "Empirical"

 

The word "replicable" is emphasized because in scientific terms, an empirical proof or empirical evidence must be capable of being verified or disproved. IOW, other people must be able to perform the same experiment and get the same results.

 

How do you gather empirical evidence for a past event (e.g. abiogenesis)?

 

The evidence exists to support the theory, not the event itself. Empirical evidence for a theory is based on the theory's predictive model: "If theory x is true, then we should see phenomenon y." A theory is based on observation, hypothesis, and replicable experimentation.

 

"The Earth appears to be ancient. If the Earth is ancient, then we should see [insert long list of phenomena}\]."

 

"Life appears to have spontaneously arisen from a mixture of chemicals. If this is true, we should see [insert equally long list of phenomena]."

 

What, by your definition, would count as empirical evidence for the supernatural?

 

By definition, the "supernatural" can have no empirical evidence. It cannot be replicated through experimentation. Different people's experiences vary wildly. It cannot be reliably observed.

 

Empirical evidence applies to the physical Universe, not to speculative events or beings which cannot be verified independantly.

 

Can you explain how and why the laws of nature and physics exist?

 

"Why" is begging the question - it assumes that there is a purpose to the laws of nature and physics. "How" is the scope of science, and is slowly being answered. Considering that the answer appears to be almost infinitely complex, it appears that we will be answering it for a long, long time to come.

 

 

It's funny that you say that these "things" are not open to serious challenge, yet, I find that abiogenesis is still hotly debated out there and far from being an empirically proven hypothesis.

 

1) Where is "out there"? The non-science world? The world of crackpots who put saddles on dinosaurs? The church? 4th and Main? Please clarify.

 

2) I did not claim that abiogenesis is an empirically proven hypothesis. I wrote that there is empirical evidence for the theory, not empirical proof. Congratulations, your straw man falls over nicely.

 

 

Maybe you could 'splain some of these things to me.

 

Done.

[Legion]

I agree with much of what you’ve said here Davka. But I just wanted to put in my two cents on this statement here...

 

"How" is the scope of science, and is slowly being answered.

I disagree with this. I think “why” is every bit as important in science as “how”. Sometimes I even get the sense that “how” can be subsumed under efficient and formal causes, which are answers to “why”.

[Ouroboros]

I disagree with this. I think “why” is every bit as important in science as “how”. Sometimes I even get the sense that “how” can be subsumed under efficient and formal causes, which are answers to “why”.

I have a problem with the word why. Not because the usage in science or not, but because of a certain level of vagueness in its definition.

 

"Why" either means a reason based on intention, or a reason without a direct intention.

 

Think about this:

 

Kid asks his dad, "why is the sky blue, dad?" And the father answers, "because the size of the particles in the stratosphere are of a size which only allows a certain frequency of light to pass through." (Or something like that) Then the "why" was really answered with the process of "how." They are synonymous to some degree.

 

But if the dad answers, "because Flurlox, the great pixie king before he created the sky, saw a pretty blue flower on the road to his kingdom, and decided that this was the color he would make the sky." Then, it's not really a good use of "why," because it is assuming someone's intention to why it is such-and-such. We can't really assume that someone intended it to be a certain way, because it is a shut-the-door policy. You can't research deeper or further if the answer is part of an imagination.

 

The "why" in this latter sense doesn't help science while the former does. Except perhaps for sciencew which involves human actions, like sociology, psychology, and maybe biology(?).

[Legion]

I guess I understand what you mean Hans. But I think the whole thrust of the Aristotlean categories of causation was to make it explicit that no single answer to “why?” is sufficient to explain things.

 

If we ask, “Why does the house exist?” then we know there are multiple correct answers. It exists because of the boards, nails, bricks, and mortar. This is material cause. It exists because workmen labored over time. This is efficient cause. It exists because of blueprints. This is formal cause. And it exists because someone intends to occupy it. This is final cause. Together these answers to “why?” give us some understanding of the house.

 

Where would you object to this?

[Ouroboros]

I guess I understand what you mean Hans. But I think the whole thrust of the Aristotlean categories of causation was to make it explicit that no single answer to “why?” is sufficient to explain things.

I agree.

 

The how, what, when, and why are very close to each other, which shows already there that we haven't clearly figured out how causality works.

 

If you think of the example of the que-ball hitting the eight-ball, what is it that hits what? And how? And why does the eight-ball move away? I mean, there are billions of small atoms, but they never really collide, they bounce through repelling forces. So how does that work? What is, and how do we explain how, when it comes to the raw, basic, and natural nuclear forces? We only know they exist, but is anyone able to explain what makes those forces to be those forces? We can't break down, dissect, or deconstruct forces, can we? So really, cause and effect are some mysterious, magical forces, which are to some extent (perhaps) time-less, because some of them are immediate, but of course on a localized area. But then, supposedly, the entanglement is immediate on a universal area. So do we really "know" what causality is?

 

Since I've done a lot of computer programs, and some games a while back, I tend to compare things to how a game software simulates a world. The cause-and-effect in a came is not at all the same concept as we consider reality. When a thing falls down and hits ground, it's not because a "thing" "falls" "down" "hits" "ground", but because a program with the rules controls these objects and stop the object because of a set of "if" statements. The cause is a background process making it seem to be cause-and-effect. One thing hit another, also controlled by a background process. This idea was presented as an explanation for how causality works in reality too, by Geulincx and Malebranche, called occasionalism. I think it is supposedly refuted, but I'm not so sure there might be some truth to it. After all, quantum mechanics, braided space, string theory, etc, suggests that what we see are just after-glow or effects of these weird things at the bottom of reality.

 

If we ask, “Why does the house exist?” then we know there are multiple correct answers. It exists because of the boards, nails, bricks, and mortar. This is material cause. It exists because workmen labored over time. This is efficient cause. It exists because of blueprints. This is formal cause. And it exists because someone intends to occupy it. This is final cause. Together these answers to “why?” give us some understanding of the house.

Right. Good point. For instance, "why does a bird have a beak," does have an answer in that it evolved to be most efficient for the purpose of eating worms, and yada-yada. when life evolves, it evolves into filling the empty spots, and it evolves to improved fitness, and those are final causes. Not intentional from some supermind, but they are reasons to why they stay around.

 

Where would you object to this?

No, you're right. Those are good points.

 

I think the problem is that it is very difficult for most people to see the difference between an unintended final cause (if you will), and an intentional (thought out beforehand) final cause.