Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?

Excuse me while I go back a bit and clear up some confusion:

Of course that is certainly something that was not created. We both agreed almost a week ago that ex nihilo, nihil fit.

I think all natural things in the universe follow this principle. But I happen to think not everything in super nature does. But when I brought it up, I was not asserting what I believed but trying to reach a common starting point. I had said:

Everybody seems to agree that nothing comes from nothing. Before the Big Bang theory, naturalists simply considered the universe to be eternal. Super naturalists were divided on the point.

But the Big Bang evidence suggests that the entire universe and all its laws and physical properties did not not simply always exist. It doesn't prove this absolutely, but it gives us a point at which it is hard for any science to look beyond.

Strictly speaking of coarse, the super naturalist views the "nothing comes from nothing" a natural law only. The same way as they think gravity applies to nature but not necessarily to the super natural. Sorry for the confusion this caused.

"I think all natural things in the universe follow this principle. But I happen to think not everything in super nature does. But when I brought it up, I was not asserting what I believed but trying to reach a common starting point."

All that is fine and good. The problem is that your parsing here between things that are "natural" and things that are in "super nature" is arbitrary and thus ultimately meaningless.

It is the excuse that religionists in general and you in particular use to ignore either reason or evidence. Instead, you throw up your hands and willfully abandon both in favor of "magical thinking." While people tend to maintain some level of "magical thinking" associated with their religious beliefs even as adults, operationally most of us outgrow it by late childhood. We certainly do not lead our day to day lives depending on miracle and magic. Instead we assume that cause and effect operates and that what we have deductively learned about reality is likely to be true.

This dichotomy you continue to embrace regarding the characteristics of nature vs. super-nature is the key reason why it is impossible to conclude God from either evidence or reason, and why no argument that even pretends to begin from the premise that nothing comes from nothing can lead to any conclusion other than an eternal universe.

"Everybody seems to agree that nothing comes from nothing. Before the Big Bang theory, naturalists simply considered the universe to be eternal. Super naturalists were divided on the point."

In all candor, why should anyone give any serious consideration to what super-naturalists believed on that point? But worse, how would anyone imagine that the abandonment of ex nihilo, nihil fit by some segment of the "super naturalist" community would be any more effective at driving a conclusion of God than the already failed argument from an uncaused cause?

I have shown a willingness (you might have noticed) to allow you any starting assumptions you choose. But each time that has failed to work out for you, you come running back to the assumptions we had both seemed to agree on and demand a "do over." By now I would have thought you'd notice the pattern and realize that the starting assumptions are not your problem. Your problem is that your desired conclusion is an entity that has no advantage or explanatory power over an eternal universe. And it has vastly less evidence.

Think about it. If you begin with the assumption that God is uncreated, then you have conceded that something can be uncreated. Okay... if God can be uncreated, why can't the universe itself be uncreated? After all, we actually have evidence for the existence of a universe.

If you begin with the assumption that something can come from nothing after all, then you have conceded that effects can spontaneously arise without any cause. So again, okay. If God can arise out of nothing, why can't the universe itself arise out of nothing? After all, we actually have evidence for the existence of a universe.

No matter where you start from, the problem that you invariable have to face is the two ultimate explanations that are offered; one naturalistic, the other super-naturalistic. Why would the God explanation be superior in any way to the eternal universe explanation, when the amount of evidence for each is not within light years of parity?

"But the Big Bang evidence suggests that the entire universe and all its laws and physical properties did not not simply always exist. It doesn't prove this absolutely, but it gives us a point at which it is hard for any science to look beyond."

Your latter sentence is true. Your first is not. The Big Bang gives no more evidence that "the entire universe and all its laws and physical properties did not not simply always exist" than any point on a line is evidence that the line does not persist on either side of the point. You are arguing in a circle again.

"Strictly speaking of coarse, the super naturalist views the "nothing comes from nothing" a natural law only. The same way as they think gravity applies to nature but not necessarily to the super natural. Sorry for the confusion this caused."

I gotta tell you... I suspect you are even wrong on that point. Either that or you are IMHO certainly not an orthodox Christian by any measure. I will not speak for all the Christians here, and if one or more would like to leap in and correct me I'd appreciate it. But the orthodox view IIRC is that even in the super-natural realm nothing comes from nothing. God cuts the Gordian knot of that maxim not by violating it, but by being eternal and uncreated. Everything comes from something... ultimately the eternal God that did not "come from anything" simply because He always was.

But then again, my resulting question is why, if you have already conceded that something can be eternal and uncreated, why not the universe?

Think about it. If you begin with the assumption that God is uncreated, then you have conceded that something can be uncreated. Okay... if God can be uncreated, why can't the universe itself be uncreated? After all, we actually have evidence for the existence of a universe.

And we have evidence that ordinary nature must have a cause. YOU called exceptions "Miracles". Thus, the partition between ordinary nature and super nature is necessary.

And calling what you don't like to believe "magical thinking" is no more logical than calling it "poo-poo head thinking". Its an appeal to emotion by one who has given up logic.

Nor do your appeals to "throwing up hands" have any reasoned merit to save your position.

The first thing you said to me was that I was over-thinking. Ender, the problem is that you are under-thinking.

"And we have evidence that ordinary nature must have a cause."

Oh? What evidence is that?

"YOU called exceptions "Miracles". Thus, the partition between ordinary nature and super nature is necessary."

Not if no such exceptions actually exist. We have many labels for imaginary things, and the problem with "super naturalists" such as yourself is that you have never been able to provide any evidence that the label of "miracle" does not apply exclusively to just such an imaginary thing.

"And calling what you don't like to believe "magical thinking" is no more logical than calling it "poo-poo head thinking". Its an appeal to emotion by one who has given up logic."

I'm sorry if you misunderstood that to be a pejorative term. It's not. It is a specific technical term that describes a specific and well understood way of thinking. You will not get very far in most arguments if you are so thin skinned as to take offense every time somebody uses a word or phrase that you are unfamiliar with.

"Nor do your appeals to "throwing up hands" have any reasoned merit to save your position."

Then make (for the first time) an effort to demonstrate that that is not exactly what you are doing. I would love to see you do that.

"The first thing you said to me was that I was over-thinking. Ender, the problem is that you are under-thinking."

I gotta tell you, that post was even more disappointing than usual. You make essentially no attempt at all to defend your world view or challenge mine.

Am I to understand you are abandoning the field?

You have already defined nature for me, when you insisted that existence consisted of matter and energy only. Thus we have a partition drawn by you. You categorize things outside of it as "miracles" and "magic". Thus again you have drawn the partition. You have asserted your belief that the "magic" thinking is unsupportable, thus you have abandoned, except by pretense, any validity to your Ocham's Razor type arguments.

But then again, my resulting question is why, if you have already conceded that something can be eternal and uncreated, why not the universe?

If universe means cosmos including the possibility of a super nature in it. Then certainly the eternal thing is in that super nature. If it does not have a super nature in it, then I look at the laws of physics, and to matter and energy, and shake my head and think about it.

Frankly we don't know about the physics of God, so he could be an exception to this law we see. However the stuff we can see does not appear to be eternal, even if we assume that the second law of thermodynamics is just wrong...a pretty fancy assumption for somebody lead by science.

But we can have fun with the idea that regular matter and energy are eternal, and see what ridiculous implications we can draw.

Imagine that the big bang has happened an infinite number of times. And that each time the results are non-deterministic (which appears to be the nature of matter and energy per current state of physics).

Well, then because of the non determinate infinite sequence, every possible event physically possible must have happened already an infinite number of times!

What fun! Certainly pink horses with horns in their forehead must have evolved on some iterations! It must have happened an infinite number of times! And thus there must be an infinite number of invisible pink unicorns.

And just think, on some iterations there must have been some little folks with pointed ears and elven wings...but with tails. In some cases marvelous tails with some remarkable traits...any that were possible on some iterations.

Thus on such a view, fairy tails must be real!

Not only do you have angels...in infinite number...you have all creatures possible both in and out of mythology.

Of coarse, I think it more sensible to think of the thing beyond the beginning of the big bang as not just more of the same into eternity...but then, I'm at least as smart as a 4 year old.

"You have already defined nature for me, when you insisted that existence consisted of matter and energy only."

And... what? Do you object to that definition or not? Why do you insist on never telling us what you think until you have to disagree with what you previously said? It's getting kinda tiresome.

"Thus we have a partition drawn by you."

Yes we do. But not an arbitrary one.

"You categorize things outside of it as "miracles" and "magic". Thus again you have drawn the partition."

Yes... I have. And how do feel about that? If you disagree with it, perhaps you might find the intestinal fortitude to actually take a stand on the issue?

"You have asserted your belief that the "magic" thinking is unsupportable, thus you have abandoned, except by pretense, any validity to your Ocham's Razor type arguments."

I have no idea what you are trying to say there.

"If universe means cosmos including the possibility of a super nature in it. Then certainly the eternal thing is in that super nature. If it does not have a super nature in it, then I look at the laws of physics, and to matter and energy, and shake my head and think about it.

Was that supposed to be an answer to my question? It was not that hard a question, so I'll try it again, and perhaps this time you will actually answer it. Here is is again:

If you have already conceded that something can be eternal and uncreated, why not the universe?

"Frankly we don't know about the physics of God, so he could be an exception to this law we see. However the stuff we can see does not appear to be eternal, even if we assume that the second law of thermodynamics is just wrong...a pretty fancy assumption for somebody lead by science."

Again, you have fallen back on misconceptions that I thought we had covered several posts ago. Nothing in the universe need be eternal for the universe to be eternal. We've already talked about that. You seem to be trying to embrace the logical fallacy of composition. Since it's a fallacy, I'm not sure why you would want to do that.

But I am intrigued in how you believe that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics helps you. Want to give is the short version on that?

"But we can have fun with the idea that regular matter and energy are eternal, and see what ridiculous implications we can draw.

[snip]

Not only do you have angels...in infinite number...you have all creatures possible both in and out of mythology."

Actually... you are both right and wrong at the same time. You are wrong in that your imagination seems quite impoverished. Limiting yourself to human invented "fairy tales" misses out on the simple fact that an eternal universe is likely to produce a far larger number of things you can't even imagine than those you can. Invisible pink unicorns? Heck, you're not even trying.

But where you are right is that in such a scenario, there must be universes just like this one... in fact an infinite number of them. You are not the only Andy that has argued with an Ender about this issue on an Internet.

And all with no requirement for divine intervention.

"Of coarse, I think it more sensible to think of the thing beyond the beginning of the big bang as not just more of the same into eternity...but then, I'm at least as smart as a 4 year old."

So... let me get this straight. Allow me to paraphrase with a point. Another way of saying this is:

You think it more sensible to think of the thing beyond the beginning of the big bang as something for which have no evidence than something for which you actually do have evidence.

Is that really your position?

Which is it, Andy? Are you a naturalist who accepts that nothing comes from nothing, or are you a super-naturalist who believes that cause and effect is just a sometimes thing?

I am starting by assuming neither premise is necessarily correct. And arguing

I then consider the laws of physics and nature, and see if it makes sense that it can exist without a super natural cause.

Since I know nothing little about super nature...I am uncertain initially as to if it could exist without an external cause.

However nature, without super nature does not seem to be able to. Everything in it, in whole or in part has a cause outside of itself. It makes no sense to allow that the whole thing together is an exception.

Let me expand on my reasoning for this last assertion:

We all would accept a hamburger can not simply come into existence by natural law with no external or internal cause (albeit a naturalist would also reject external causes as non existent). Simarily we would agree about any finite subset of nature as well. This we know as a very well established principle of nature.

So now, consider all of an eternal nature rather than a subset--which I think is the only part of this argument that is not immediately obvious--I say that logically, it would need an external cause as well:

Going back to infinity in time (or if you like in a cause and effect chain or web) just postpones and multiplies the inevitable need of an initial cause to an infinitely large balance. Every iteration just results in more stuff that needed to be caused by something external. Does one really have to be a competent mathematician to know what that limit adds up to? Mathematicians aren't asked to add up the limit of 1 over n as n approaches infinity. Philosophers need not bother to do the same. Every iteration back to earlier causes makes merely more stuff that can not exist without an external cause.

I am a very skeptical person, and great lover of reason. Which caused me to reject naturalism. I regret that not everything in the Heavens is something I understand. Nor even everything in nature. But that gives me no excuse to refuse to accept what I do understand about nature. Including that she can not be the whole picture.

"However nature, without super nature does not seem to be able to. Everything in it, in whole or in part has a cause outside of itself. It makes no sense to allow that the whole thing together is an exception."

And there you go. That's the classic fallacy of composition. You are trying to attribute to the whole the characteristics of its components parts. The "whole thing together" is not an exception, and it contains no exceptions. It is the sum of all causes and all effects. It is not itself an effect, so it demands no cause.

But more importantly, look what you have done here. You have started with the premise that you keep vacillating over. You have alternately embraced and rejected that all effects have causes, yet here you are again embracing it.

Having embraced it (again) for a moment, how can you justify a conclusion (God) that denies it, thus contradicting yourself again?

Joining you argument in progress:

"So now, consider all of an eternal nature rather than a subset--which I think is the only part of this argument that is not immediately obvious--I say that logically, it would need an external cause as well."

Reflect back on our previous discussion of time. I described time (and you ended abandoning the discussion and up making no ultimate objection) as not actually existing. "All of an eternal nature" is bounded by the universe that exists "now." All the causes of all the effects that constitute the universe "now" all existed in previous instances of now, and no longer exist. Boiling it down to the universe itself as a comprehensive entity and treating it as single "effect" (though we know it actually is not one), the "cause" of the universe that is "now" is the universe that immediately preceded it. Thus your intuitive need for "an external cause" is met perfectly.

That entire prior instance of "now" is external to this one. Thus the cause of this "now" is external to it. And this "now" is the external cause of the next.

And again, it requires no embrace of an entity for which we have no evidence in favor of one for which we have overwhelming evidence.

"Going back to infinity in time (or if you like in a cause and effect chain or web) just postpones and multiplies the inevitable need of an initial cause to an infinitely large balance. Every iteration just results in more stuff that needed to be caused by something external. "

Actually, no. The conservation laws actually solve that concern quite neatly. The sum total of energy and matter in the universe is constant. So there actually is no multiplication effect of the sort you describe here.

But more to the point of the discussion, you are offering here a near complete admission that you are arbitrarily inserting God into the chain of causality. What difference does it make if you insert that God 4 billion years ago or five minutes ago? In either case you have no actual evidence that demands it... you simply have already decided that there must an external cause. And rather than demonstrating a genuine need for such a cause, you are merely deciding where to put it.

If every instance of "now" finds its "external cause" in the immediately prior instance of "now" there is neither a place nor a reason to insert something different.

"Does one really have to be a competent mathematician to know what that limit adds up to? Mathematicians aren't asked to add up the limit of 1 over n as n approaches infinity.

Excuse me? Mathematicians do that all the time. The study of "infinite series" is a huge part of mathematics. Archimedes was doing infinite series thousands of years ago.

"Philosophers need not bother to do the same. Every iteration back to earlier causes makes merely more stuff that can not exist without an external cause."

We know better than that now. Conservation laws make such a phenomenon impossible.

"I am a very skeptical person, and great lover of reason. Which caused me to reject naturalism. I regret that not everything in the Heavens is something I understand. Nor even everything in nature. But that gives me no excuse to refuse to accept what I do understand about nature. Including that she can not be the whole picture."

And so you replace that gap in your own knowledge with a particular sectarian version of God as reflected in the Bible? Do you understand why I see that as more than a mere intuitive leap?

Your posts make a stronger case that you have reasoned in exactly the opposite direction from your claim here. You did not reason to God from any skeptical review of nature. You accepted God as dogma, and rationalized your rejection of naturalism accordingly.

There is certainly no genuine effort here to justify the abandonment of the premise that you (sometimes) accept regarding cause and effect.

Reflect back on our previous discussion of time. I described time (and you ended abandoning the discussion and up making no ultimate objection) as not actually existing. "All of an eternal nature" is bounded by the universe that exists "now." All the causes of all the effects that constitute the universe "now" all existed in previous instances of now, and no longer exist. Boiling it down to the universe itself as a comprehensive entity and treating it as single "effect" (though we know it actually is not one), the "cause" of the universe that is "now" is the universe that immediately preceded it. Thus your intuitive need for "an external cause" is met perfectly.

I'm sorry, but I thought we had rejected this notion of "now" as the only thing that exists when you allowed that a thought and an author were entities with a duration, but yet existed. Also you volunteered that thoughts had no particular beginning or end but were a process of thinking.

Certainly than in the same sense larger systems exist. Or is there a particular way the cosmos must be partitioned?

You are taking many rabbit trails, which I accept as possibilities for the sake of argument until I show that they can't be true. But then you seem to think I have accepted them.

I'm wondering if you are simply consciously muddying the water.

At this time I declare victory, and the field is mine.

Seemingly you won't recognize this by sheer force of will. But I can not help that. I have a life I need to get back to. I sincerely hope God blesses you.

"I'm sorry, but I thought we had rejected this notion of "now" as the only thing that exists when you allowed that a thought and an author were entities with a duration, but yet existed. Also you volunteered that thoughts had no particular beginning or end but were a process of thinking."

Nope. You apparently did not understand that discussion at all. You can of course go back and reread it, or we can simply have it again. My point then was that thoughts are just like every other actual thing, and exist only "now." Since mind is what brain does, the illusion of time in thought is no different from the illusion of time in every other material thing. It is a convention we use to understand the sequence of "nows." Nothing else.

"Certainly than in the same sense larger systems exist. Or is there a particular way the cosmos must be partitioned?

There is no obvious partition of the actual cosmos that is not arbitrary.

"You are taking many rabbit trails, which I accept as possibilities for the sake of argument until I show that they can't be true. But then you seem to think I have accepted them."

I'm still waiting for you to show that they can't be true, instead of merely asserting that they are not true. You certainly have made no effort to challenge the core assertion I have made that if the premise that all effects must have a cause is true, then the only logical conclusion is an eternal uncreated universe.

In every case so far you have reached a point in the discussion where you arbitrarily insert God for no reason that can be distinguished from your child's assertion that God put milk in the store.

You took great pride in your child's assertion, even though you know it was wrong. You know for a fact that the chain of causality that placed that milk in the store did not commence with a direct creative act of God in the dairy section. Your child simply got tired with following the true pathway and arbitrarily punted... calling it God. Nothing you have done in this thread can be distinguished from that arbitrary and false choice of a 4 year old.

"I'm wondering if you are simply consciously muddying the water."

There is no mud. There is no water. There are simply two different conclusions, one reached linearly from premises and logic, and the other reached in a circle by intuitively leaping to an already predetermined result.

Both conclusions terminate in an entity that is eternal and uncreated. Mine is the universe, yours is God.

I consider the former as a superior conclusion if for no other reason than because we actually have evidence that a universe exists.

I am still completely in the dark as to why you think that your conclusion is in some way better.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.