posted
Porter's using a very narrow definition of logic.
If you assume that God exists, then the sentence "if God does not exist, then the universe does not exist" is technically true. (The example we always used in my logic classes, Godwin be darned, was "if all Nazis were purple, Hitler liked pickles.")
In mathematical logic, if the first "if" is false, the statement evaluates to "true" by default.
It's only (as Porter said) if you do not think that God exists that the sentence could evaluate to "false."
Note again that this is a very narrow definition of "logic" -- but, again, Porter is entirely correct.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I should have, as Tom did, used the phrase "mathematical logic". It communicates very well the technical and specific logic I was talking about.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sentence "if God does not exist, then the universe does not exist" could have many meanings. Material implication is one of those possible meanings, but rarely what people mean in colloquial English.
Just because the predicate logic statement of material implication is commonly stated in English using an "if . . . then . . . " construct does not mean every "if . . . then . . ." construct is a material implication.
And of course, Ron's statement wasn't even in that construct. "Either God is, or nothing exists" could be translated into numerous different predicate logic statements depending on a number of meaning nuances. It could probably be interpreted to have meanings that are impossible to state in predicate logic (many things in language can).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is more to it than that. Not much, but a little!
Even if you assume that God exists, the sentence "If god does not exist then the universe does not exist" is still a fallacy.
Why? Because the statement is inferring as a self-contained proof that "If A, then B." which leads to "B, therefore A"
Literally, it's making the argument that since we exist, this is held to be a proof of God's existence.
Even if you believe in God, you can still logically refute that claim and say that it is not actually proof of God's existence. Especially considering that it fails as a self-contained postulate: Condition B does not necessarily make an argument for condition A. God -- and the existence thereof -- are still a matter of faith.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And of course, its easy to narrow in somewhat:
Ron, did you mean either of the following two things? If so, which one?
1. There are only two possibilities for existence, God existing, or nothing existing. Nothing else is possible.
2. There are three possibilities for existence. God existing and nothing else existing, God existing and other stuff existing, or no God and nothing existing.
(I should note that the second implies the first).
If he meant material implication, it will hopefully soon become clear. Assuming he answers.
And of course, either of the above two statements would still be a false dichotomy. Plenty of things are true in predicate logic that are logical fallacies (see Tom's Hitler statement) . A false dichotomy in the narrow sense is an inappropriate statement of A or B, and X implies Y is equivalent to (Not X, or Y), which can certainly be an instance of a false dichotomy, since it is an or statement.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, natural selection doesn't require "life." It's simply a mechanism that occurs whenever you have entities that can self-replicate (or self-modify) and compete for scarce resources (which, to be fair, is one possible, albeit very broad, definition of "life"). For example, natural selection experiments have been done with software "robots," in which simple programs with the ability to randomly alter their own code are pitted against each other in various forms of competition. As predicted by evolutionary theory, what ends up happening is that the selective pressure of competition causes incremental improvements in the bots' performance. You can start with bots that can barely move in one direction, and end up with bots capable of complex behaviors and fluid response to their environment- all without the intervention of any "intelligent design"!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: You can start with bots that can barely move in one direction, and end up with bots capable of complex behaviors and fluid response to their environment- all without the intervention of any "intelligent design"!
Who made the bots? Who programmed their ability to randomly 'mutate'?
Somebody intellegent did. The very existence of the robots proves that somebody created them.
You don't have to believe that God created you, but there's no denying the fact that humans created the bots.
posted
Well, yes, in the specific case of the bots, they did have their base parameters set by an "intelligent designer." But you're missing my point completely- I wasn't using that example to prove abiogenesis. It merely demonstrates how one aspect of evolution can and has been observed, specifically the idea that natural selection can, without interference from any intelligent higher power (whether it be God in the case of the evolution of life, or human programmers in the case of the evolution of the bots), cause the emergence of complex, ordered systems from simpler ones.
quote:Selection is an effect not a mechanism.
I would say that natural selection is the mechanism through which evolution occurs. But we may be quibbling semantics here.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The context of my logical statements was an ordered, complex universe, which would require either that a non-intelligent universe created itself (and not only that, created itself intelligently!), or that Intelligence--God--created it. Since the idea of a non-intelligent universe creating itself as something of profoundly intelligent order and complexity is too absurd to regard as possible, that only leaves God creating the universe.
There are so many fallacies in each of the attempts various ones are making to prove things by hypothetical analogy, it is hard to take them seriously.
The attempts made by some to deflect the criticism that evolution was used by Hitler to justify his racism and genocide are predictable and invalid, amounting to no more than shouting assertions. The fact is that Hitler did claim evolution as justification for his policies. That is not even debatable, it is simple fact. That is history. Learn from it, or be condemned to repeat its mistakes (with a nod to George Santayana).
Teshi, thank you for lightening things up a bit by reminding us of the falling whale in Douglas Adam's book, after the idea of a whale falling from grace had somehow entered our discussion. It was all resultant from the operation of the "Infinite Improbability Drive," of course.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Just because one person claims to use something as a basis for their warped, sick ideas doesn't make those ideas wrong. Take a look at how many people have abused, and continue to abuse, religion that way.
I know people who think God talks to them.....and they claim that God loves white people more because his only son was white.
I am not kidding. I wish I was.
But just because they are warped doesn't mean that the religion they CLAIM to be using as a basis for their beliefs has anything to do with them, or their ignorance.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Since the idea of a non-intelligent universe creating itself as something of profoundly intelligent order and complexity is too absurd to regard as possible,"
Why is it absurd?
And how does it explain the things we actually see in the world? The evidence for evolution, the evidence for the world's age, life's age, the universe's age?
"God making it so"? Why would He create a universe with all signs of age, but without that age? Why would he create the light of stars that do not exist, galaxies that never were?
Why would God lie to us so?
I refuse to believe in such a God. The Father of Lies, if you remember, is generally considered to be Satan, not God.
And by my definitions, by worshipping that lying force, you worship Satan.
And why should I talk to a lie-loving Satan worshipper like you, Ron? Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by Nathan2006: Who made the bots? Who programmed their ability to randomly 'mutate'?
Somebody intellegent did. The very existence of the robots proves that somebody created them.
I think you're very right except for the bold part, which is incomplete. The existence of the robots, combined with our experience of how that kind of thing comes to be, allows us to theorize quite soundly that the robots were intelligently designed. The important part is that we could find the roboticist(s), learn how the robots were created, and then test it.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The attempts made by some to deflect the criticism that evolution was used by Hitler to justify his racism and genocide are predictable and invalid, amounting to no more than shouting assertions. The fact is that Hitler did claim evolution as justification for his policies. That is not even debatable, it is simple fact. That is history. Learn from it, or be condemned to repeat its mistakes (with a nod to George Santayana).
Ron, I don't think you understand. Scientists and people who accept evolution are not trying to force a way of life on you. It isn't an ideology.
I haven't had the time to look up your claims about Hitler using evolution as justification for his crimes, but let's just assume you're right. So?
If he had used the Christian religion as justification, should we then be rid of that religion? Does it somehow invalidate Christianity if someone uses it as a justification to do evil things?
I'm not saying that evolution through natural selection shows you how to live your life. It doesn't show me how to live mine. All it does is explain to us how nature works and has worked in the real world.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The context of my logical statements was an ordered, complex universe, which would require either that a non-intelligent universe created itself (and not only that, created itself intelligently!), or that Intelligence--God--created it. Since the idea of a non-intelligent universe creating itself as something of profoundly intelligent order and complexity is too absurd to regard as possible, that only leaves God creating the universe.
Ron, again: what created God? Why is it absurd to believe that something as complex as the universe might have always existed, but NOT absurd to believe that something as complex as God (who, as the universe's creator, is presumably more complex than the universe) always existed?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, The universe - or some aspect of it, depending on your definition - is linear in time and causality. Thus, something had to have started it. If this thing is also linear in time and casuality, something had to have started that.
If we are definining the universe as linear in time and causality, then something that is not linear in these things must have started it. If we're not, then materialism breaks down.
God (or whatever your chosen starter is) is not definitionally linear or bounded by time and casuality - well, for LDS he is, but not in a more general sense.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We really don't know for sure how Universes start. For all we know, Universes are things which are self-starting, or eternal. It's no stretch to imagine that the Universe has always existed in one form or another.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That very much depends on the system you are working in. In a strictly materialist system, an infinite one-way causal string is impossible.
Likewise, though entropy doesn't work in the open system like the Earth, it should, theoretically, work on the closed system of the universe.
Saying that "We don't know." is an acceptible answer for many types of non-outside entity systems, but it remains a weakness as compared to systems (like "God did it.") that have consistent answers to it. It also rules out certain explanations of how the universe works, such as strict materialism, as being complete.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The universe - or some aspect of it, depending on your definition - is linear in time and causality. Thus, something had to have started it.
I think assuming that the universe is linear in time requires ignoring quite a lot of the physical evidence and mathematical theory to the contrary.
If, for example, we're willing to grant that "time" did not exist until God created it, and that therefore the question of "what was before God" is meaningless, why can we not say the same thing about the universe: that since time didn't exist prior to its creation, what existed prior to the universe is irrelevant?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Saying that "We don't know." is an acceptible answer for many types of non-outside entity systems, but it remains a weakness as compared to systems (like "God did it.") that have consistent answers to it. It also rules out certain explanations of how the universe works, such as strict materialism, as being complete.
I don't think "we don't know" is a weakness when it's the truth.
Is is safe to pet that dog?
"I don't know" is a much better answer than "yes... because I have faith that it is."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. For one thing, we know that subatomic particles "communicate" faster than observable time; there's some "carrier" of information about the universe, therefore, that is either timeless or free of linear time.
It's becoming more and more obvious that the observable universe is merely one strata of a "multiverse;" the math doesn't seem to work out any other way. And since time is a product of THIS universe, asking "what was before the multiverse" really IS a meaningless question.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If, for example, we're willing to grant that "time" did not exist until God created it, and that therefore the question of "what was before God" is meaningless, why can we not say the same thing about the universe: that since time didn't exist prior to its creation, what existed prior to the universe is irrelevant?
No, of course not.
It's a matter of the uncaused cause. In the God explanation, God is the uncaused cause. That is, an entity not bounded by time or causality that was the thing that put the linear causal chain in motion. Something that isn't part of the causal chain has to start it.
In your supposition, as I understand it, there isn't anything that starts it. It just happens. That violates the central premise of strict materialism, that all things must have material causes.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's a matter of the uncaused cause. In the God explanation, God is the uncaused cause. That is, an entity not bounded by time or causality that was the thing that put the linear causal chain in motion. Something that isn't part of the causal chain has to start it.
Just imagine that the proto-universe, or the Big Bang, or any non-supernatural situation is the uncaused cause. If you're imagining something not bounded by time or causality, why make it conscious and anthropomorphic?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, Regardless if you want to credit it to God or to some outside property of the multiverse, this still destroys strict materialism as applied to this universe.
edit: If you are willing to admit outside, non-causal entities influencing our universe, it matters very little, in terms of the completeness of materialism, whether they are wearing white robes and sandals or not.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MC, I don't think you understand how I'm using weakness.
It's a way of comparing the explanatory power/completeness of different theories.
When one theory explains how something occurs and another doesn't or can't, the former theory is "stronger" on that aspect than the latter.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just imagine that the proto-universe, or the Big Bang, or any non-supernatural situation is the uncaused cause. If you're imagining something not bounded by time or causality, why make it conscious and anthropomorphic?
Are these things themselves bounded by causality? Because, if so, then they must themselves be caused by something else. You would just be pushing back the origin point.
I'm not saying that the cause must be conscious and/or anthropomorphic. The only qualities I've said it must have is that it is outside the one-way causal flow of the universe.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Regardless if you want to credit it to God or to some outside property of the multiverse, this still destroys strict materialism as applied to this universe.
Well, sure. But arguing that this universe is the extent of all reality is obviously flawed if we grant for even a moment that this universe had a so-called "beginning." That's why there aren't any serious physicists out there proposing that the universe just up and created itself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand your question to Ron in light of that, then. (or, when you were using universe, did you actually mean something like multi-verse or all of reality?)
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, you'll forgive me here, we know basically bugger-all about all of reality, right?
edit: And, if you are willing to admit an outside, non-causal entity from the multiverse ifluencing our universe at creation, what is to stop other interactions with outside, non-causal entities from occuring all the time, making strict materialism fail not only in talking about the origins of the universe, but, on a theoretical level, at any point.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. We know a FEW things, if we can call "postulates that make the math work out" "knowing." But at the end of the day, we have to say "Okay, the observable universe appears linear, which suggests that this universe may have had a beginning. If that's the case, and if time indeed exists as a property of this universe (as it appears to use), then some form of outside actor is required for the equations to work out."
What Ron is saying is that this outside actor must be a conscious entity, and moreover must be more "complex" than the universe itself. Neither of these two assertions make any sense whatsoever.
quote:what is to stop other interactions with outside, non-causal entities from occuring all the time, making strict materialism fail not only in talking about the origins of the universe, but, on a theoretical level, at any point
Dude, I'm a "strict materialist" in the sense that I believe every observable effect has an observable or deducible cause. I think any materialist you talk to will define materialism this way. You're arguing against a non-existent philosophy.
You'll realize the intellectual bankruptcy of OTHER philosophies almost immediately when you start asking these same questions of them. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dude, I'm a "strict materialist" in the sense that I believe every observable effect has an observable or deducible cause.
That's theoretically unsound in the multiverse intervening case, isn't it?
edit: Also, I hope people weren't taking me as defending anything Ron has said in this thread. I think that many people demonstrate an arrogant attitude towards the uncaused cause that rests on them either not thinking about it (and the "Let's not acknowledge this weakness, but instead ask 'What came before God?' seems that way to me) or, at best, the "Turtles all the way down" of illogical infinity.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's theoretically unsound in the multiverse intervening case, isn't it?
Nope. Because any cause in the multiverse that would cause an effect in this universe would have an observable effect on this universe. There's nothing wrong with saying "this effect was caused by an unobservable but deducible and predictive cause in another dimension." In fact, that's exactly what people use as an explanation for quantum twinning.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope. Because any cause in the multiverse that would cause an effect in this universe would have an observable effect on this universe. There's nothing wrong with saying "this effect was caused by an unobservable but deducible and predictive cause in another dimension." In fact, that's exactly what people use as an explanation for quantum twinning.
But there's no way of deducing or observing the cause. It's a black box, yes? We deduce that it exists by its effects, but it's just another case of ether then?
Also, I had gotten the impression that you were using materialism in it's common deterministic sense. Having non-causally bound entities affecting our universe destroys causality, at least within the frame of our universe.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But there's no way of deducing or observing the cause. It's a black box, yes? We deduce that it exists by its effects, but it's just another case of ether then?
Sure. But there's a reason why we no longer believe in ether, and have replaced theories which relied on the ether with theories that rely on things which are equally unobservable.
quote:Having non-causally bound entities affecting our universe destroys causality, at least within the frame of our universe.
I don't understand why you persist in limiting reality to the frame of our universe. That's a useless definition of materialism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
0Megabyte, why would you presume to call God dishonest just because He did not create things in harmony with what evolution and mechanistic materialism expect?
We assume that the trees in the Garden of Eden, the day after Creation Week, were full grown. If so, He would have made them the way He wanted such trees to be. Modern materialists would have looked at them and thought they were hundreds of years old. And when someone tells them that God just created them a few days ago, the materialists would get all hot and bothered because God was so "deceptive."
Oh come on, such a moral judgment is ridiculous, and completely inappropriate.
By the same token, if God created the universe, then as an intelligent Being He would likely have wished to create a universe that was pleasing for His intelligent creatures to live in. He would not have wanted to create a "dark" universe, so regardless of the size of the universe, He would have created it with the light from the most distant stars already arriving at earth, or any other world where He has established intelligent creatures. This could have been done very simply, by allowing the speed of light in a vacuum to be virtually instantaneous for the first few moments of creation. Since science has already discovered circumstances where the speed of light constant may change, this is not positing something that contradicts the laws of the universe as God set them up for us to discover today.
It is so silly to complain that God is being dishonest if He does not let the universe evolve over billions of years, and instead creates it not as a dark universe, but as a universe of light, where the light from the most distant stars and galaxies and quasars can be seen from one end of the universe to the other.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, how do you conclude that things were made to look ancient through tweaking of the universe? Do you reach this conclusion only because that is what is necessary for a literal interpretation of the Bible to be correct or do you have other justification?
Why isn't it more reasonable to assume that things are as ancient as they appear?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The attempts made by some to deflect the criticism that evolution was used by Hitler to justify his racism and genocide are predictable and invalid, amounting to no more than shouting assertions.
You can't just say this and not back it up with a real counterpoint. It makes you look like a tool.
Do you actually want to address my post, perhaps? Or just dismiss it with a wave of your arm?
quote:The fact is that Hitler did claim evolution as justification for his policies.
Hitler more often cited religion and his faith in God as justification for his policies. Whoops!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming I trust you even know how often Hitler cited anything when making decisions I am not sure why your point even matters.
Here's why my point matters:
When a person points the finger at 'Darwinism' as Hitler's justification for his genocide, they are doing two things. They are saying
1. Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview
and
2. Evolution was a root cause of the holocaust and has the potential to create similar ills
Not only is this historical factoid wrong (Hitler based his core ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy), it sets one up into a baffling moral quandary.
Evolution is descriptive. If you say that it is immoral, you are saying that attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.
When people pull the 'hitler's darwinism' card, they are being very selective readers, ignoring Hitler's religious justifications and pointing the finger at evolutionary theory, and then saying that evolution promotes racism. In reality, one should do neither. Hitler's views were a perversion of both religion and science; anyone who decides that it was a representative usage of one or the other is cherrypicking to create pejorative associations.
This is why reducto positions like Ron's are best left ignored. They're worthless agitprop.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dude, I'm a "strict materialist" in the sense that I believe every observable effect has an observable or deducible cause. I think any materialist you talk to will define materialism this way. You're arguing against a non-existent philosophy.
You either aren't talking about "materialism" at all here or are not defining it accurately. Many (if not most) nonmaterialists would agree that every observable effect has an observable or deducible cause. Nonmaterialists would simply think that some of those observable or deducible causes are nonmaterial things.
Conversely, it is not difficult to come up with a case where materialism is true, yet not every observable effect has an observable or deducible cause. For instance, a world with all material beings, but that has one particle that pops in and out of existance randomly for no reason. Such a world would be stricly materialist (since the only bizarre thing we are adding to it is a strictly material particle) yet all things would not have observable or deducible causes.
I think what you are talking about is not materialism, but rather determinism.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nonmaterialists would simply think that some of those observable or deducible causes are nonmaterial things.
How are you defining "material," exactly? I think you're letting your philosophy get you confused about your physics.
quote:Conversely, it is not difficult to come up with a case where materialism is true, yet not every observable effect has an observable or deducible cause. For instance, a world with all material beings, but that has one particle that pops in and out of existance randomly for no reason.
See, I specifically reject the possibility that such a particle could pop in and out of existence for "no reason."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
