I agree that, as a philosophical problem, science does no better (but no worse) a job dealing with this paradox. I mostly brought it up to point out that you can't, in an argument with a scientific slant, just snip out "evolution" and replace it with "God" without accepting the logical consequences. Scientists didn't just make up this concept of "natural selection" as a way to avoid talking about religion. When Darwin proposed "natural selection" as a mechanism for evolutionary change, he was obligated to give some kind of explanation for the mechanics of and physics behind the process, as well as to provide predictions which could conceivably disprove his theory. If somebody suggests God as a mechanism for change in a scientific context, then (s)he is under the same obligations, and I have yet to hear a reasonable God theory which even makes the attempt. That was my promary point.
However, that doesn't seem to answer your question. I think the problem here is the assumption of an Uncaused Cause. Let's look at it this way:
Either the Universe is infinite in duration or it isn't.
If it is, then there is no uncaused cause, since the causes go back without limit. "It's turtles all the way down."
If it isn't (and physicists don't think that it is), then it has a specific start point.
What we mean by the word Universe is the sum total of everything, in all dimensions.
There can therefore be nothing above or to the left of or behind the Universe. Since Time is one of the dimensions of the Universe, there can also be nothing before or after the Universe.
Since there can be nothing before the Universe, it is semantically meaningless to talk about the "cause" of the Universe. Causality requires chronology, and there is no time outside of the Universe. Therefore, the Universe itself (and all physical laws therein) could be its own Uncaused Cause.
Now, we could postulate a Creator anyway, but there doesn't seem to be a need, and Occam's Razor tells us not to add new logical entities unless they are required by the argument.
Therefore, we don't need a God as a First Cause. That's not saying that He isn't needed to fill other logical holes, but we don't need him to fill this one.
Does that answer the question? Any arguments out there, anybody?
Anonymous Coward States: Every educated person in the United States has been aware for years that evolution holds no logical or factual water. It's been almost entirely abandoned by serious biologists. The mainstream media steadfastly refuse to report the facts, quite naturally, but I suggest that you drop by your local university and have a chat with the head of the biology department. You'll find that evolution is treated as an historical curiosity and is no longer taught.
I think that you may be mistaken. I've talked to biologists at my local university (including the ones that I've taken courses from), and they all seem to believe that natural processes result in new species over time, which is all that is meant by biologists' use of the word "evolution". Of ocurse, Darwin's original ideas on just how evolution might work have been extensively re-thought over the years, but I'm not aware of too many mainstream biologists denying that evolution has taken (and is taking) place. Please cite 3 references in mainstream academic (not religious) publications, like Scientific American, or in specialist biology publications, that indicate that the process of evolution is widely discounted.
Also, you might want to be a little more careful in your use of words. For example, you state: Darwin himself admitted..that he could not account for the..eye. In other words, he admitted that his theory was nothing but an idle fantasy. The second sentence does NOT follow from the first. The fact, for example, that Einstein could not find a way to get rid of his Cosmological Constant (which he knew was a problem) does NOT mean that he was saying that E=MC2 was wrong. Honest scientists will always admit that they don't know it all. This is not a weakness of science--it is one of its strengths.
Finally, I really think that it would make sense to know about the arguments that you are refuting when discounting them. You might wish to check out the Talk.Origins Home Page for some summaries of the surrent arguments for the side of evolution.
Anonymous Christian Coward states: Every year it becomes increasingly obvious that so-called "science" cannot explain anything at all. Obviously! It's amazing that people haven't realized this before! I mean, if these myths like "Quantum Physics" or "Molecular Biology" actually had predictive power and could be used in everyday life, we'd end with things like:
Computers with components that you could see them only with the best of microsopes
Human-engineered microbes and viruses that can actually change the DNA of living cells
Hydrogen bombs
Communication using coherent light through thin glass fibers
Come on, we don't see "Buck Rogers" things like that in our everyday world, do we? What? We do? Damn! Maybe these guys in their little "club" actually have something here. Well, your argument, as stated, seems to be a little thin. Perhaps you could back it up with a few clarifications:
This God that you seem to have put forward as the Uncaused Cause: Where does He live? What is He made of? What are the physical laws that determine His abilities? How might we experimentally prove or disprove His existance and properties?
Please give three examples of the "insane hatred" of mainstream scientific institutions. (I wasn't personally aware of it.) Please be specific and concrete.
The above information might make your post seem a little less vitriolic and a little more like rational discourse, which I'm sure was your intent all along. Chris Coslor coslor[at]sprynet.com
Slashdot Mirror
However, that doesn't seem to answer your question. I think the problem here is the assumption of an Uncaused Cause. Let's look at it this way:
Does that answer the question? Any arguments out there, anybody?
Chris Coslor
coslor[at]sprynet.com
Every educated person in the United States has been aware for years that evolution holds no logical or factual water. It's been almost entirely abandoned by serious biologists. The mainstream media steadfastly refuse to report the facts, quite naturally, but I suggest that you drop by your local university and have a chat with the head of the biology department. You'll find that evolution is treated as an historical curiosity and is no longer taught.
I think that you may be mistaken. I've talked to biologists at my local university (including the ones that I've taken courses from), and they all seem to believe that natural processes result in new species over time, which is all that is meant by biologists' use of the word "evolution". Of ocurse, Darwin's original ideas on just how evolution might work have been extensively re-thought over the years, but I'm not aware of too many mainstream biologists denying that evolution has taken (and is taking) place. Please cite 3 references in mainstream academic (not religious) publications, like Scientific American, or in specialist biology publications, that indicate that the process of evolution is widely discounted.
Also, you might want to be a little more careful in your use of words. For example, you state:
Darwin himself admitted..that he could not account for the..eye. In other words, he admitted that his theory was nothing but an idle fantasy.
The second sentence does NOT follow from the first. The fact, for example, that Einstein could not find a way to get rid of his Cosmological Constant (which he knew was a problem) does NOT mean that he was saying that E=MC2 was wrong. Honest scientists will always admit that they don't know it all. This is not a weakness of science--it is one of its strengths.
Finally, I really think that it would make sense to know about the arguments that you are refuting when discounting them. You might wish to check out the Talk.Origins Home Page for some summaries of the surrent arguments for the side of evolution.
Chris Coslor coslor[at]sprynet.com
Every year it becomes increasingly obvious that so-called "science" cannot explain anything at all.
Obviously! It's amazing that people haven't realized this before! I mean, if these myths like "Quantum Physics" or "Molecular Biology" actually had predictive power and could be used in everyday life, we'd end with things like:
- Computers with components that you could see them only with the best of microsopes
- Human-engineered microbes and viruses that can actually change the DNA of living cells
- Hydrogen bombs
- Communication using coherent light through thin glass fibers
Come on, we don't see "Buck Rogers" things like that in our everyday world, do we? What? We do? Damn! Maybe these guys in their little "club" actually have something here. Well, your argument, as stated, seems to be a little thin. Perhaps you could back it up with a few clarifications:- This God that you seem to have put forward as the Uncaused Cause: Where does He live? What is He made of? What are the physical laws that determine His abilities? How might we experimentally prove or disprove His existance and properties?
- Please give three examples of the "insane hatred" of mainstream scientific institutions. (I wasn't personally aware of it.) Please be specific and concrete.
The above information might make your post seem a little less vitriolic and a little more like rational discourse, which I'm sure was your intent all along.Chris Coslor
coslor[at]sprynet.com