"You are simply asserting that a non-observed non-contingent entity (a god) caused to come into being a contingent observed entity (the universe) is more plausible than the observed entity being non-contingent. I see no justification for that assertion and disagree with it."
The issue is with the observed entity being non-contingent. The universe we know of is 15 billion years old. Whatever has a beginning does not exist necessarily, for whatever exists necessarily cannot not exist, but clearly at some point, the universe did not exist.
"I know I'm responding to a logical fallacy, but I'm sure others have done it too"
Would you care to point out the fallacy?
"Why not let the intelligence be the Universe, and then you don't have any problems whatsoever?"
No, the problem is it brings us right back to the dilemma- something cannot be the cause of it's own existence. It may be 'simpler' in that involved less things, but it's not sufficient. Remember- Okham's razor says that anything that is not necessary should not be involved in an explanation. Just because an explanation is simpler does not mean that it is to be preferred over other explanations given. So as it stands we are right where we were- if the universe cannot be the cause of it's own existence, then what is the cause?
"You can't superscribe time on top of time. Adding a temporal dimension outside of spacetime essentially embeds the Universe in a higher-order framework. You then just have to redefine the Universe one level up, and you have the same problem as you started with. Just calling it "metaphysical" avoids the problem - you've still constructed an additional framework to solve one problem, yet not resolved said problem at all. While it's plausible, it fails Occam's Razor - it's more complicated."
I shouldn't have used the phrase 'metaphysical time' to imply anything that is temporal. When I (and you) use words like 'before' concerning what happened casually prior to the big bang, that's more of an expression of the limits of human language to describe events not in space-time. It's difficult to describe an entity or whatever else that is 'outside' of our space-time universe as being responsible for it's coming into being without invoking tensed human language.
I think it would be just as plausible to postulate that an intelligence 'outside' the space-time universe caused the universe to exist then (in metaphysical time perhaps- but that's another route), as postulating that the universe is the cause of it's own existence.
"1) Quantum Mechanics indeed shows/postulates that something can "cause itself to exist", its not phrased that way of course. Their called "Vacuum Fluctuations", the idea being that there is a finite probability that "empty space" will see the creation of a particle and its anti-particle(thus conservation of energy is preserved). In fact this occurs "all the time"(given the size of the universe). So quantum mechanics, one of the best tested "theories" ever developed, allows for the creation of the universe from nothing."
The problem with vacuum fluctuations is two-fold. First- the durations of the particles that appear are inversely proportional to the energies needed to 'create' the particle. An entity the size of the universe would require so much energy, that the duration of its existence would be so close to zero seconds, it might as well be zero seconds.
Secondly- vacuum fluctuations occur in space-time, where are known laws of quantum physics apply. Before the plank time of 10 to the -43 seconds after the bang, our known laws of physics, including quantum physics no longer apply. hence there is less plausibility to any vacuum fluctuations prior to our universe and our universe appearing from them.
That something (the universe), a contingent, finite, entity caused itself to exist or that something else caused it to exist? I take the first option to be absurd - because something cannot cause itself to exist (for it would have to already exist to cause itself- a contradiction). So lets look at the second option.
This is where you go from science to metaphysics and there are many possible answers to the question of 'what made the thing that made the universe'.
Most obvious- if the thing that made the universe is outside of space-time, than it is immaterial and not temporal (not necessarily postulating a theistic god, string theorists have proposed a zero-dimensional brane that is outside our space-time universe). Question is - is the 'maker' of the universe contingent and finite like the universe, or perhaps is it necessary and infinite by its own nature? If the latter option is taken, than the regress ends there. Essentially- there is something, somewhere that is uncaused. We used to say it was the universe, but now its basically an empirical fact that it is not the universe (see big bang). Therefore it was something outside of the universe.
What made that thing that made the universe is irrevelevant to the question of - what is the best explanation for the existence of becoming of the universe that we live in (that we can study b/c the laws of physics we know are homogeneous throughout).
How about inference to the best explanation?
Either the universe began to exist by itself, or something outside it caused it to exist? The first option may be simpler, but the second explanation is more plausible.
"There is no scientific controversy.
They are free to teach their religious interpretation at their religious institutions or in classes on comparitive religion not in science class.
Personally I like the turtles all the way down theory.
If you want the views to coexist do you also argue for the Catholic pre-Copernicus view of the universe to be taught? That is equally valid in view of the scientific evidence as the intelligent designer."
It's responses like that that enable ID theorists to get their theories into the mainstream. One of the biggest issues with anti-ID proponents is that they rarely, if ever, address the ACTUAL arguments and theories presented by ID. Instead they knock down straw men, use genetic and guilty by association fallacies, and give the ID movement more credence with every childish response. So- while darwinists are sticking their heads in the sand and pretending like there is no threat to their science, ID advocates are making headway convincing schools, college students, etc of the merits of their ideas. Come on darwinists, wake up and address the arguments, or you are going to see episodes in Kansas cloned all over the world!
I'm always stumped by this question! It's the ultimate undercutting defeater to any of the arguments that ID theorists are trying to propose. In fact, you can't even guess that this message on the screen came from an intelligent source, because then you would have to ask who made that intelligent source, and so on towards an infinite regress. It's best not even to ask who the author is of the article mentioned in the slashdot heading, so just stop any questions of source or design right at the computer screen...
The 'How' of intelligent design is approached like an engineer who wants to reconstruct a building or structure he saw. So instead of pursuing purely natural, accidental causes to explain systems, ID theorist's think as if they were to reconstruct a system using the preexisting materials. As it is still an early theory, whether the methods are by electromagnetic, etc, hasn't been addressed yet, but hopefully will be in the future.
1. Determine if the event under inspection happened necesarily or contingently. A. If the event happened necesarily, then suggest natural causes. B. If the event happened contingently, then proceed to step two.
2. Determine whether the event exhibits complexity or is simple. A. If the event is simple (such as the pattern of polymers in chrystals), then suggest natural causes. B. If the event is complex, then proceed to step three.
3. Determine whether the complex, contingent event exhibits specificity, or is merely ad hoc (therefore meaningless). A. If the contingent, complex event is merely ad hoc (such as the sentence 'lkjdsaldslj') then suggest natural causes. B. If the contingent, complex event has specificity (such as the sentence 'ID is a mathematical theory not a religious one') then suggest intelligent causes.
This is similar to how SETI filters out signals from intelligence and meaningless signals, as well as how detectives determine the death of a person by murder instead of accident.
Now. Here is what methodological naturalists do.
Step 1- Same as previous Step 2- Same as previous Step 3 A- Same as previous Step 3 B- If event is contingent, complex, and specified, then go back to step 1. (leading to a regress)
The methodology proposed by ID theorists take's its cue from Plato - follow the evidence WHEREVER it leads, regardless of what you previously thought. Please mod this to -1 flamebait or -1 Troll for the views presented.
Slashdot Mirror
"You are simply asserting that a non-observed non-contingent entity (a god) caused to come into being a contingent observed entity (the universe) is more plausible than the observed entity being non-contingent. I see no justification for that assertion and disagree with it." The issue is with the observed entity being non-contingent. The universe we know of is 15 billion years old. Whatever has a beginning does not exist necessarily, for whatever exists necessarily cannot not exist, but clearly at some point, the universe did not exist. "I know I'm responding to a logical fallacy, but I'm sure others have done it too" Would you care to point out the fallacy?
"Why not let the intelligence be the Universe, and then you don't have any problems whatsoever?" No, the problem is it brings us right back to the dilemma- something cannot be the cause of it's own existence. It may be 'simpler' in that involved less things, but it's not sufficient. Remember- Okham's razor says that anything that is not necessary should not be involved in an explanation. Just because an explanation is simpler does not mean that it is to be preferred over other explanations given. So as it stands we are right where we were- if the universe cannot be the cause of it's own existence, then what is the cause? "You can't superscribe time on top of time. Adding a temporal dimension outside of spacetime essentially embeds the Universe in a higher-order framework. You then just have to redefine the Universe one level up, and you have the same problem as you started with. Just calling it "metaphysical" avoids the problem - you've still constructed an additional framework to solve one problem, yet not resolved said problem at all. While it's plausible, it fails Occam's Razor - it's more complicated." I shouldn't have used the phrase 'metaphysical time' to imply anything that is temporal. When I (and you) use words like 'before' concerning what happened casually prior to the big bang, that's more of an expression of the limits of human language to describe events not in space-time. It's difficult to describe an entity or whatever else that is 'outside' of our space-time universe as being responsible for it's coming into being without invoking tensed human language.
I think it would be just as plausible to postulate that an intelligence 'outside' the space-time universe caused the universe to exist then (in metaphysical time perhaps- but that's another route), as postulating that the universe is the cause of it's own existence.
"1) Quantum Mechanics indeed shows/postulates that something can "cause itself to exist", its not phrased that way of course. Their called "Vacuum Fluctuations", the idea being that there is a finite probability that "empty space" will see the creation of a particle and its anti-particle(thus conservation of energy is preserved). In fact this occurs "all the time"(given the size of the universe). So quantum mechanics, one of the best tested "theories" ever developed, allows for the creation of the universe from nothing."
The problem with vacuum fluctuations is two-fold. First- the durations of the particles that appear are inversely proportional to the energies needed to 'create' the particle. An entity the size of the universe would require so much energy, that the duration of its existence would be so close to zero seconds, it might as well be zero seconds.
Secondly- vacuum fluctuations occur in space-time, where are known laws of quantum physics apply. Before the plank time of 10 to the -43 seconds after the bang, our known laws of physics, including quantum physics no longer apply. hence there is less plausibility to any vacuum fluctuations prior to our universe and our universe appearing from them.
Well- what is more plausible.
That something (the universe), a contingent, finite, entity caused itself to exist or that something else caused it to exist? I take the first option to be absurd - because something cannot cause itself to exist (for it would have to already exist to cause itself- a contradiction). So lets look at the second option.
This is where you go from science to metaphysics and there are many possible answers to the question of 'what made the thing that made the universe'.
Most obvious- if the thing that made the universe is outside of space-time, than it is immaterial and not temporal (not necessarily postulating a theistic god, string theorists have proposed a zero-dimensional brane that is outside our space-time universe). Question is - is the 'maker' of the universe contingent and finite like the universe, or perhaps is it necessary and infinite by its own nature? If the latter option is taken, than the regress ends there. Essentially- there is something, somewhere that is uncaused. We used to say it was the universe, but now its basically an empirical fact that it is not the universe (see big bang). Therefore it was something outside of the universe.
What made that thing that made the universe is irrevelevant to the question of - what is the best explanation for the existence of becoming of the universe that we live in (that we can study b/c the laws of physics we know are homogeneous throughout).
How about inference to the best explanation? Either the universe began to exist by itself, or something outside it caused it to exist? The first option may be simpler, but the second explanation is more plausible.
"There is no scientific controversy. They are free to teach their religious interpretation at their religious institutions or in classes on comparitive religion not in science class. Personally I like the turtles all the way down theory. If you want the views to coexist do you also argue for the Catholic pre-Copernicus view of the universe to be taught? That is equally valid in view of the scientific evidence as the intelligent designer." It's responses like that that enable ID theorists to get their theories into the mainstream. One of the biggest issues with anti-ID proponents is that they rarely, if ever, address the ACTUAL arguments and theories presented by ID. Instead they knock down straw men, use genetic and guilty by association fallacies, and give the ID movement more credence with every childish response. So- while darwinists are sticking their heads in the sand and pretending like there is no threat to their science, ID advocates are making headway convincing schools, college students, etc of the merits of their ideas. Come on darwinists, wake up and address the arguments, or you are going to see episodes in Kansas cloned all over the world!
"So, who designed the creator?"
I'm always stumped by this question! It's the ultimate undercutting defeater to any of the arguments that ID theorists are trying to propose. In fact, you can't even guess that this message on the screen came from an intelligent source, because then you would have to ask who made that intelligent source, and so on towards an infinite regress. It's best not even to ask who the author is of the article mentioned in the slashdot heading, so just stop any questions of source or design right at the computer screen...
The 'How' of intelligent design is approached like an engineer who wants to reconstruct a building or structure he saw. So instead of pursuing purely natural, accidental causes to explain systems, ID theorist's think as if they were to reconstruct a system using the preexisting materials. As it is still an early theory, whether the methods are by electromagnetic, etc, hasn't been addressed yet, but hopefully will be in the future.
The Actual Method suggested by William Dembski.
1. Determine if the event under inspection happened necesarily or contingently.
A. If the event happened necesarily, then suggest natural causes.
B. If the event happened contingently, then proceed to step two.
2. Determine whether the event exhibits complexity or is simple.
A. If the event is simple (such as the pattern of polymers in chrystals), then suggest natural causes.
B. If the event is complex, then proceed to step three.
3. Determine whether the complex, contingent event exhibits specificity, or is merely ad hoc (therefore meaningless).
A. If the contingent, complex event is merely ad hoc (such as the sentence 'lkjdsaldslj') then suggest natural causes.
B. If the contingent, complex event has specificity (such as the sentence 'ID is a mathematical theory not a religious one') then suggest intelligent causes.
This is similar to how SETI filters out signals from intelligence and meaningless signals, as well as how detectives determine the death of a person by murder instead of accident.
Now. Here is what methodological naturalists do.
Step 1- Same as previous
Step 2- Same as previous
Step 3 A- Same as previous
Step 3 B- If event is contingent, complex, and specified, then go back to step 1. (leading to a regress)
The methodology proposed by ID theorists take's its cue from Plato - follow the evidence WHEREVER it leads, regardless of what you previously thought. Please mod this to -1 flamebait or -1 Troll for the views presented.