I once had a conversation online and this guy said that Nietzsche said the (physical) universe does not contain any ethical principle. But he also argued that the ethical person is 'rationally' defined in modern thinking. — EnPassant

Modern science and culture has division at its basis - division between self and world, mind and matter, I and other. In the sphere of philosophy it was built around the division of the primary qualities of matter - those attributes such as mass, shape, velocity, and so on, which are precisely measurable and predictable, and those such as scent, colour, etc which were said to be 'in the mind' of the observer. At the same time, any kind of teleological thinking was banished from physics - objects behave as they do because of physical laws and antecedent physical conditions. Furthermore science sees no reason not to treat the human subject as objects, as @Relativist says above. So the natural outcome of that is that of course the physical universe is devoid of morality, subjectivity and intentionality, which are increasingly understood as matters of individual conscience and tantamount to mere opinion. Nietszche was highly aware of that, although it was not something of his invention. Arguably, his 'Death of God' was a reflection on it.

As I said previously, I believe the past is finite, and this entails an initial state (=first cause), which exists as brute fact.
— Relativist
Is that "belief" based on reasoning from evidence, or just accepted for no particular reason, other than to allow "brute fact" to arbitrarily take the place of transcendental pre-time (eternity/infinity) and intentional causation? :chin: — Gnomon

My belief is based on reasoning from conceptual analysis, in the manner of most metaphysicians.

I infer the past is finite, because an infinite past entails completing an infinite number of consecutive steps, of finite duration. This is impossible. You suggest I'm "substituting" for "transcendental time". No. I simply see no reason to believe there exists such a thing - there's no evidence of it. But even if there were, I would still infer a finite past, so I don't see that it matters.

Re: the necessary brute fact:

The state of the universe today, was caused by past states of the universe - so there's a causal chain, that necessarily begins with an uncaused first-cause. Because it wasn't caused, it follows: 1) that it exists as brute fact; 2) that is is not contingent (for reasons I previously described).

If the First Cause is "not contingent", that means it is self-existent or self-caused, yes? — Gnomon

"Self caused" seems unintelligible. It is UNcaused.

So far, that sounds like an essential characteristic of a Creator God. In that case, the "source of contingency" could be the intentional act of creating a bubble of space-time within the ocean of eternity.

Yes, a first cause is consistent with a "creator god" -- but it doesn't entail a creator God.

Yes, if there were a creator God, it would provide a source of contingency. But a natural first cause is also a source of contingency. The only contingency we see in the world is purely natural: quantum indeterminacy, so the simplest explanation is that the first cause is natural.

Is your "natural state of affairs" the same natural laws that Hawking assumed existed eternally before space-time Nature even began with a Bang? — Gnomon

I doubt it. I didn't arrive at it this way, and Hawking was a poor philosopher.

Are you saying that your deterministic First Cause possessed the power of Determination, including the laws of nature? — Gnomon

I'm not sure what you mean. But I do believe the truly fundamental laws of nature existed in the initial state. There may have been some contingency in the laws of nature that are observable today, but (consistent with quantum indeterminacy), any contingent outcomes were present as possibilities in the initial state.

Or are you saying that the cause of this complex world is a Brute Accident? Fortuna was the Roman goddess of dumb Luck. If so, she has been on a statistically impossible streak of Gambler's Luck for 14B years. — Gnomon

As described, the first cause is uncaused - but it's not an "accident", in the traditional sense as being synonymous with "contingent".

Lucky? Luck implies there is a set of contestants, one of which (the lucky one) wins. If this fits your view, then who exactly are the contestants? Frankly, it sounds like you're treating life as a design objective - such that a series of "lucky" coincidences had to occur in order to achieve it. As I said, life is a consequence of the way the world happens to be. Perhaps there are contingent factors that might have produced a lifeless universe. So what? --unless you assume it failed to meet the design objective.

As described, the first cause is uncaused - but it's not an "accident", in the traditional sense as being synonymous with "contingent". — Relativist

:up: :up:

The state of the universe today, was caused by past states of the universe - so there's a causal chain, that necessarily begins with an uncaused first-cause. Because it wasn't caused, it follows: 1) that it exists as brute fact; 2) that is is not contingent (for reasons I previously described). — Relativist

Yes. And astronomers have traced the chain of causation back to an event sarcastically labeled the Big Bang, because an "uncaused first cause" didn't make sense to the practical scientists. I guess it's an impractical philosophy quirk to cop-out with a Brute Fact that must be accepted (believed) with no supporting reasons. It's a hypothesis with no evidence, but only a place holder for future facts. :joke:

I'm not sure what you mean. But I do believe the truly fundamental laws of nature existed in the initial state. There may have been some contingency in the laws of nature that are observable today, but (consistent with quantum indeterminacy), any contingent outcomes were present as possibilities in the initial state. — Relativist

So your Brute Fact First Cause just popped into existence 14B years ago --- complete with laws to govern evolution --- with no prior cause? Did BFFC also include the Matter & Energy that eventually became the organized world we now see? Sounds like Omni-potential that popped.

Again, the notion of Something from Nothing didn't make sense to the scientists trying to make sense of the expanding universe, that when run in reverse vanished into a dimensionless point of infinity : the Singularity. Is that your BFFC? They also didn't like the alternative idea of infinite Potential (unlimited possibilities) that could --- for no apparent reason --- become the Actual Universe we know and love. :blush:

As described, the first cause is uncaused - but it's not an "accident", in the traditional sense as being synonymous with "contingent". — Relativist

An uncaused First Cause is traditionally identified with a God of some kind. The Deity's existence is not an "accident" because it is not a Chance event, but either Intentional or a Brute Fact (inexplicable by reference to precedence). Chance accidents only happen in space-time.

Your BFFC sounds a lot like my First Cause, except that I define it as eternal (timeless) and self-existent (un-caused), in order to fill the causal/existential gap prior to the Big Bang. The hypothetical gap-filler had no matter or energy, and consisted of nothing but infinite Potential, which was actualized in the otherwise ex nihilo Big Bang. You and I seem to be talking about the same thing, but using different words. :halo:

Accident : an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

Many say there needs to be an uncaused first cause, which is God. An alternative to this is an infinite causal chain, though few take this position. However, it makes no less sense to believe in an infinite causal chain than it does in God, because God is an infinite being himself, and thus his thought process is an infinite causal chain.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/smla5i/the_uncaused_first_cause_argument_for_god/

The cosmological argument states that there must be an uncaused first cause, or "God", because every event has a cause and the causal chain cannot go back infinitely.
___Google AI overview

In Aristotle's philosophy, potentiality is the capacity for something to be, while actuality is when that capacity is realized through motion, change, or activity:
___Google AI overview
Note --- Motion, Change, and Activity are characteristic of the space-time world. Pure Being is characteristic of infinity-eternity.

Yes. And astronomers have traced the chain of causation back to an event sarcastically labeled the Big Bang, because an "uncaused first cause" didn't make sense to the practical scientists. — Gnomon

That's not correct. Physicists believe they have a good understanding of the state of the universe as far back as 10^-13 seconds after the mathematical singularity entailed by General Relativity. The inflationary period preceded that point, as far back as 10^-36 seconds, but little is known about that era - and nothing is known about times prior to this, including the question of whether or not there were times even before the point of this mathematical singularity.

So your Brute Fact First Cause just popped into existence 14B years ago — Gnomon

Jeez, I've explained this twice before to you. An initial state doesn't mean "popping into existence". Popping into existence implies there is something (existence) into which it could pop, and that there was an earlier state at which it did not exist. "Initial state" means exactly what it says: there is no earlier time at which it didn't exist.

the notion of Something from Nothing didn't make sense to the scientists... — Gnomon

Right. It should make sense to no one. An initial state does not mean "something from nothing". We discussed this, and you seemed to agree.

...dimensionless point of infinity : the Singularity. Is that your BFFC? — Gnomon

As I said, the "singularity" is mathematical, not ontological. It means it is beyond the predictive power of general relativity. That's precisely why earlier times are unknowns. At no time have I claimed the big bang represents the beginning of existence. It's possible that the initial state was around that time, but that's pure guesswork. It's also irrelevant to my position.

Your BFFC sounds a lot like my First Cause, except that I define it as eternal (timeless) and self-existent (un-caused), in order to fill the causal/existential gap prior to the Big Bang. The hypothetical gap-filler had no matter or energy, and consisted of nothing but infinite Potential, which was actualized in the otherwise ex nihilo Big Bang. You and I seem to be talking about the same thing, but using different words — Gnomon

Why do you assume the Big Bang is the beginning of material existence? What's your basis for thinking this occurred "ex nihilo"?
How do you know there was no matter and energy? For that matter, how do you define these? Are quantum fields "matter"? Some define matter as the stuff that is composed of atoms, but this ignores the fact that atoms are composed of particles that are (per Quantum Field Theory), quanta of quantum fields.

I gather that you believe the initial state consisted of a God- sans universe. How did this God know how to design a universe? You seem to believe he designed it for intelligent life, so how did he know life would actually be possible when he created it?

Accident : an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause. — Gnomon

An initial state is not an event. Events occur in time: there is a time prior to the event.

The cosmological argument states that there must be an uncaused first cause, or "God", because every event has a cause and the causal chain cannot go back infinitely. — Gnomon

Yep, that's what cosmological arguments purport to do, but they convince no one because they depend on ad hoc metaphysical assumptions, including the plausibility of an unembodied mind, and that it contains magical knowledge (e.g. knowledge of a design plan.

In Aristotle's philosophy, potentiality is the capacity for something to be, while actuality is when that capacity is realized through motion, change, or activity: — Gnomon

It's an outdated paradigm. The nature of reality is better explained by modern physics.

Many say there needs to be an uncaused first cause, which is God. An alternative to this is an infinite causal chain — Gnomon

Ah, a quote from that famous philosopher, Dr. Reddit! As I've discussed, an uncaused first cause does not entail an unembodied mind containing magical knowledge.

You didn't respond to my statements about "luck". Did you see my point? I hope I won't have to repeat it later, as I did with my discussion of first cause/initial state.

The intelligence manifested by the universe does not necessarily entail an intelligent designer but it does not rule it out either.

To me it strongly points towards a creator/designer whose attributes are embodied by nature rather than just a disembodied being. This does not mean that this being (God) does not transcend nature itself.

Sure complex systems like biology and life could arise by chance such as they did via evolution yet the chain of events from non-life to life could not have occurred if this matter was inane, strengthening the need for an ever existing intelligence in the universe or God.

Starting off with the simplest chemical reactions to the emergence of complex systems such as plants, trees and even animals which are able to reproduce and self perpetuate. This is too much of a leap no matter what odds it takes for it to occur and happen by chance but rather the signs of a pre-existing eternal intelligence rather than just an emergent phenomena.

The nature of reality is better explained by modern physics. — Relativist

'Physics does not show us nature as she is in herself, but only nature exposed to our methods of questioning.'

That doesn't refute what I said about modern physics being "better" than the Aristotelian paradigm, nor that physics isn't still the best available means of understanding nature. We're seeking an understanding, and understanding is necessarily in terms we can relate to.

But physics does not 'explain reality' - contrary to Armstrong's physicalism, in which 'the physical' is all that there is. As philosophers of science point out, physics is based on fundamental premisses which methodically exclude fundamental aspects of reality as lived (also known as 'being'.) It depends on idealisation, abstraction and objectification of mathematical models which take only into account the quantifiable characteristics of external bodies. As a model, it obviously provides extraodinary control over those subjects, but as a paradigm, it excludes much of what is basic to philosophy.

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schrodinger, Nature and the Greeks

Anyway, don't want to derail gnomon's thread, but I did want to call that point out.

physics does not 'explain reality — Wayfarer

It explains more about reality than does anything else, and in a way that is directed toward truth. I grant that it doesn't explain mental life.

I grant that it doesn't explain mental life. — Relativist

Oh, so dualism then? Different laws for the mental?

I don't see that dualism has a better answer than physicalism. I was just thinking that mental life is best understood on a basis other than physics. Psychology, for example.

But if mental life is part of reality, and I’m sure you would agree it is, and physics doesn’t explain that, then there is an explanatory gap. But I agree that modern physics is plainly superior to Aristotelian, although it is interesting that Werner Heisenberg himself saw an application for Aristotle’s ‘potentia’ in quantum physics - see https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/quantum-mysteries-dissolve-if-possibilities-are-realities

because an "uncaused first cause" didn't make sense to the practical scientists. — Gnomon
That's not correct. Physicists believe they have a good understanding of the state of the universe as far back as 10^-13 seconds after the mathematical singularity entailed by General Relativity. The inflationary period preceded that point, as far back as 10^-36 seconds, but little is known about that era - and nothing is known about times prior to this, including the question of whether or not there were times even before the point of this mathematical singularity. — Relativist

When something doesn't make physical sense to practical physicists, they may put on their philosopher hats and speculate into metaphysical conjectures : e.g. String Theory, Multiverse. But they typically postulate some hypothetical (non god) Potential state prior to the Bang. Do you know of any scientists for whom the notion of an "uncaused first cause" did makes scientific sense? As you said, and as the overview below*1 indicates, the reality or ideality before the Bang is unknowable by scientific methods. So the practical scientists left the exploration of that "unknown territory" to philosophical methods.

Potential vs Actual is a method*2 with a long useful history, in both philosophy and science. For example, when electric storage batteries are labeled with predicted voltage, that Potential voltage is not real (not-yet-actual) prior to connection of storage to circuit or ground. Likewise, when our understanding of the origin of the universe is described as a mathematical Singularity, the Cause of that calculated-but-unmeasured state is a "mystery"*3. Yet, in our real world experience, such improbable events don't happen by happenstance, but as a result of some prior Cause/Potential. Since we have no measurement access to that world-creating state, it's left to philosophers to infer its logically necessary properties. Collectively, those properties define its Potential for causation. :smile:


*1. In the context of the Big Bang theory, an "uncaused first cause" refers to the idea that the initial event which triggered the Big Bang itself had no preceding cause, meaning it came into existence without being brought about by anything else; this is a concept often discussed in philosophical terms, particularly when considering the relationship between science and religion, where the "uncaused first cause" is sometimes associated with a deity. . . . .
Current scientific understanding cannot explain what caused the Big Bang itself, leaving the question of a "first cause" beyond the scope of current physics. ___Google AI overview

*2. A "potential" method refers to a calculation or analysis that determines what could theoretically happen under ideal conditions, while an "actual" method looks at what is happening in reality, taking into account all constraints and limitations, meaning it reflects the true outcome based on existing circumstances. ___Google AI overview

*3. A "Big Bang singularity" refers to the theoretical point in time at the very beginning of the universe, according to the Big Bang theory, where all matter and energy were concentrated in an infinitely small, dense, and hot point, essentially a singularity with infinite density and temperature, which then rapidly expanded to create the universe we observe today; however, it's important to note that our current understanding of physics breaks down at this point, so the exact nature of the singularity remains a mystery and is a topic of ongoing research. ___Google AI overview

Why do you assume the Big Bang is the beginning of material existence? What's your basis for thinking this occurred "ex nihilo"? — Relativist

Since I have no better scientific explanation, I simply accept the expert consensus that the BB theory is the best current explanation for "the beginning of material existence"*4. Unlike some speculative cosmologists, I assume that the BB was ex nihilo*5, in the sense of no prior Actual material existence. But, as a philosophical interpretation, it was not ex nihilo in the sense of creative Potential. :wink:

*4. According to the Big Bang theory, yes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of material existence, as it describes the moment when all matter and energy in the universe originated from a single, extremely dense point that rapidly expanded, creating space and time as we know them today; essentially marking the start of the universe and all its matter. ___Google AI overview

*5. While the Big Bang theory describes the universe originating from a single, incredibly dense point, which could be interpreted as "nothing," many argue that it does not definitively prove "creation ex nihilo" because the concept of "nothing" in physics is not the same as the philosophical concept of absolute nothingness; therefore, whether the Big Bang is considered "ex nihilo" is a matter of philosophical interpretation, not a definitive scientific conclusion. ___Google AI overview

Ah, a quote from that famous philosopher, Dr. Reddit! As I've discussed, an uncaused first cause does not entail an unembodied mind containing magical knowledge. — Relativist

Yes. But it also does not exclude that possibility. :cool:

When something doesn't make physical sense to practical physicists, they may put on their philosopher hats and speculate into metaphysical conjectures : e.g. String Theory, Multiverse. But they typically postulate some hypothetical (non god) Potential state prior to the Bang. Do you know of any scientists for whom the notion of an "uncaused first cause" did makes scientific sense? As you said, and as the overview below*1 indicates, the reality or ideality before the Bang is unknowable by scientific methods. So the practical scientists left the exploration of that "unknown territory" to philosophical methods. — Gnomon

I've never seen a physicist refer to a "brute fact", but Sean Carroll proposed a cosmological model that entails a finite past (he proposes that time is associated with thermodynamics). It entails an "uncaused first cause", although (AFAIK) he didn't assign this label.

We agree that we're engaging in speculations that are beyond physics. I objected to your treating the big bang as the beginning of material existence because the physics doesn't tell us it is, and because it seems too specific for a metaphysical assumption. It's inconsistent with some cosmological hypotheses (e.g. bouncing branes and loop quantum cosmology), and IMO a metaphysician ought to stay out of the way of science.

Potential vs Actual is a method*2 with a long useful history, in both philosophy and science. For example, when electric storage batteries are labeled with predicted voltage, that Potential voltage is not real (not-yet-actual) prior to connection of storage to circuit or ground. Likewise, when our understanding of the origin of the universe is described as a mathematical Singularity, the Cause of that calculated-but-unmeasured state is a "mystery"*3. Yet, in our real world experience, such improbable events don't happen by happenstance, but as a result of some prior Cause/Potential. Since we have no measurement access to that world-creating state, it's left to philosophers to infer its logically necessary properties. Collectively, those properties define its Potential for causation. :smile: — Gnomon

Teleology pervades the Aristotelian paradigm (see this). We disagree on whether or not teleology exists, so I'm not going to concede a paradigm that assumes it exists.

In the context of the Big Bang theory, an "uncaused first cause" refers to the idea that the initial event which triggered the Big Bang itself had no preceding cause, meaning it came into existence without being brought about by anything else; t — Gnomon

Sorry, Dr. Google, but this is not strictly correct. In his defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, William Lane Craig does not depend exclusively on the assumption the big bang is the beginning of material existence; he simply argues that the past is finite and that it is THIS that entails an uncaused first cause.

A "Big Bang singularity" refers to the theoretical point in time at the very beginning of the universe, according to the Big Bang theory, where all matter and energy were concentrated in an infinitely small, dense, and hot point, essentially a singularity with infinite density and temperature, which then rapidly expanded to create the universe we observe today; however, it's important to note that our current understanding of physics breaks down at this point, so the exact nature of the singularity remains a mystery and is a topic of ongoing research. — Gnomon

Dr. Google is again being a bit misleading. My description is more accurate: it's a mathematical singularity. No modern cosmologist actually believes there existed a "singularity with infinite density and temperature". It is not strictly true that our "current understanding of physics breaks down at this point." Rather, it breaks down NEAR this point.

According to the Big Bang theory, yes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of material existence, — Gnomon

Wrong again, Dr. Google. Cosmologists have proposed a number of hypotheses that proposes causes of the "big bang" from prior states. I mentioned two above, but there are a number of others.

While the Big Bang theory describes the universe originating from a single, incredibly dense point, which could be interpreted as "nothing," many argue that it does not definitively prove "creation ex nihilo" because the concept of "nothing" in physics is not the same as the philosophical concept of absolute nothingness; therefore, whether the Big Bang is considered "ex nihilo" is a matter of philosophical interpretation, not a definitive scientific conclusion. — Gnomon

This omits the basis of the notion that there was a "single incredibly dense point": General Relativity. Virtually all cosmologists recognize that GR breaks down, and becomes inapplicable somewhere around the time of the inflationary period. Most believe a quantum theory of gravity is needed to understand this.

Ah, a quote from that famous philosopher, Dr. Reddit! As I've discussed, an uncaused first cause does not entail an unembodied mind containing magical knowledge. — Relativist

Yes. But it also does not exclude that possibility. — Gnomon

I've said from the beginning that a God is logically possible. My contention is that it is implausible. It seems a pretty huge assumption to make, if you wish to convince anyone. Nevertheless, if you are a theist (for whatever reason), it's reasonable to embrace a theistic metaphysics. I've read a couple of Ed Feser's books on Thomist metaphysics, and it seems coherent (although unpersuasive to non-theists).

But if mental life is part of reality, and I’m sure you would agree it is, and physics doesn’t explain that, then there is an explanatory gap. — Wayfarer

The fact that the (human developed - and limited by our perspectives ) science of physics doesn't have explanations available for mental activity doesn't mean it is not actually grounded in the fundamental, actual, laws of nature.

Are you familiar with the arguments in How the Laws of Physics Lie?, Nancy Cartwright?

No, but I browsed it. It appears she suggests there may be a greater disconnect between laws of physics and true laws of nature, than is commonly believed. Is that correct?

Teleology pervades the Aristotelian paradigm (see this). We disagree on whether or not teleology exists, so I'm not going to concede a paradigm that assumes it exists. — Relativist

Teleology is not the kind of thing that exists in the material world. It's an interpretation from observation of trends in the world. Humans commonly infer intentions and purposes from things & processes that perform useful Functions instead of just random changes. For a traditional example, an acorn's purpose is to produce a tree, not by accident, but by programmed causation in the DNA. Can atoms observe, infer and interpret?

A philosophical argument for Teleology is the Watchmaker notion that a universe capable of creating creatures capable of inferring intentions from actions is evidence of an intentional designing Cosmic Mind. The problem with inferring intention in Nature is that we are not smart enough to predict the final ultimate end of the chain of causation, nor to imagine the mind that lit the fuse.

If you don't see any evidence of Teleology, maybe you believe that random accidents are capable of causing complex organizations to arise without any prior tendencies in that direction. Even Spinoza, who equated God with Nature, saw evidence of teleological power*2 in the natural world. So, acknowledging Teleology in the Cosmos does not entail accepting the Biblical account that the purpose of humanity is to serve as slaves of God*3. :smile:

*1. Teleology : the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise. ___Oxford dictionary

*2. For Spinoza, everything we are, and indeed the continued existence of all things, is a manifestation of God's power. Carlisle uses the term “being-in-God” to describe this aspect of Spinoza's thought: the way we are created by—and conceived through—God. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/37996/spinozas-god-einstein-believed-in-it-but-what-was-it

*3. Aristotle's Teleology : Although Aristotle would not be classified as a Theist, in the Abrahamic sense, he was not an Atheist. He may have been a Deist though, in that his notion of god was natural, instead of super-natural. But, his Nature was an intentional (self-organizing ; teleological) organism, not a passive purposeless mechanism. Implicit in that animated worldview was what Ari called “immanent causation”. Which entails the input, and on-going effects, of an outside agent. So the Cosmos, envisioned as a living organism, requires a higher level of complexity than an inorganic object.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page76.html

Sorry, Dr. Google, but this is not strictly correct. In his defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, William Lane Craig does not depend exclusively on the assumption the big bang is the beginning of material existence; he simply argues that the past is finite and that it is THIS that entails an uncaused first cause. — Relativist

I don't know about Craig. but the Kalam argument and Kant's critique were both ignorant of our modern notion of a specific origin of space-time (t=0), which has motivated Atheists to think of alternatives to that first tick of the clock. Most of those hypothetical options involve some concept of the eternal existence of something outside of the Cosmos (t = -1). Take your pick : random-accident turtles all the way down, or an imaginary eternal designing mind that works more-or-less like a human mind.

The inference from cosmology that the material world is finite, still leaves open the question of an immaterial mental form of existence. What kind of atoms are Ideas made of? If you believe that your Mind is your Brain, then the non-existence of matter would be total nothingness. In which case, could we expect to get material something from immaterial nothing? Which is more likely to exist eternally, perishable Matter, or enduring Ideas, such as those of Plato & Aristotle & Kant? :nerd:

PS___ Thanks for continuing the dialog. This is the kind of exercise my old brain needs in order to continue to process abstract information into ideas and inferences.

If you don't see any evidence of Teleology, maybe you believe that random accidents are capable of causing complex organizations to arise without any prior tendencies in that direction. Even Spinoza, who equated God with Nature, saw evidence of teleological power*2 in the natural world. So, acknowledging Teleology in the Cosmos does not entail accepting the Biblical account that the purpose of humanity is to serve as slaves of God*3 — Gnomon

I define "evidence" in the broadcast possible way: a set of facts. I do believe that no complete set of facts actually entails teleology. I acknowledge there are facts which are consistent with teleology. However, those facts are also consistent with a naturalistic interpretation. For example, a balanced ecosystem is consistent with design, however it's also consistent with natural selection.

A philosophical argument for Teleology is the Watchmaker notion that a universe capable of creating creatures capable of inferring intentions from actions is evidence of an intentional designing Cosmic Mind. — Gnomon

A cosmic mind has features that suggest design too, does it not? In particular: it contains knowledge: an organized set of facts. Furthermore, the existence of knowledge suggests learning and experience. So it seems to me these arguments from design are a special pleading: select some facts, ignore others, and uncritically accept the existence of an omniscient mind existing by brute fact- an intact set of organized knowledge that just happens to exist without being designed or even developed over time.

And yes, of course, complexity can arise over time. This is discussed in the paper I linked to twice before (here it is again).

For Spinoza, everything we are, and indeed the continued existence of all things, is a manifestation of God's power. — Gnomon

Sounds like a rationalization, not a argument.
It seems to suggest God exists necessarily, but everything else exists contingently. That's consistent with my analysis- that a first cause exists necessarily, however that doesn't entail a God. As I've asked multiple times: is it more likely an infinitely complex mind just happens to exist by brute fact, than that much simpler minds developed over time in just a small number of places in a vast (possibly infinite) universe over billions of years of change?

I don't know about Craig. but the Kalam argument and Kant's critique were both ignorant of our modern notion of a specific origin of space-time (t=0), which has motivated Atheists to think of alternatives to that first tick of the clock. — Gnomon

Do you read my posts? You just repeated something I have disputed at least twice before. I'm happy to answer any questions you have and respond to anything you think I'm wrong about. But I'm tired of repeating myself.

It appears she (Nancy Cartwright) suggests there may be a greater disconnect between laws of physics and true laws of nature, than is commonly believed. Is that correct? — Relativist

She questions the very idea of there being natural laws in the sense of universally proscriptive or determinative principles. Why? Because what we call "laws" in physics are more like descriptions of observed regularities rather than prescriptions for what must happen. These laws are derived from idealized, abstracted, and isolated conditions—they describe how ideal objects behave in ideal circumstances. However, in the real world, there are countless extraneous factors and complexities that interfere with and influence outcomes, making reality far less tractable than the clean, quantitative descriptions provided by physics. Which is not to say that they don't work, but to question their universal status, as their universality is very specific in scope.

For that matter, I still stay that much of modern materialism can be seen as a descendant of the tendency in early modern science to reify natural laws as intrinsic features of the physical world. As Karen Armstrong notes in The Case for God, early modern thinkers took Newton's laws and similar discoveries as literal evidence of divine handiwork, turning what began as metaphysics into mechanistic descriptions in a clockwork universe. Much modern naturalism carries forward this approach, treating laws as real entities immanent in nature and universal regularities as the bedrock of reality, sans the God who purportedly put them there, who has become a ghost in his own machine.

However, this perspective inherits the same pitfalls that Nancy Cartwright critiques: it assumes that the abstractions of physics—idealized and purified of real-world complexity—correspond directly to the way the world is, rather than the way specific aspects of it are modeled under controlled conditions. The result is a metaphysical framework that continues to conflate the descriptive utility of scientific laws with their ontological status as supposedly fundamental truths about reality - however, with the distinct disadvantage of providing no conceptual space for the mind at all, save by way of some kind of ad-hoc epiphenomenon.

Do you see the deficiencies of metaphysical Materialism (Energy is physical but immaterial), that are glossed-over in sensable
Naturalism? — Gnomon

Energy is physical and is not "immaterial" but is constitutive of the material. In what way is that "deficient"?

Thanks for the descriptions. I'll consider reading Cartwright's book.

Classical theists including D B Hart and Edward Feser are generally critical (sometimes extremely so) of ID theory on the basis that it is reductionist in its own way. Hart argues that the ID movement tends to depict God as a kind of cosmic engineer—a being within the system of causation who intervenes to design complex systems or solve problems that natural processes cannot — Wayfarer

I suspect the ID depiction of God as an engineer is a counter-response to the atheist technical criticism of the religious notion of God as a cosmic magician. Meyer doesn't describe his god-model in the book, except to make it clear that he's talking about the bible-god. Personally, due to my ignorance of transcendent things, I go along with Plato & Aristotle to simply call them Universal Principles, that are necessary to define or make-sense-of our world.

In your Harris cartoon, showing a complex equation on a blackboard, I suspect that the omitted information (unspecified miracle) may be the inexplicit intention/goal of the scientist manipulating the numbers & symbols. Meyer discusses, at length, the various interpretations of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (universal wave-function ; UWF) that allows the scientist to "construct" a possible universe, by "specifying boundary conditions, constraining paths through superspace, and choosing specific functions to define an applicable mathematical structure". Doesn't that sound like a "cosmic engineer" or Programmer to you?

Meyer noted that Hawking & Hartle, who used the W-D equation for their calculations of alternative universes : made "assumptions about the kind of universes they would consider in the construction of the universal wave function clearly appropriated knowledge of the properties of our universe in a question-begging way. They effectively smuggled information into their calculation." Hence, they were surreptitiously emulating an intentional creator.

Hugh Everett also constructed his Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) on the basis of the UWF, which "represents the most fundamental description of reality that we have and every possibility that it describes must exist in some universe". You have repeatedly warned me about the tendency to reify math and mental functions. And Meyer says, "by treating all of the merely mathematical possibilities described by the Universal Wave Function as a real universe, the MWI 'reifies the math' on a literally unimaginable scale. Yet it still does not answer [Hawking's] question of 'what breathes fire' into the relevant equation" {my bold}. Meyer continues : "yet this interpretation does not cite a physical cause of the origin of our universe . . . . It simply imputes a specific meaning to the UWF by positing the existence of these other universes". I suspect that he's implying that the Observer/Theorizer gives meaning ("breathes fire") into the numbers and symbols.

Speaking of symbols, the one chosen to represent UWF, Ψ , is called "psi". Ironically, that is also what psychics called the "unknown factor" (presumably Mind or Spirit) that "breathes fire" into their theories of extra-sensory perception. For my philosophical purposes, I call it Information or EnFormAction (the power to enform), or simply Energy . :smile:

Speaking of symbols, the one chosen to represent UWF, Ψ , is called "psi". — Gnomon

That is the symbol for the wave-function equation. I go into that in an essay I've published on Medium, The Timeless Wave.

About the 'miracle required' cartoon, that was in respect of 'the proposal that DNA kind of just spontaneously ravelled itself into existence, which a lot of people seem to take for granted, is far-fetched.' But I don't mean to imply or support a kind of inventor or tinkerer God.

You should read God does not Exist (and no, it's not an atheist polemic, it's by an Episcopal Bishop, but very much in acccord with the ancient 'Negative Way'.) It suggests something I've been mulling over, that God and the soul are very much what Terrence Deacon means by 'absentials'. They're not something that exists but they may nevertheless be real.

By the way, in my earlier reply to you about Nancy Cartwright and Karen Armstrong, it shouldn't be taken to imply that either of them would support or argue for Stephen Meyer's types of arguments. Armstrong has written a book (which I haven't read) on religious fundamentalism. But I suspect she would say that Stephen Meyer illustrates just the kind of mistake she accuses the early modern scientists of making, by trying to use scientific arguments in support of belief in God, which really belongs to an altogether different register, so to speak. For a good primer on Cartwright, see No God, No Laws (pdf). For a sympathetic review of Armstrong's Case for God, see In Defense of the True God, Alain de Botton.

:100:

:up: :up:

For example, a balanced ecosystem is consistent with design, however it's also consistent with natural selection. — Relativist

Darwin called his culling factor in evolution "natural selection", but the model upon which it was based was the artificial selection of human breeders. They were teleologically*1 "re-designing" plants & animals to be more suitable for their needs & purposes & intentions. Likewise, theists & deists assume that the "balanced ecosystem" itself was designed, not by Nature, but by the creator of Nature. For Theists, the Creator has communicated his intentions in scriptures. But for Deists --- and scientists, such as Newton --- the Designer has communicated his plans in the logic of Nature and nature's Laws.

Today, in view of the Big Bang theory, some scientists, such as Hawking, have imagined an a priori Cause of space-time Nature, who selected or defined the variables in the Universal Wave Function, by rolling the dice. Presumably, with no purpose in mind. The Genesis myth describes Paradise as a sort of zoo or botanical garden, which needed a gardener or caretaker to continue the divine design by weeding-out (de-selection) of un-fit species. Unfortunately, the gullible humans were weeded-out by a silver-tongue snake, and banished from the garden.

What I'm saying here is that Selection is an essential Design function. So, Theists can be forgiven for imagining a Cosmic "breeder", who created the zoo or garden in which we find ourselves today. Hence, Nature is just a continuation of the original design process. Can you imagine that? :wink:

*1. Teleologically means to explain something based on its end purpose, or to start from the end and reason back. ___Google AI overview

So it seems to me these arguments from design are a special pleading: select some facts, ignore others, and uncritically accept the existence of an omniscient mind existing by brute fact- an intact set of organized knowledge that just happens to exist without being designed or even developed over time. — Relativist

What facts are proponents of Teleology ignoring? It's basically an inference from the Watchmaker analogy. We find ourselves in a self-organized self-sustaining natural system that began ticking for no apparent reason 14B solar cycles ago. But, based on our experience with causation in the natural world, some thinkers simply imagine the WatchMaker as a "brute fact". Didn't you justify your worldview with a presumed Brute Fact? :chin:

For Spinoza, everything we are, and indeed the continued existence of all things, is a manifestation of God's power. — Gnomon
Sounds like a rationalization, not a argument.
It seems to suggest God exists necessarily, but everything else exists contingently. — Relativist

Yes. Isn't that what scientists and philosophers do when faced with a mystery : rationalize*2? When all the facts are obvious, we call it Reasoning. But when the most essential fact is a mystery, it's still Reasoning ; but if we don't like the conclusion, we call it Rationalizing.

For example, Materialism is a metaphysical concept that explains the mystery of the existence of evolving matter by extending the chain of causation backward toward infinity. Even Spinoza's Cosmological Argument is based on an unprovable presumption (brute fact) : that Substance (matter?) exists Necessarily. Do you disagree? :smile:

*2. Rationalize : attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate. ___Oxford dictionary

Do you read my posts? You just repeated something I have disputed at least twice before — Relativist

I'm sorry. What did I repeat? What did you dispute? Is your disputation supposed to settle the question, with no further discussion? Am I supposed to just bow to your superiority? You expressed your exasperation with my counter-arguments before. And yet we continue the dialog. The Cosmological question has been going around in circles for over 2500 years. But on this forum, we continue to disagree without being disagreeable. Yes? :cool:

What I'm saying here is that Selection is an essential Design function. — Gnomon

To infer design depends on the premise that there exists a designer. As I've discussed (and you failed to respond to) the qualities a designer must have are exactly the sort of thing that are suggestive of design. So such design arguments are a special pleading, as I previously pointed out (and you ignored).

:up: :up:

What I'm saying here is that Selection is an essential Design function. — Gnomon
To infer design depends on the premise that there exists a designer. As I've discussed (and you failed to respond to) the qualities a designer must have are exactly the sort of thing that are suggestive of design. So such design arguments are a special pleading, as I previously pointed out (and you ignored). — Relativist

I don't remember you pointing that out. But I have voluntarily mentioned several "qualities of a designer" in this thread. In the example mentioned in the book, Hawking et al, exemplified such qualities in their attempts to demonstrate how a universe could emerge randomly from quantum fluctuations. In their calculations of the UWF equation, they Selected specific values for the variables, based on the teleological goal of causing a world like our own to "collapse" (suddenly appear) from the Nowhere of supernatural superposition. Of course, their equation was lacking the creative power to actualize that statistical Potential, so no new worlds were forthcoming.

Besides the ability to Select from among variables (possibilities), as in Darwinian evolution, the ability to foresee something that does not yet exist is essential for a Designer : as in the Darwinian breeder of such not-yet-real future-things as long dogs with short legs, and plump corn kernels with more vitamin A (yellow corn), developed from the hard hardly-edible Indian corn. But the primary quality of a good designer is the creative ability to envision an unreal future state, and then work to make it a real now state. Unfortunately, the Designer of a universe has no material to work with. Only creative Power.

As a mundane designer myself, I once had an engineer marvel at an Architect's ability to start a project with nothing more than a vague idea and a blank sheet of paper. He said, "give me a plan or layout of a building and I can make it stand-up to all forces". A Designer is the one that creates the plan for others to follow. In the case of the only cosmos we have evidence for, it started with a plan similar to a seed, in the mathematical pin-point Singularity that contained all the information, including natural laws and causal power, necessary to construct a world from scratch. Was that designed, or did it just happen by 1-in-a-zillion accident?

Regarding "special pleading", you need to point out the "exception to a general principle" that I claimed in my "pleading". Which "general principle" did you have in mind? Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc.; Unconditional Existence ; the power to create something from nothing, as exemplified in the Big Bang theory. Is there some missing element (e.g. matter) that you think I am overlooking or ignoring? As defined by Einstein, all the Matter in the world was in the original Energy of the Big Bang. But where did that causal power come from? Formulators of the BB theory simply took it for granted. Is that a case of Special Pleading, by ignoring the principle of "ex nihilo nihil fit" : Nothing comes from Nothing. :smile:


Special pleading is an informal fallacy that occurs when someone claims an exception to a general principle without providing justification. It's a type of misleading argument that uses a double standard and ignores unfavorable evidence. ___Google AI overview
Note --- What "general principle" or "unfavorable evidence" have you presented, that I have ignored? Please be specific.