Theology IV

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

EAR, Gwai posted the answer to your question. There are a number of churches besides the RC church that date back to the same time.

Not quite. There are a number of churches that date back to well before the Reformation, some of them all the way to the fourth century. Before then, however, there was essentially one Church; her bishops might have quarreled with one another, but never really to the point of an all out, long-lasting schism in the Church.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

A very silly point indeed, and one which indicates a lack of understanding of the concept of "God". Even the ancient pagans believed in an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause. It's rather silly to not believe in it.

Silly? Oh, I guess that's why silly people like David Hume or Immanuel Kant were so silly as to waste their time refuting it. What a bunch of silly-billies!

[BeardofPants]

Oh my... Kant, a silly-billy? *grin*

[inked]

Why, BoP?! Haven't you heard? He's the source for cant! As in 'Kant couldn't or can't, either way he's full of cant!" Or Monty Python's Philosophers Song?

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable!

But here, sung and illustrated! From me to you! ENJOY!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc

or this version,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bppHD...eature=related

and materialistically all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWVsh...eature=related

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

On the contrary, something must have always been, whether this thing be God or not. It is pure logic. Everything that comes to be, is caused by something else. If, then, everything comes to be, everything is caused by something else. But if everything is caused by something else, then the progression of causes will go back into infinity. A will be caused by B, B by C, C by D, and so on, in a procession without end. Which doesn't make sense.

Why on earth (or in the Universe, actually) not? There is absolutely nothing illogical about an infinite regression- whether such a thing actually exists or not is another question.

As well, stating that "everything that comes to be, is caused by something else" is making an assumption. There are various ways of attacking this; famously, David Hume denied the very notion of causation, and some modern physicists claim that this doesn't hold true on the quantum level.

Further, by saying "everything that comes to be is caused by something else"
you are stating that the Universe as a whole came to be- again, an assumption. Or, to get at the root, it's saying that since everything in the Universe is contingent, the Universe as a whole is contingent.

This is just a way to use the wording of the question to avoid the essence of the argument, which is that everything that exists has a cause. And of course, since the Unmoved Mover exists, it must have a cause- hence the whole argument falls flat on its own contradiction.

Saying "comes to be" instead of "exists" is just a way of using words to dodge the question by embedding your assumption in the terms.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Why on earth (or in the Universe, actually) not? There is absolutely nothing illogical about an infinite regression- whether such a thing actually exists or not is another question.

As well, stating that "everything that comes to be, is caused by something else" is making an assumption. There are various ways of attacking this; famously, David Hume denied the very notion of causation, and some modern physicists claim that this doesn't hold true on the quantum level.

Further, by saying "everything that comes to be is caused by something else"
you are stating that the Universe as a whole came to be- again, an assumption. Or, to get at the root, it's saying that since everything in the Universe is contingent, the Universe as a whole is contingent.

This is just a way to use the wording of the question to avoid the essence of the argument, which is that everything that exists has a cause. And of course, since the Unmoved Mover exists, it must have a cause- hence the whole argument falls flat on its own contradiction.

Saying "comes to be" instead of "exists" is just a way of using words to dodge the question by embedding your assumption in the terms.

Some good points GM.
While an infinite regression might seem odd, and even illogical, it does not mean that it is contradictory.

While we can assert that the Universe in its current state is approx. 15 billion years old, it does not mean that this was the beginning of everything. I.e., time as we know it need not be finite!

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

[...]and some modern physicists claim that this doesn't hold true on the quantum level.

What is infinitely fascinating is just that. That on the subatomic level, in the realm of quantum physics, the principle of causation simply breaks down. Likewise, scientists theorizing about the Big Bang have so far come to the conclusion that it happened on this subatomic level, in a realm where causation need not hold true.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

And of course, since the Unmoved Mover exists, it must have a cause- hence the whole argument falls flat on its own contradiction.

A glaring point indeed.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Why on earth (or in the Universe, actually) not? There is absolutely nothing illogical about an infinite regression- whether such a thing actually exists or not is another question.

It seems to me that there is. If there is an infinite regress of causes, it requires that there should, fundamentally, be no beginning.

As well, stating that "everything that comes to be, is caused by something else" is making an assumption. There are various ways of attacking this; famously, David Hume denied the very notion of causation, and some modern physicists claim that this doesn't hold true on the quantum level.

David Hume's denial of causation was fascinating, but ultimately it seems to boil down into denying that causation is a priori, not an absolute denial that one thing causes another. Such a view would be problematic on many levels.

Further, by saying "everything that comes to be is caused by something else"
you are stating that the Universe as a whole came to be- again, an assumption. Or, to get at the root, it's saying that since everything in the Universe is contingent, the Universe as a whole is contingent.

Not necessarily. I stated in my previous post that the Universe could be the uncaused cause. I'm not arguing for the existence of God, just that there is an uncaused cause.

This is just a way to use the wording of the question to avoid the essence of the argument, which is that everything that exists has a cause. And of course, since the Unmoved Mover exists, it must have a cause- hence the whole argument falls flat on its own contradiction.

That is not the essence of the argument. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the notion of "existence" which requires that a thing be caused. However, in the notion of "coming to be", that is, of going from non-existence to existence, there is. I don't see why you would say that the "essence of the argument" is about being, not coming to be.

Also, "Unmoved Mover" is not really the ideal term, as it refers to a different argument from motion. "Uncaused Cause" is better.

Saying "comes to be" instead of "exists" is just a way of using words to dodge the question by embedding your assumption in the terms.

Not really. As I said before, the one notion does require a cause, while the other does not, so far as I can see.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It seems to me that there is. If there is an infinite regress of causes, it requires that there should, fundamentally, be no beginning.

That does not make it a contradiction, but it can make it meaningless to define what came before the beginning, which then brings us to a place, like when approaching the point of zero in an infinite sequence in mathematics, where we can try to approach as close to the beginning as we can and see what it looked like yet not reach the zero point.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

David Hume's denial of causation was fascinating, but ultimately it seems to boil down into denying that causation is a priori, not an absolute denial that one thing causes another. Such a view would be problematic on many levels.

It is indeed problematic on many, if not most levels, but not on all levels. Notably not in the realm of quantum physics, which is the realm that many physicists including Stephen Hawking characterize the start of the Big Bang as.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Not necessarily. I stated in my previous post that the Universe could be the uncaused cause. I'm not arguing for the existence of God, just that there is an uncaused cause.

I agree. There is an uncaused cause to the specific event that is the beginning of the Universe. As of now we can only speculate, and for all purposes we may never know. Yet we have a choice, to follow the trail that physicists are exploring, acknowledging humbly, that they have so much yet to learn and that they have come up with as many wrong answers than right, or we can take the words of a plethora of unknown authors in the Bible whom possess about one trillionth (That's being kind) of the knowledge that physicists now have of the development of the Universe (authors whom tellingly wrote this: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and then "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light". We know now though that light so emphatically preceeded the creation of the the heaven and the earth. I wonder.. Fascinating though!)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Evolution is blind. It has no goal.

The key difference between science and theology.

The assumption of meaning!

[inked]

Evolution is blind and has no goal? Is that a new concept? George Bernard Shaw would not agree. He said the elan vital had self-maintenance as a goal. The "life force" worked to persist.

And what of all these teleological arguments for evolution producing the fittest if it has no goal?

I smell an inconsistency .....

[brownjenkins]

The "literary" scientists like to romaticize evolution, probably because it sells books, but there is no goal.

Science simply trys to explain what is, not why is.

[Coffeehouse]

Yeah, spot on. In science, there is no inherent goal towards something. It is simply understanding how things are, not how things should be.

Evolution is blind, but not entirely random.

[inked]

Coffehouse, Does the search for the TOE - Theory Of Everything - not count as a goal in science? Science does in fact have a goal and it is not merely the observation of everything, rather it is understanding the "how". It is not enough to merely describe and observe. Science strives to find the principles which underlie the phenomena - strictly in a materialist sense, of course.

And please explain what you mean by evolution being blind but not random.

BJ,
That's as close as you can get to separating materialist presuppositional faith from theological presuppositional faith! A presupposition that explanation for what is in strictly materialist terms is the ultimate description. The theological presupposition is that what is has a "why" - a cause and a purpose. So science and theology are not at odds and it is not an either/or scenario. Each answers different questions.

The conflation of the two questions is entirely feasible but the absolute opposition of them as alternative sole explanations is not.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The key difference between science and theology.

The assumption of meaning!

As opposed to the assumption of non-meaning?

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Coffehouse, Does the search for the TOE - Theory Of Everything - not count as a goal in science? Science does in fact have a goal and it is not merely the observation of everything, rather it is understanding the "how". It is not enough to merely describe and observe. Science strives to find the principles which underlie the phenomena - strictly in a materialist sense, of course.

And please explain what you mean by evolution being blind but not random.

I'll gladly explain this for you!

While the Theory of Everything is an ambitions way of saying we want to connect all the different spheres of science together to form one unified, coherent picture, albeit somehwat obscurely defined, there is no goal to reach a certain conclusion. The goal is to connect everything, not to define what that final picture looks like. Which is an important difference.

Evolution is blind. It does not pursue a goal. The fact that human beings are as we are and do as we do is not a goal, and has never been. We haven't f.ex. arrived at a specific point in time as a final epic stage/culmination of evolution. Thus, no goal.
But it's not entirely random either, because we have arrived where we are by natural selection, and there are branches of our roots which have died off in competition with us. The Neanderthals is the best example of this. There wasn't a goal in evolution that led to us being where we are today, but the circumstances having been what they have been in different periods of time, we came through and the Neanderthals didn't. Not random, but not destined either.

[katya]

Originally Posted by inked

Coffehouse, Does the search for the TOE - Theory Of Everything - not count as a goal in science?

That's not a goal of science, it's a goal of scientists.

[inked]

Coffeehouse, "The goal is to connect everything, not to define what that final picture looks like."

The goal is...certainly seems like you are defining the goal of science. But maybe I mistake you actually using the words you mean?

"We haven't f.ex. arrived at a specific point in time as a final epic stage/culmination of evolution. Thus, no goal."

Umm, that would be no arrival at "a final epic stage/culmination of evolution" which is not the same as no goal. The first is a process, second an end.

katya,

A person employing science is a scientist. The scientific method is a paradigm used to make and collate observations into _______ ? The TOE is convenient shorthand for _________ which is the goal of science.

The person who does repetitive observations and records the data without attempting to understand them is called the technician, not the scientist.

[katya]

Regardless, Inked, the point is that evolution does not have a goal. The natural order of the universe does not have a goal. Part of the practice of science is finding "whys" and so on, but that science is created by humans. The underlying order (or disorder) of the universe is not, and it is also different from the scientific method. So saying that men try to find the TOE and equating that with Nature having a goal doesn't make much sense to me. Science as a discipline has a goal but the things scientists study do not.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Coffeehouse, "The goal is to connect everything, not to define what that final picture looks like."

The goal is...certainly seems like you are defining the goal of science. But maybe I mistake you actually using the words you mean?

"We haven't f.ex. arrived at a specific point in time as a final epic stage/culmination of evolution. Thus, no goal."

Umm, that would be no arrival at "a final epic stage/culmination of evolution" which is not the same as no goal. The first is a process, second an end.

I will gladly rephrase myself!

What scientists try to do is first and foremost understand what and how things work. In relation to the Theory of Everything, this is a grand, ambitious idea to connect all that we know and want to know about the universe, its origins, its nature and its forces in such a way that complements what we know about our own reality here on Earth. Thus, a theory that can explain everything. Really, it is more of the mathematicians and physicists wettest dream than anything else, and to be sure we may never get there.

What you're doing, it seems to be though, is mixing up this interest in obtaining an evermore encompassing theory (as some sort of goal) with a supposed inherent goal in science. While really the only goal in science is to know more, needless to say.

What Katya eloquently explains, and I agree with her 100%, is that evolution, and Nature at that, does not have a goal. It does not strive to reach an end. It is blind. What that means for science is that science itself can not have a goal, or let me say agenda, to confirm a specific worldview or idea. Any scientist that tries to do this is basically kicking science in the shin and doing non-science. Science, in its purest form, is only seeking knowledge to understand what and how. It isn't setting a specific goal and trying to figure out how to get there, because that would violate the most basic, unbiased conduct that science requires. A scientist must keep an open mind and as is the case for the very same scientists that have been dreaming of a Theory of Everything, they too acknowledge that the theories that are currently closest to (they think) solving the riddle of the physics of the Big Bang (String Theory), could be a dead end, and that they could simply be wrong.
One could say this: As human beings, scientists like anyone else have a goal to understand the ultimate origin of the universe. Yet although it can be said that in science the goal is to understand as much as possible, and thus the origin of the universe, one can not say that there is a goal that can be reached which is pre-defined or such that after that there is nothing more to explore. Science thus really only has one goal, to understand more, which really isn't the sort of goal that has been discussed in this thread, which comes back to your own post:

Inked:"Evolution is blind and has no goal? Is that a new concept?"
and
Inked:"And what of all these teleological arguments for evolution producing the fittest if it has no goal?
I smell an inconsistency"

So conclusively: Evolution is blind. It has no goal. Is it a new concept? No, Charles S. Peirce, one of Americas greatest thinkers (19th century to early 20th) acknowledged this.

The survival of the fittest versus a blind evolution is not inconsistent though. While evolution is blind, essentially having no goal whatsoever, the process which it is, development from singularity to variety, from simplicity to complexity, one species to many, one cell to many, is not entirely random. It is adaptation, providing development by way of the fittest. Yet although the crocodile has existed for millions of years (going back to the dinosaurs) and has proved a remarkably adaptive creature, fit to survive great climatic variations on our planet, there is no evolutionary goal of the crocodile. It can live for yet another hundred millions years, or it can become extinct, which would mean that it has seized to be effectively adaptive, seizing to be the fittest to survive, and that is the harsh reality of evolution for all species, human beings included.

[inked]

Coffehouse,

"Science, in its purest form, is only seeking knowledge to understand what and how."

That, my friend, is a goal.

Goal: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goal

1. the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end.

Synonyms 1. target; purpose, object, objective, intent, intention. 2. finish.

1. The purpose toward which an endeavor is directed; an objective.

1. the state of affairs that a plan is intended to achieve and that (when achieved) terminates behavior intended to achieve it

2. The final purpose or aim; the end to which a design tends, or which a person aims to reach or attain.


You seem to have confused "specific answer" or "predetermined answer" with goal (op cit).

******************************************

So the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a mere teleological anthropomorphism? In which case, randomness which eventuates in survival is the end result of material processes only. So is there an inconsistency in your understanding of "survival of the fittest"? It seems it is merely a mode of saying that which survives is best and what is best is what survives, which seems circular. And, since all is the product of randomness, why should I accept your randomness rather than my own?