philosophy

Originally Posted by business_kid @ enorbet: I fail to see the non sequitur

Well of course non sequitur loosely translates into "doesn't follow" and since we have zero evidence that stars for example were created by design rather than the more simple conclusion of a sequence of known natural events given chance and eons of time, there is zero backing that anything outside our own creations require design. Granted, it is at least a possibility that the hot, dense energy that would expand and cool giving rise to light and hydrogen atoms that would evolve over billions of years into the Universe that includes we humans today was created by design but there is no evidence of that.

Originally Posted by business_kid [*]In looking up and perceiving order and design which has resisted entropy to date, implying design.

Allow me to suggest that your understanding of entropy is superficial as it more commonly than not is among non scientists. More importantly once again this is a Deus Ex Machina, the "I can't explain it, therefore God" argument which is fallacious. Entropy, resistance to entropy, or even non existence of entropy has no connection with design any more than any other natural event or process.

Order certainly exists modified with some amount of Chaos but that can most easily be explained by the Laws of Physics no supernatural cause required. Therefore there is no hard requirement for some Designer, even less for one existing outside SpaceTime.

Originally Posted by business_kid [*]Concluding that Design requires a designer.

Yes but one has to gain high probability based on evidence that Design exists before we can speculate on any Designer. Even if we were to somehow gain evidence of Design that would not identify the Designer, especially a supernatural Designer. It is speculation at best to assume anyone anywhere can come to a valid, even barely likely, conclusion of whom or what that Designer might be. It's a no brainer bet that it wouldn't be anyone or anything described by human mythology.

Originally Posted by business_kid It is the reaction of a Spiritual person, shared by countless generations before us. Can you point me at any little tribe anywhere that were without their God?

You likely disagree with me but I consider every human a spiritual person if only because we have barely a clue as to what Consciousness is and why when we wake up each morning from a state of unconsciousness, we are instantly back in place with all continuity in effect. I don't know for a fact but I along with you doubt any tribe has existed without the majority having some "God". It seems part of the Human Condition to seek meaning and understanding not to mention distraction from knowing fairly early in our lives that we will eventually cease to exist. It begins very early in very young children along with "Why is the sky blue?" and "Why am I sick, Mommy?".

Before we knew about the composition of our atmosphere and before we realized sickness is caused by microorganisms and often affected by genetics, all those ancient "Mommies and Daddys" had answers that were accepted as fact by those in their care. They were just wrong and thousands of years later, now, we are just less wrong. Progress exists and mostly due to Science.

So I could turn the tables and ask you which of the many thousands of gods healed the most sick? and how does that stack up against progress in medical science? Popularity is not an indication of Truth. A Pattern of Results is.

Incidentally since Philosophy contains far more than just Spirituality or Religion, I have only responded here because you brought the subject in. I am an advocate of Private Spirituality but I'm OK with engaging in this subset of Philosophy involving Organized Dogma but it is probably better suited in the Faith an Religion Mega Thread, right?

However, it may well be said that both such positions require "a great deal of fath." Albeit not in the same thing.

These are what I refer to as: "the Great Kahuna Questions.™" We all desperately want to know, but we can't. We look up (for example) at the night sky and we simply don't "understand." Furthermore, there is no "objective evidence" available. There is also no "better point-of-view" that we can obtain. (Yet!!) The whole matter is truly: "incomprehensible."

And – "philosophy" just won't fix it.

Unfortunately for Dr. Carl Sagan (RIP), "billions and billions" is just hand-waving. "You're also looking for 'a miracle,' just from a different source." As though, "somehow in the passage of an unfathomable amount of time, the more the better," order would somehow materialize out of chaos. This is not really "philosophy." This is just pure speculation – uttered using "scientific" words.

Sundialsvcs, I truly don't grasp why you hang on to your disdain for large numbers. This is especially confusing to me since I think you are aware that as we look through telescopes we not only see great distance but also back in time because of the finite speed of light and the time it takes to get to our little planet. The point is that while large numbers are not at all intuitive, they are measurable and we can see a clear path of the evolution of our Universe going back well over 13 Billion years. That number has been measurably increased and improved in the last decade due to new telescopes like James Webb.

Some people have jumped on the fact that much of what we thought we knew about very early evolution of galaxies turned out to be flawed as some sort of downfall of Cosmology specifically and Science in general when the opposite is so importantly true. Science is self-correcting which is a massive advantage over locked in dogma, myth and fantasy. In fact, in this way James Webb has vastly exceeded expectations. We learn nothing new if all we learn is we were right all along. Mistakes are essential to growth.

Similarly the other foundational pillar of modern science, also just from one invention, lenses, in this case of microscopes have massively added to real discovery on energetic and atomic levels. The only area that seriously taxes our measurement and documentation of the workings and evolutionary consistency of our Universe, is at and near Plank Levels, namely the true nature at the smallest levels, Quantum Mechanics. This is mainly because intuition doesn't apply at all since we have no experiences at that level in our daily lives, at the very least as of yet.

So whether we talk of Billions (and much much larger numbers) or Billionths (and much much smaller numbers) these are tools and they are consistent through a vast amount of our observable Universe. There is a huge difference between Hypothesis, Theory (and here I mean Scientific Theory not the colloquial kind) and mere speculation. It doesn't matter much what words, scientific or otherwise, we use. In any language order out of chaos is real and the passage of time is by no means just a guess or some sort of "shell game".

I'm actually sorry to have to point out to you the danger in Dunning-Kruger since you clearly have but a rudimentary, and highly biased view of modern Science. Here I'd like to bring up the recent experiment to film a non-stop 25 hour view of our Sun from the South Pole to once and for all have undeniable proof our planet is not flat but essentially a globe. As soon as the film results were released, the hardcore Flat Earthers began bending over backwards to deny the validity of the film, saying it had "obviously" been filmed in a green screen studio, not in Antarctica since people's breath wasn't visible (sound familiar from Apollo Moon landing deniers) like it commonly is in moist of the habitable cold parts of the world.

They see this as disproof because they haven't a clue as to why and how our breath in cold weather can become visible. It depends totally on humidity and light angles. Not only are there many hours of scientific, military and casual film in Antarctica but under similar conditions all over the world where breath is invisible until sufficient humidity is in play and the light is at the right angle. In fact it can easily be demonstrated that if one is in a cold humid environment and the light source is moved or heavily reflected from many angles, breath visibility will cycle, going from invisible to visible. In Antarctica with no trees and ice on every surface lighting is diffuse and powerful due to very strong albedo.

This is a ridiculous attempt to discredit actual scientific inquiry that these idiots think is a valid disproof simply because they haven't a clue about the real nature of light, just like those Moon Landing Deniers noting the stars were not visible in Moon photos and video. It is pure ignorance and pitbull dogmatic hanging onto cherished beliefs despite clear evidence to the contrary. It's not speculation or even philosophy that the Earth is essentially a globe roughly 4.6 billion years old. It is measured fact. It is an approximation. No self respecting scientist would venture to describe even what exact year, month or day it was (firstly there wasn't a distinct "birthday" as Earth evolved likely from an accretion disk over time and is still evolving) but on such a large scale, 0.1 Billion years is still just a mere 10% error, not too shabby for reading rocks and other solar systems so far away in either Space or Time..

(We are now straying away from the OP of "philosophy.")

Scientific inquiry is one thing. But, scientific certainty often cannot be obtained. I have no doubt that the scientists who are studying the heavens are utterly sincere in their effort. But, there simply comes a time when we can no longer say that "we 'know.'" All that we can do is to "explore." And, maybe, to "wonder."

For example: from the observation (by Doppler shifts, etcetera) that distant bodies appear to us to be "retreating," an entire "Big Bang Theory" has emerged. It's not just a television show – it's actually called a "theory." And, while I acknowledge the earnest desire of man to "know," there comes a point when I choose to walk away from this philosophical discussion. To me, it simply becomes: "a bridge too far."

I can understand your hesitancy, sundialsvcs. Because in an area that enorbet is familiar with, Electronics, I have been involved in specifying performance and writing specifications. I well know the chain of assumptions or measurements behind each and every figure. An obvious example is calculating tiny transistor base currents. The formula Ib = Ic/hfe can be used. But hfe is little better than a random vgariable. I have seen others announce some valued specification triumphantly, and then have to row back, or add so many caveats as to make it useless. This was for parts or assemblies there, on my workbench. The most common electronic specification for falsehoods was the military temperature range of -55 to +125°C. At 125°C, the danger of thermal runaway would shut down most devices. Specifically, operating a CPU at 125°C is stretching the imagination. I can understand your hesitancy about things at astronomical distances.

Given that early belief in God was Universal, my mind turned to where the idea came from. In the 'Adam & Eve' scenario, God introduced himself, so that's clear. In other scenarios, how early man concluded that there had to be personal unseen force(s) living in unseen places desiring to have a relationship with us is interesting. It's difficult to resolve without asserting what early man was thinking, and none of us are experts in that. But the logic of a first cause must have seemed sound.

This thread might be best served by a brief detour into metaphysics, to decide questions worth pondering on. Incidentally, I share the view that science has no place in a philosophical discussion. As science involves supposedly "proven" and "known" data, by definition it is excluded from philosophical discussion involving essentially unproven and unknown subjects.

As you are aware, I have my own take on those matters but I didn't post here to air that.

"Well allow me to retort!" - Jules (Pulp Fiction)

It seems to me that when discussing terms Job #1 is to define the terms. I submit that in the context of life on Earth pre 1600 (before the invention of telescope and microscope) it was possible to argue that religion was also a part of philosopy because we knew almost nothing of our Universe. It might be technically valid to extend that time to roughly pre 1929 when telescopes became powerful enough for Edwin Hubble to discover the evidence that our Milky Way Galaxy was not the entire Universe adding yet more confirmation that Big Bang is most likely a real event.

I suppose for the most skeptical of the vast array of other evidence we could technically extend this to 1948 when Georges Lemaitre's "Cosmic Egg" theory which included the speculation that it might be possible to verify the event that Fred Hoyle derisively coined the "Big Bang" term, by seeking the still expanding and cooling radiation from that event was finally discovered and verified. We literally now have photos of the event, photos that have been made with increasing resolution since 1948. I have to ask have you ever seen a photo of God?...any God?... yet you apparently believe that is true, right? Somehow that balance sheet seems off to me, which is why I contend that Religion no longer qualifies as Philosophy just as Unicorns don't.

It is worthy of note and in the interest of scientific skepticism to point out that even that did not sway Fred Hoyle and ironically enough because he was so committed to avoiding even the idea of any manner of Beginning since that would only fuel religious denial of Science. It didn't go at all unnoticed (nor un-reviled) by Hoyle that Lemaitre was a scientist working for the Vatican.

This timeline should demonstrate how Science is defined. Science doesn't claim Ultimate Truth, only overwhelming probability. Only Mathematics can claim "proof" since it is abstract and not subject to change. The number One will still be equal to One, and only One, even if at some time no consciousness exists to be aware of it. Mathematics is abstract, purely conceptual.

Sundialsvcs, is it your position that "1" does not equal "1" or sometimes can equal some other number? In short, is Math accurate and reliable? This is not trivial, obsequious, nor rhetorical since Mathematics is the language of Science. All it takes is for observed measurements to not coincide for extreme scrutiny to come to bear on any scientific hypothesis or theory just as routine and mundane as any accountant tasked with balancing books.

Simply put there is utterly massive evidence for our Expanding Universe, and zero evidence against it, even including a recent upsurge in MOND consideration largely due to recent James Webb Telescopic discoveries. Fred Hoyle remains a highly respected scientist because his proposal that heavier elements are created by NucleoSynthesis in stars has borne up under similar scrutiny so you are in good company for doubting Expansion in favor of Steady State, but it should be added that while NucleoSynthesis is indeed rightly considered BreqakThrough Science, Fred Hoyle, is also recognized as Human so being right once, even on a very big deal, does not imply he is right on everything especially when and where the balance sheet shows "cooked books".

I assume we can all agree that "I think, therefore I am" qualifies as serious Philosophy and it should be until and unless the time comes, if it can ever, that this is contradicted by evidence. I accept it can be taxing that what we label Truth is not necessarily constant forever and everywhere and that the best we can do is "play the odds" but welcome to the Real World. It seems to me the trick is to look sideways at 50/50 and under, but commit to 99.99%.

Incidentally, modern science doesn't consider 99.99% compelling. We need many more decimal places to even reach 5 Sigma.

I have no further comment to make.

Originally Posted by enorbet Fred Hoyle remains a highly respected scientist because his proposal that heavier elements are created by NucleoSynthesis in stars has borne up under similar scrutiny so you are in good company for doubting Expansion in favor of Steady State, but it should be added that while NucleoSynthesis is indeed rightly considered BreakThrough Science, Fred Hoyle is also recognized as Human so being right once, even on a very big deal, does not imply he is right on everything especially when and where the balance sheet shows "cooked books".

He certainly was not right about archaeopteryx. He seemed to think that there was only one archaeopteryx fossil, the one in the Natural History Museum in London, and claimed that it was an obvious forgery. Actually there are about seven including one that had been misfiled as a compsognathus. I see this as an excellent illustration of the principle that the cobbler should stick to his last. Just because someone is a great scientist, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is right about anything outside of his specialised sphere of knowledge.

Just FTR my point was simply let's stick to Philosophy to remain On Topic in a thread literally titled so. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin is not philosophy. It is fanciful speculation at best.

That said, I'd like to thank business_kid for a far more reasonable and informative reply in post #36. The only diversion off the path of Logic I see is conflating the limits in operating temperatures of hardware with limits anytime anywhere in the Universe. True everyone here likely has experience with 0C (Water freeze point) and 100C (Boiling point) so that is rather built in to our intuition. Unless you've worked with say Liquid Nitrogen it is probably less than intuitive to relate to nearly MINUS 200C.

Most have ovens so 400C isn't outside most people's experience but millions of degrees C is nowhere near intuitive, yet it clearly exists as does Absolute Zero and the crowning proof that those numbers represent real environments or events is they are at both extremes rather routinely created in Industry and Science Labs right here on Earth.

Originally Posted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you

I have no further comment to make, to let you folks get the noise level down.

Noise, business_kid? I don't think it's noise to discuss keeping to the subject of threads. In my view if the thread line is asking about the construction of log cabins it is OT to bring up fairy castles. Now ultimately that choice is up to OP, ape_din, and my posts are just one man's opinion. You had every right also in my view to "test the waters" with yours but I don't see how it qualifies as noise if someone contests yours OR mine. Isn't that what conversation and debate are?

This forum is famous on the Internet for its debate. May it always continue. (P.S.: What happened to the now-lonely "Faith and Religion Mega-Thread?")

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs What happened to the now-lonely "Faith and Religion Mega-Thread?")

People got tired of the fact that it just went round and round, with the same arguments constantly being repeated on both sides and no one being convinced by them except those who were already convinced. I don't remember anyone changing their opinion about religion as a result of anything posted in that thread. So in the end everyone lost interest.

Sorry to hear that. Hope it comes back. It had become legendary ...

+1 Hazel.