"A question to discuss..." Topic

(What caused the Necessary Cause? How many iterations back do you go?)

That "turtles all the way down" idea was never part of the Necessary Cause.

The Necessary Cause cannot be caused. When cosmologists offer the hypothesis that the universe has always existed; that matter was never caused; they are asserting a version of the Necessary Cause. All that remains is to articulate an explanation of what concept is held. A godless humanist will be satisfied with a mindless NC, attributing to homo sapiens traits that they assert the NC does not have (which, as you already know, is my favorite example of an ex nihilo). A religious-minded person will see their NC as "God". That, as far as I can tell, is the only difference between the two: one holds existence-uncaused as a humanist concept, without mind, morals or even the first degree of awareness: the other holds the NC to be in possession of all power, which logically must include awareness. And, being infinite (as only uncaused existence can be), it follows that infinite awareness and power combined MUST be defined as "God".

"Ever" or never, are both a long time. So asserting that you'll never, ever change your mind, or have it changed for you, is a mark of something less than open-mindedness….

In the case of a concept like an "aware" Necessary Cause, "not ever" and "never" definitely work for me. Barring actually traveling back in time to the Beginning, whenever and whatever and if-ever that was, I'll never accept it. There's more evidence for Bigfoot than there is for an "aware" Necessary Cause, and I don't accept the existence of Bigfoot, either.

As for open-mindedness, I'm very open-minded, just not to the degree that I end up empty-headed.

So you're not empty-headed, but the Cause of Existence in the first place is? So you all by your teensy self are smarter than the whole universe? That's not only close-minded, it's hubris on a cosmic scale!…

Just to get this straight Daffy, jpattern2 admitting he does not know the cause of everything is hubris, but you assuming you do is not hubris? Hmmm.

Yes, and I am sure that your belief that you have discovered the secrets of the Universe by lying in bed and listening to voices in your head in no way displays hubris. Nope. Uh-uh. No literally cosmically-scaled megalomania going on there!

Actually, and I am sure by coincidence, this does go to the original topic of this thread: is there any way to be sure about stuff apart from via the scientific method?

You have demonstrated there is. You can just make stuff up, and be so convinced it is true that – in your mind – it assumes the status of fact and then even get upset when other people don't buy your beliefs.

But this in turn demonstrates the merit of the scientific method: namely it can prove or disprove what is true or false to OTHER PEOPLE. Not just to the opinion-holder.

You have your truth: necessary cause. And you choose to simply declare without any proof that the necessary cause is uncaused.

TJ has his truth; the literal interpretation of the bits of the Bible that he chooses to believe are literal truth.

His truth and yours are the same thing: subjective opinion. I know they are real to you. As real as some people's belief in reincarnation, and others' certainty that the Gods were astronauts, and as real as others' belief in forest spirits.

And there are 6 billion plus other similar 'truths' too. All as good or bad as each other in the absence of proof.

Which brings us to where the scientific method shines; it can demonstrate truth objectively to anyone with a mind open to persuasion by facts. If new facts are discovered, or a better interpretation is suggested, it can correct and improve itself. There is no scope to do that with blind belief.

Hence we talk about scientific progress but not so much religious progress. In fact most religions harken back to a golden age from which we have fallen – again without objective proof.

Being 'open-minded' is not accepting the assurances of every passing self-satisfied ignoramus without evidence. That way would lead to believing everything – including a lot of mutually exclusive stuff.

Being open-minded is being open to evidence.

If you would care to present some, I am sure jpattern2 – like myself – would consider it carefuly. Instead I am sure you will just bang on and on and on about NC and that you are right because you are right.

I am sure you and TJ won't understand how your opinions differ from fact, but fortunately, enough people do to allow human progress.

A little (de)motivational something for jpattern2:

link

Well said, Whatisitgood4atwork.

Just to get this straight Daffy, jpattern2 admitting he does not know the cause of everything is hubris, but you assuming you do is not hubris?

Jpattern2 seems to be denying that existence in the first place must be caused, or BE the Cause somehow. I KNOW that Existence must be caused, or BE the Cause. That's all I know. That's hardly an assumption; it's a requirment. Science demands it.

Yes, and I am sure that your belief that you have discovered the secrets of the Universe by lying in bed and listening to voices in your head in no way displays hubris. Nope. Uh-uh. No literally cosmically-scaled megalomania going on there!

"Voices in my head"? Really? I will have to "listen" better.

Actually, and I am sure by coincidence, this does go to the original topic of this thread: is there any way to be sure about stuff apart from via the scientific method?

Not even that makes us "sure" about anything. But Existence is inarguable. It must be explained.

You have demonstrated there is. You can just make stuff up, and be so convinced it is true that – in your mind – it assumes the status of fact and then even get upset when other people don't buy your beliefs.

Actually, the scientific method is devised by we homo sapiens. It is an outgrowth of our intrinsic (almost biologically mandated) need to know things. Religion never satisfied the thinking mind: religious dogma always asserted that "God" had revealed his will and knowledge to oracular authorities; so just trust them instead of doing your own (dangerous) thinking. But that never did fly with thinkers. The first objection is that "God" made us thinkers, so why limit our thinking at all? And especially, why put limits on my thinking, while listening to the opinions of others like myself? Science demands that each person engaged in learning do his own thinking, and show evidence for everything that s/he believes is truth. Back it up with evidence, and facts if you have them.

The only facts we have, will ever have, are reproduceable results time and again: nothing is ever proven – as I have been told many times on this forum alone: you can only show evidence and replication to demonstrate the truth claims are founded in reliable observation of cause and effect.

Existence is inarguable. There must be a cause for it. I believe that a Necessary Cause Is that explanation. But I do not for one moment assert that I know what that Necessary Cause Is.

You have your truth: necessary cause. And you choose to simply declare without any proof that the necessary cause is uncaused.

It Is uncaused. If something is caused in any way, it is not a necessary cause.

Which brings us to where the scientific method shines; it can demonstrate truth objectively to anyone with a mind open to persuasion by facts. If new facts are discovered, or a better interpretation is suggested, it can correct and improve itself. There is no scope to do that with blind belief.

There is nothing blind about accepting existence as real and infinite and uncaused. Existence requires explanation. The only one that I can entertain continually is, that Existence is uncaused. Everything we observe is Uncaused Existence manifesting. That is a good scientific hypothesis….

Btw, my oldest daughter has just started grad school. Her latest email to me addresses the limitations on the scientific method, and plays into objections I and a few others have raised on this forum. She said:

"It's amazing how much information has been gathered about biology. But research is far from perfect, and what we "know" is really just what we "think [we] know" (of course you know which movie that is from…). The ultimate goal for me is to continuously make objective observations and keep an open mind throughout my career. Long-standing theories and beliefs about science have been challenged and reformed throughout the ages, and will continue to be as we continue to discover the world. What is sad about research is that it is so competitive and political these days. People who have found their niche often get so set on one theory or relationship that they may defend it tenaciously in the face of countering evidence because their livelihood depends on their line of investigation and they cannot afford the time and uncertainty of taking their work in a different direction… If that makes sense."

Thank you Bowman. You summed up Daffy's 'argument' better than I did, and much more concisely.

Jpattern2 seems to be denying that existence in the first place must be caused, or BE the Cause somehow. I KNOW that Existence must be caused, or BE the Cause. That's all I know. That's hardly an assumption; it's a requirment. Science demands it.

Science demands nothing of the sort.

You "KNOW" existence must be caused, do you? Actually you "ASSUME" it does because, in the macroscopic world that we experience directly, it seems to follow a cause-effect relationship. The same way that I "KNOW" Euclidian geometry and Newtonian mechanics make sense in the world that I perceive.

Unfortunately that is a side effect of natural selection. There is no evolutionary benefit to understanding quantum mechanics or dimensions greater than three. Therefore, we needed to discover non Euclidean geometry and Quantum mechanics to adequately describe the infinitesimally small and the infinitely large. Hate to break it to you but there is no cause and effect relationship in the quantum world. Cause is never necessary for every observation.

Therefore, you do NOT know that existence has a cause, as all existence started in a quantum state. You just assume it does because that is your (and our) experience so far.

As for your daughters quote, I'd be hard pressed to think she is doing Grad School in any field of science.

The ultimate goal for me is to continuously make objective observations and keep an open mind throughout my career.

Excellent and good for her!

Long-standing theories and beliefs about science have been challenged and reformed throughout the ages,……

The concept of a scientific theory as it is understood today comes from the mid 19th century. So while "beliefs" about science may be long standing, theories are not. And therefore, they have not been challenged "throughout the ages". Tell her to cut back on the hyperbole.

What is sad about research is that it is so competitive and political these days. People who have found their niche often get so set on one theory or relationship that they may defend it tenaciously in the face of countering evidence because their livelihood depends on their line of investigation and they cannot afford the time and uncertainty of taking their work in a different direction.

I cry BS!

No one, involved in research, can protect their livelihood by holding on to outdated and wrongly proven ideas. It doesn't work that way. Holding on to and defending a disproven concept does not help in your research grant requests. In fact, having stupid, indefensible ideas hurts your ability to attract research money. I'll give her an example. Does she think that Dr. Michael Behe actually gets more money for his universally derided "Irrefutable complexity" theory? No, it kills his research grant money to the point he gets funded by the Discovery Institute. And that is specifically to champion his dumb idea. The same thing your daughter complains about. And that is BAD science.

Secondly, competition is good. That is why a scientifically mediocre country like the US does the most groundbreaking research and wins the majority of Nobel prizes.

If she actually, truly believes what you have written above, then could she provide some specific examples that support her view?

I'll second everything that Bowman and whatisitgood4atwork posted. Ultimately, the Necessary Cause is an interesting philosophical exercise, but it is *not* a scientific theory. And the scientific method is (primarily) what's being discussed in this topic.

People who have found their niche often get so set on one theory or relationship that they may defend it tenaciously in the face of countering evidence because their livelihood depends on their line of investigation and they cannot afford the time and uncertainty of taking their work in a different direction.

I see the above argument time and again from people on the fringes. NOT from people with valid competing ideas, mind you, but from people who are so far outside the mainstream that, in order to seem relevant, they HAVE to belittle the very process by which scientific consensus is reached.

Were the dinosaurs hot-blooded or cold-blooded, or were there some of each? There are valid scientific arguments on both sides. Were some or all feathered? More valid arguments. What ultimately wiped them out? More valid arguments. Did they coexist with humans 6,000 years ago? "The mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals refuse to publish my evidence! It's a conspiracy driven by hide-bound orthodoxy and blind competition for the limited grant money available!"

I'm NOT saying that no one on the fringe will ever be proven right. (There's my open-mindedness coming into play.) Hey, someone might drag a Sasquatch carcass into Crescent City, California one fine day. (Well, not fine for the Sasquatch.)

I AM saying that most of the fringers spend more time complaining about how they're ignored or actively silenced by the mainstream than they do providing valid, peer-reviewed evidence for their theories.

Putting it another way, here is an excellent passage from Tuomas Manninen's review of Steve Fuller's recent book "Science": link

[S]cience already has a method in place for accommodating – and accepting – revolutionary ideas and hypotheses. Each of the revolutionary ideas has to run a gauntlet of criticism and scrutiny – the same gauntlet as all other successful scientific hypotheses have. If some ideas – such as Fuller's seeming preference, the Intelligent Design "theory" – fail to do this, it may be more revealing about the shortcomings of those ideas, rather than of any inherent bias in the scientific approach.

…all existence started in a quantum state…

You KNOW this, obviously. And taking this "quantum state" as an empirical fact (instead of mathematical theory), what accounts for its existence?

As for your daughters quote, I'd be hard pressed to think she is doing Grad School in any field of science.

Med school, two years, now grad school doing research on rats (all day, every day), two years (projected), then finish up with two more years in med school.

I take it that her observation is derived from empirical experience, as well as observation in the published literature. But I don't know. She isn't one to mindlessly blurt stock assertions of others, not even those of her dad.

I cry BS!

Then you proceed to assume she said what she did not in fact say.

She did not talk about "outdated and wrongly proven ideas". She was talking directly about scientists who "get so set on one theory or relationship that they may defend it tenaciously in the face of countering evidence". Countering evidence does not result in overturned, discredited, "outdated and wrongly proven ideas", until it is a fact. That takes time and infighting. She was observing that lack of time and opportunity (locked into a field) causes this, as well as political demands on the research(ers). Even I, a mere observer from amongst the uneducated masses, can see this is a problematic fact (look at the politicisation of climate change).

Secondly, competition is good.

She said, "What is sad about research is that it is so competitive and political". Do try harder to accurately read what is meant. (Unless creating arguments with your straw men is your intent, which this latest cry of "BS!" looks suspiciously like….)

Ultimately, the Necessary Cause is an interesting philosophical exercise, but it is *not* a scientific theory.

We cannot know what is going to be "ultimately" a fact. We do not read the future. And your assertion that the Necessary Cause is "ultimately philosophical" and no part of science cannot be proven. It certainly is not true right now, and "ultimately" is outside of anyone's purview.

But what I find interesting here is the implication in what you say, that a thing can not be scientifically approached. Philosophy is not outside the purview of science. If science is the study of all perceivable things, then absolutely the theory of the Necessary Cause remains within the scope of science. As I have expressed the Necessary Cause as "Existence in the first place", and said also that "Existence is not caused" (making Existence the Necessary Cause), your objection that the NC is "ultimately philosophical and not science" is merely denial and not shown to be a fact. Proposing that the NC Is uncaused Existence is a scientific proposition. I am sure that mathematical "language" can be applied to show it; every bit as much as mathematical language has already been developed to show the idea of the quantum state.

I AM saying that most of the fringers spend more time complaining about how they're ignored or actively silenced by the mainstream than they do providing valid, peer-reviewed evidence for their theories.

As I clarified already, my daughter is not studying "on the fringe" of anything….

<We cannot know what is going to be "ultimately" a fact. >

Quite right. But NC certainly is not one NOW, and your speculation about how it MAY be one in the future is just that … speculation. No better or worse than any other bit of speculation. Claiming it is science NOW is bogus. Now it is philosophy. At best.

Bowman,
I am not sure you are correct about cause and effect not holding in the quantum world. I will read a bit more before replying though. If you have any good links which will help illuminate me, please post them.
Thanks.

@ Doug

You KNOW this, obviously. And taking this "quantum state" as an empirical fact (instead of mathematical theory), what accounts for its existence?

I may not "KNOW" this but cosmologists and astronomers do and I was taught Physics at the University level. Quantum deals with the behaviour of atoms and sub-atomic particles. What was expanding at the beginning of the Big Bang was a super heated, super dense plasma of quarks, gluons and their anti-matter cousins. Baryons didn't exist this early in the birth of the Universe, so there were no electrons protons and neutrons, hence no atoms or elements. Therefore, the Big Band started in a quantum state.

That is not an "empirical fact". Science doesn't deal with that. It is currently the prevailing theory.

Med school, two years, now grad school doing research on rats (all day, every day), two years (projected), then finish up with two more years in med school.

As I thought. While her studies are commendable she is just now starting her "research" experience. I'm wondering if in 2 years she would still agree with her remarks.

Conversely, before I started Grad school I completed an undergrad B.Sc in Biology. At our University (McMaster) we were required to do research studies as undergrads. Our thesis (there were about 7 of us) actually stumbled upon original findings never published before (different species of spinach chloroplast DNA were bundled in one of two different densities).

Ok, it's not a cure for cancer or any cool medical advancement. Let's leave that to your daughter. By the way does that mean she completes a M.Sc along with her MD? Good for her in any respect!

As for the rest of my comments, I won't go into them as I don't want to escalate any misunderstanding. I disagree with her statement:

….People who have found their niche often get so set on one theory or relationship that they may defend it tenaciously in the face of countering evidence because their livelihood depends on their line of investigation and they cannot afford the time and uncertainty of taking their work in a different direction…..

Again, lets wait and see if 2 years changes anything. If the countering evidence has merit then it doesn't matter if the people defend their ideas or adapt to them. Science marches on regardless the action of any single person.

She said, "What is sad about research is that it is so competitive and political". Do try harder to accurately read what is meant. (Unless creating arguments with your straw men is your intent, which this latest cry of "BS!" looks suspiciously like….)

Doug, my reading seems to be quite accurate. Your daughter wrote:

What is sad about research is that it is so competitive and political…

I totally agree with her second part and totally disagree with the part that I made the comments on. As I said, my reading comprehension works fine, how about yours?

Doug, since I can't PM you, I'll ask about Rocky here, if that is OK. I hope he is doing well and recovering. Tell him to get better soon and come on the board. Have him save me from putting my foot in my mouth!

@Whatisitgood4atwork

Bowman,
I am not sure you are correct about cause and effect not holding in the quantum world. I will read a bit more before replying though.

Well it won't be the first time.

If you want to do some reading, I'd recommend "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. In it they say that the Universe was NOT caused, and needs no cause.

Or take Lawrence Krauss'"A Universe from Nothing". He's the guy who postulated "dark energy" to explain the Universe's increasing velocity of expansion. (I think some dudes just won the Nobel Prize for this).

Krauss is all over YouTube. Great teacher!

YouTube link

Doug, since I can't PM you, I'll ask about Rocky here

Check the TMP Talk thread. I updated it today.

Therefore, the Big Band started in a quantum state.

Now, that I can believe. The similarity between the cantina band and Benny Goodman was explained by Lucas as a cosmic phenomenon of some sort; sound waves carried between galaxies somehow.

Btw, I showed my daughter this thread, and she was amused that her comment was taken so "black and white".

You really do need to read for comprehension and not with argumentation in mind: "competitive and political" was, as I understood it myself, to be taken as a single criticism, not two. When scientific research is competetive AND political the trouble starts. She rightly observed that good research is only promoted when not focused on the outcome. Where have we heard that criticism before?

She also rightly objected to the assertion commonly repeated on this forum that scientific research is always self-correcting. In an ideal world that would be true. But being corrupted by human self-interest of all kinds, scientific research is imperfect as we are….

You really do need to read for comprehension and not with argumentation in mind: "competitive and political" was, as I understood it myself, to be taken as a single criticism, not two.

Clear proof that it's not me with the comprehension problems.

She also rightly objected to the assertion commonly repeated on this forum that scientific research is always self-correcting. In an ideal world that would be true. But being corrupted by human self-interest of all kinds, scientific research is imperfect as we are….

Sure. All errors eventually get found out. The scientific method is self correcting EXACTLY because humans are imperfect. No one said anything about "always" or "perfect", which is the province of religion, not science. Again, the scientific method is the best manner for describing the physical universe. If I can paraphrase Churchill, " The Scientific Method is the worst system we have………except for all the others".

Now, that I can believe. The similarity between the cantina band and Benny Goodman was explained by Lucas as a cosmic phenomenon of some sort; sound waves carried between galaxies somehow.

I can't disagree with you there. The I-pad spell checker is idiotic and clearly the Achilles heal (together with lack of Flash compatibility) of a great product. And, alas, Steve Jobs has finally passed away from his long fight with cancer. RIP

Check the TMP Talk thread. I updated it today.

Thanks for that, Doug.

If I can paraphrase Churchill, " The Scientific Method is the worst system we have………except for all the others".

That is a good paraphrase. But it doesn't help us RIGHT NOW. Eventually, after the damage, of politically motivated-corrupted competition between scientists, has been caused, the world of self-correcting science will expose the wrongs; and hopefully right will prevail. But will it undo the harm the politically-motivated science has caused?…

But will it undo the harm the politically-motivated science has caused?…

I suspect that the answer is, "Eventually, yes."

But maybe you're talking about something like anthropogenic climate change, and the idea that, by the time we come to a consensus, it might be too late to reverse the damage. If that's the case, remember that the vast majority of climate scientists, 97%+ in some polls, *have* come to a consensus, and are convinced by the data that global warming/climate change *is* primarily caused by humans. The only politics in that debate are occurring outside the scientific community, in the popular media and the political arena.

Or maybe you're on the other side of the issue, and you feel the 97%+ are just toeing the political line? It's hard to tell where you'd stand from your posts.

What specific areas of scientific endeavor do you have in mind? Specifics are easier to debate than generalities, in this case.

But it doesn't help us RIGHT NOW.

This sounds like you want scientists to be right, and choose right, the first time, every time, and that's just not going to happen.

Indeed. Scientists and science cannot be right first time, every time. If they were there would be no need for the scientific method.

Being absolutely right about stuff like how the Universe began without the tedious process of debate and finding supporting evidence is the sole preserve of founders of religions, and astoundingly ignorant cranks who mouth off on internet forums about what science demands without knowing the slightest thing about science.

Those folks have got a lock on 'right first time' .For examples, see earlier postings on this very thread.

The rest of us have to make do with the imperfect, sometimes faltering – yet remarkably steady – advance of science to enrich human knowledge.

<But it doesn't help us RIGHT NOW.>

How ironic.This just a few posts after you give your own unsupported woo-woo head speculations the full benefit of what might be:

<We cannot know what is going to be "ultimately" a fact. We do not read the future.>

You demand science be right NOW. First time.I would accuse you of double standards, but I suspect double would be a gross underestimation.

Here is what I personally suspect is the nutbag fringe's real objection to science. It does not offer the certainty of unsupported assertions. And when it actually contradicts those unsupported assertions, the nutbags get really upset.

We all desire certainty, but I for one prefer honest uncertainty and a 'we do not know (yet)' to all the assurances from those who humbly (always humbly) claim to have received their knowledge personally from the creator of the Universe. Yes, so very humble that assertion.

Honest uncertainty over dishonest certainty, I'll second that.

Well written, gentlemen. I think you both have developed an aphorism that I'll need to remember for future reference. Thanks.

I notice that scientism is alive and well.

By scientism I mean the ideology based on an anti-supernatural bias which presumes that human rationality and the empirical method of science are the only means for determining the truth about reality.

Put simply, believers in scientism deliberately fail to consider whether there are any other means for discovering truth. The presumptuous claim of believers in scientism is that human rationality and the empirical method of science are not just one means for discovering the truth, but rather they are the ONLY means for discovering the truth. This is clearly an ideological and philosophical opinion masquerading as "science".

It is important to note that science, unlike scientism, presents no threat whatsoever to religious belief. Science, by its nature, is an excellent tool for the investigation of the natural (physical, empirical) dimension of reality, and the empirical verification method when used correctly by science is an excellent method for determining truths about the physical world and the universe about us.

To state the obvious, advocates of scientism clearly advocate a purely naturalistic focus. By imposing such a restriction on science, scientism usurps true science and replaces it with an illicit ideology that seeks to restrict the explanation of ALL things to natural causes. Not only that, scientism also assumes, without proof, that the spiritual realm is not only irrelevant, but that the spiritual realm is indeed non-existent. Again, such unproven assumptions are soundly based on the mistaken belief that nothing exists unless it can be verified by science and the empirical method.

Obviously, scientism's exclusive emphasis on human rationality and empirical verification is not the proper means by which to evaluate that which is supernatural. One needs to recognise that it is not science and the empirical method that are at fault here, but rather, the fault lies with the inappropriate and overextended demand by scientism of the exclusive use of human rationality and empirical verification. It is this demand by scientism has caused much of the antagonism between religion and science.

Carl Sagan's infamous statement "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or will ever be" is a suitable mantra for believers in scientism. Of course, this statement is not a scientific conclusion by any means but merely Sagan's skeptical opinion. The same skeptical opinion is propagated, again without proof, by many other believers in scientism – Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, Francis Crick, Michael Martin, Paul Kurtz, Kai Nielsen, Anthony Flew, Jerry Coyne and the list goes on and on. Considering their musings, it's difficult not to deduce that the basic motivation of such believers in scientism is not to seek the full truth about reality, but rather it is to promote their anti-religious bias which clearly ignores and always defames anything spiritual or supernatural.

And we can find the same anti-religious bias in the Humanist Manifestos (1933, 1973 and 2000) of which many of the above is signatories. The manifestos extol the empirical test and human rationality as the all encompassing criteria for truth. The manifestos advocate a secular humanistic ideology, rejecting any and all religious beliefs in apparent ignorance or deliberate denial of both the limits of the empirical test and of human rationality. It is simply staggering how arrogant believers in scientism are in assigning to finite human minds the final authority for adjudicating all truths about reality.

It's a sad irony that the very test which supposedly determines all truths about reality, the verification test, is itself … unverifiable.

When one stops and thinks about it, the demand that ONLY science and the empirical test be the final arbitrator of all truth is a naive, circular argument which engages in an illicit question begging fallacy by assuming what needs to be proven. As we have seen in many postings, believers in scientism always answer a question like mine not on the basis of a conclusion from any convincing proof, but by simply asserting that truth is established ONLY by science and the empirical test.

By scientism I mean the ideology based on an anti-supernatural bias which presumes that human rationality and the empirical method of science are the only means for determining the truth about reality.

Why not the anti-Tooth Fairy bias? An anti-Santa Claus bias. This is not simple bias. If there is no shred of evidence for something, why should it be given equal credence?

Human rationality and the empirical method are NOT the ONLY means for determining truth about reality. No one ever said that. However, they are currently the best means for determining the nature of reality for someone, and can still be tested by someone else.

Do you have an alternative method that you wish to share with us?

It is this demand by scientism has caused much of the antagonism between religion and science.

What a brazen and glaring display of historical ignorance. Let me get this straight, followers of "scientism" burnt Bruno alive and placed Galileo under house arrest?

At one time, religion explained all materialist and physical phenomena. Religion explained the movement of the Sun, the activity of volcanoes, why different languages developed, the nature of storms, the coming of the locust plagues, etc. Slowly, by using rationality and observation, non-supernatural causes were discovered to explain these events. Once understood, these events could now be successfully predicted. However, once the observed non-supernatural causes contradicted the supernatural explanations found within the infallible religious tomes, conflict was sure to follow.

……other believers in scientism – Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, Francis Crick, Michael Martin, Paul Kurtz, Kai Nielsen, Anthony Flew, Jerry Coyne and the list goes on and on. Considering their musings, it's difficult not to deduce that the basic motivation of such believers in scientism is not to seek the full truth about reality, but rather it is to promote their anti-religious bias ……..

I call BS. I notice you leave out Denis Lameroux, Martin Rees, Brian Greene, Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, David Wilcox, etc. It's getting really hard to jam the square peg into the round hole of your fallacious argument, isn't it?

…..which clearly ignores and always defames anything spiritual or supernatural.

So what is it, ignored or defamed? You can't have it both ways.

Kindly, supply an example of supernaturalism that has been unfairly ignored or defamed by those mean ol' empirical scientists. Then indicate the best way to study said supernatural phenomenon, and still be free from the constraints of scientism.

I mean if we throw out rationality, empiricism and controlled observation then anything goes, does it not?

TJ,

A small Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment)for you:

Your 10 year old son comes down with flu like symptoms. It turns out that some of his classmates and his teacher have the same disease. Now more teachers come down with same flu, including administrative staff and custodial workers. It seems that the Principle of your son's school has just returned from a visit from mainland China. Yesterday 2 children and a teacher succumbed to the disease after a short illness.

To help us, should we first look at epidemiologists, infection disease specialists and virologists? So, would we be looking at those trained in scientific empirical methods and using human rationality, or should we approach experts in the supernatural (psychics, palm readers, ghost hunters, etc.)?

Some people have died. Blood and tissue samples show that the virus is a new strain of the H1N1 virus. Should we use reason and rationality and a) try to see if the existing H1N1 vaccine would work on this new strain, or use the empirical method of trying to develop a new vaccine for this new strain. OR, should we go the supernatural route (mutter some prayers, sacrifice a chicken, or do a Tarot card reading).

How do we prevent further infections and prevent the infection from spreading. Use scientific principles of epidemiology or use supernatural means?

Do you see where this is leading? You say,

"By scientism I mean the ideology based on an anti-supernatural bias which presumes that human rationality and the empirical method of science are the only means for determining the truth about reality."

Well, this is a problem faced by scientists every day. They have to find the infectious agent, identify it, determine the best treatment possible, administer the cure, and sequester those yet untreated. To determine the truth of the reality of such an infection that has already killed people, I'll throw my lot in with those who are afflicted with "scientism" and stay bloody well clear of those with the "supernatural" cure.

By now I'm sure you are aware that supernatural treatments have been tested for their efficacy as a treatment modality. Intercessory prayer for those afflicted with various illness's has been repeatedly shown to be a massive fail.

Astin, J., Stone, J., Abrams, D., Moore, D., Couey, P., Buscemi, R., et al. (2006). The efficacy of distant healing for human immunodeficiency virus—results of a randomized trial. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 12(6), 36-41. Retrieved from MEDLINE with Full Text database.

Benson, H., Dusek, J., Sherwood, J., Lam, P., Bethea, C., Carpenter, W., Levitsky, S., et al., (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (step) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. American Heart Journal 151(4), 934-942. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2005.05.028.

Mathai, J., & Bourne, A. (2004). Pilot study investigating the effect of intercessory prayer in the treatment of child psychiatric disorders. Australasian Psychiatry 12(4), 386-389. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1665.2004.02132.x.

Palmer, R., Katerndahl, D., & Morgan-Kidd, J. (2004). A randomized trial of the effects of remote intercessory prayer: interactions with personal beliefs on problem-specific outcomes and functional status. Journal Of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (New York, N.Y.), 10(3), 438-448. Retrieved from MEDLINE with Full Text Database.

Walker, S., Tonigan, J., Miller, W., Corner, S., & Kahlich, L. (1997). Intercessory prayer in the treatment of alcohol abuse and dependence: a pilot investigation. Alternative Therapies In Health And Medicine, 3(6), 79-86. Retreived from MEDLINE with Full Text database.

"Benson et. al. (2005) shows that outside individuals have no statistically significant effect on improving the well-being of patients. I feel that this study is most interesting because people who were told that they were being prayed for fared worse and experienced more complications than others in the study. Even with the hope of recovery and the assurance that others were trying to help, the subjects who knew they were being prayed for fared poorly. "

TJ, do you have any other supernatural considerations that you would recommend for study?

Somebody fetch the 3 Billy Goats Gruff.

Last Hussar, I hope you don't mean me.

TJ can't really be called a troll if he started the topic, can he? He tends to abandon the discussion when faced with well thought out logical arguments. Then Doug chimes in with his brand of impenetrable philosophy.

TJ returned (once things settled down) with the same poorly phrased question and a new attack on "scientism". Scientism is the reliance on empiricism, observation, controls, reason, etc. It also takes a dim view on the supernatural. Somehow, in TJ's mind, this seems to be a character flaw, that afflicts a good number of people on this board.

I tried to show him that there are no good alternatives, and invited him to come up with one. Again, I'm not holding my breath.

Don't worry Bowman, I didn't mean you. He's trolling the whole board, not the post!

Frankly he's not worth feeding. Pointing at and laughing at his arguments, yes. Trying to engage in anything meaningful, no. Try and get him to actually state what he thinks is true. (This is the point where we get 'well if you read my posts, though nowhere, I assume, has he said 'X happened Y way', if previous threads of his are anything to go by.)

My best guess is he doesn't believe any of the rubbish he types, he does it to get a response – hence "troll".

OK, and being a Billy Goat is fine by me.

Let's see. My definition of scientism was this:

Scientism: The ideology based on an anti-supernatural bias which presumes that human rationality and the empirical method of science are the only means for determining the truth about reality.

Let's do try and keep this in mind. The reply:

Why not the anti-Tooth Fairy bias? An anti-Santa Claus bias. This is not simple bias. If there is no shred of evidence for something, why should it be given equal credence?

Congratulations Bowman. An excellent example of the use of the fallacy of false association… used yet again I'll add. You said:

Human rationality and the empirical method are NOT the ONLY means for determining truth about reality…

Pausing: Am I to presume that Bowman finally agrees with someone here on something… especially little old me? Wouldn't that be evidence for the occurrence of miracles and thus the supernatural? And Bowman, please expound: What are the other means exactly…? Continuing:

… No one ever said that…

Pausing: Incorrect; I did. Continuing:

… However, they are currently the best means for determining the nature of reality for someone, and can still be tested by someone else.

And I support that premise… but with the proviso that I would have said "they are a very good means" rather than "the best means". Can you prove that it's the best…? I went on to say this:

It is this demand by scientism [and so you don't misunderstand again, please re-read my definition above] that has caused much of the antagonism between religion and science.

To which you replied:

What a brazen and glaring display of historical ignorance. Let me get this straight, followers of "scientism" burnt Bruno alive and placed Galileo under house arrest?

Oh for pity sake. Seriously, how many times do we see this old ruse trotted out? If we're getting things straight, then yet again, how many people died in the Nazi death camps…? Russian Gulags…? Mao's purges…? Pol Pot's killing fields…? In all of the various "ethnic cleansings"…? And this list could certainly go on… and on… and on. What ideology drove such regimes…? Were they truly religious in the sense that did such regimes have a strong belief in some sort of God that would judge them for their actions for example? Hardly. History shows that such regimes were (and some still are) steeped in anti-religion, anti-god ideologies… as very well you know. Such anti-religion, anti-god regimes along with non-religious wars have accounted for the deaths of well over 100 million people in the past hundred years or so. As for deaths in the so-called name of "religion" throughout history… were they purely in the name of religion or were the perpetrators merely using "religion" as a smoke screen to cover their real motives…?

You know Bowman – I sometimes wonder where your intense anti-god, anti-religion feelings stem from… and sometimes, where they may take you. Then again, I think we both know what drove you spiritually in that direction, eh? Another time perhaps.

At one time, religion explained all materialist and physical phenomena. Religion explained the movement of the Sun, the activity of volcanoes, why different languages developed, the nature of storms, the coming of the locust plagues, etc. Slowly, by using rationality and observation, non-supernatural causes were discovered to explain these events. Once understood, these events could now be successfully predicted. However, once the observed non-supernatural causes contradicted the supernatural explanations found within the infallible religious tomes, conflict was sure to follow… [Etc. Etc.]… Kindly, supply an example of supernaturalism that has been unfairly ignored or defamed by those mean ol' empirical scientists. Then indicate the best way to study said supernatural phenomenon, and still be free from the constraints of scientism.

Yet again, the tired old ruse of science and rationality overcoming religion and narrow-mindedness is trotted out. You just don't get it do you? You read what I said about the difference between science and scientism… and appear to have not comprehended it. So, here it comes, any time now…

I mean if we throw out rationality, empiricism and controlled observation then anything goes, does it not?

Yep. For pity sake, how many times do we see THIS tired old ruse trotted out? It must be about time for a straw man…

A small Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment) for you… [Etc, etc, etc]… To determine the truth of the reality of such an infection that has already killed people, I'll throw my lot in with those who are afflicted with "scientism" and stay bloody well clear of those with the "supernatural" cure.

I too would throw my lot in as well… but I would have said "with those who are afflicted with a good empirical scientific background". Bowman: Don't you realize that the thought experiment you described fits comfortably within the definition and boundaries of proper empirical science? Your thought experiment and subsequent comments show clearly that you didn't comprehend what I have written for nowhere did I or have I said that good empirical science was or is in anyway a problem… for either of us! For pity sake, why can't you get that through your head?

By now I'm sure you are aware that supernatural treatments have been tested for their efficacy as a treatment modality. Intercessory prayer for those afflicted with various illness's has been repeatedly shown to be a massive fail. [Six references were supplied]

Yep… doesn't get it. Bowman: What were they looking for exactly…? Their results were no doubt based solely on the physical medical results, true? How did they measure the spiritual results…? Oh, that's right, I forgot. The spiritual/supernatural is deemed to be non-existent a priori so why investigate anything at all along those lines. That's "scientism". What I'm saying is this: How do they know that the subject didn't live several weeks longer because of prayer – you know, so that a father and son had time to reconcile for example…? Or the subject had less pain because of prayer…? Or being at peace spiritually, the subject passed away sooner because of prayer…? Etc, etc, etc? This of course raises the question that I have posed here several times before…

What evidence would you consider for the existence of the supernatural?

Like you, I never seem to get an answer either… except for the tired old "it doesn't exist because I said so" mantra.

TJ can't really be called a troll if he started the topic, can he? He tends to abandon the discussion when faced with well thought out logical arguments. Then Doug chimes in with his brand of impenetrable philosophy.

Bowman: Don't flatter yourself. Perhaps you should try talking WITH people instead of talking down at them pompously from your ivory tower, eh? Rudeness is a weak man's imitation of strength.

TJ returned (once things settled down) with the same poorly phrased question and a new attack on "scientism". Scientism is the reliance on empiricism, observation, controls, reason, etc. It also takes a dim view on the supernatural. Somehow, in TJ's mind, this seems to be a character flaw, that afflicts a good number of people on this board.

What the…? You're starting to muddy the waters a little here Bowman. And again, it is "science" that has "the reliance on empiricism, observation, controls, reason, etc". "Scientism" adds the "dim view on the supernatural". Mmm…. perhaps you actually do comprehend the difference and that's why you're attempting to muddy the waters here with a misleading and false accusation like this "character flaw" silliness.

I tried to show him that there are no good alternatives, and invited him to come up with one. Again, I'm not holding my breath.

Then again, perhaps you don't comprehend. And yet again, there's nothing wrong with good empirical science. Take a deep breath and concentrate now Bowman. To re-quote what I said that has been deliberately distorted:

To state the obvious, advocates of scientism clearly advocate a purely naturalistic focus. By imposing such a restriction on science, scientism usurps true science and replaces it with an illicit ideology that seeks to restrict the explanation of ALL things to natural causes. Not only that, scientism also assumes, without proof, that the spiritual realm is not only irrelevant, but that the spiritual realm is indeed non-existent. Again, such unproven assumptions are soundly based on the mistaken belief that nothing exists unless it can be verified by science and the empirical method.

It couldn't be any clearer… well, perhaps to most people.

Bowman – You said: "If there is no shred of evidence for something, why should it be given equal credence?" Since you are obviously a believer in scientism then your premise IS that the spiritual/supernatural realm is not only irrelevant, but that the spiritual/supernatural realm is indeed non-existent – correct? After all, you say there is not the slightest shred of evidence FOR it.

In that case then, you must have at least a "shred" of evidence that it does NOT exist. Thus, I (and no doubt others here) would be most interested to see the scientific evidence that you have used to rationally conclude that the supernatural does NOT exist.

I do hope you have some scientific evidence for all of us to rationally consider… otherwise I guess your belief that the spiritual/supernatural realm does not exist would boil down to what most people would call "pure blind faith".

Let's help Bowman out. My question to all is this:

Can anyone provide the slightest shred of scientific evidence that the supernatural does NOT exist?

After all, Bowman assures us all that empirical science is currently the "best" means for determining the nature of reality that we can all test. To paraphrase you Bowman: "I won't be holding my breath either…"

Let's help Bowman out.

No need for your help, thanks.

Can anyone provide the slightest shred of scientific evidence that the supernatural does NOT exist?

Sigh.

Your question makes no sense as it exhibits a logical fallacy. While in small enclosed systems one can prove non-existence, such as an empty box being proof that it does contain objects, it is impossible to prove universal or absolute non existence. Your question is, therefore, meaningless.

It is, however, possible to prove the existence of something, and must come from those who make the claim. The ball is again in your court.

As to the rest of your entry, I will choose to take the advice of Last Hussar and not feed the troll.

Bowman – You said: "If there is no shred of evidence for something, why should it be given equal credence?" Since you are obviously a believer in scientism then your premise IS that the spiritual/supernatural realm is not only irrelevant, but that the spiritual/supernatural realm is indeed non-existent – correct? After all, you say there is not the slightest shred of evidence FOR it.

In that case then, you must have at least a "shred" of evidence that it does NOT exist. Thus, I (and no doubt others here) would be most interested to see the scientific evidence that you have used to rationally conclude that the supernatural does NOT exist.

My apple is green, therefore all green things are apples.

Can anyone provide the slightest shred of scientific evidence that the supernatural does NOT exist?

This is interesting. Which spiritual/supernatural method would you use for measuring the existance/non-existance of the spiritual/supernatural TJ?

Here are some reasonable comments on science and scientism that accurately reflect my thoughts. Of course, it is because Daniel Dennett is saying them better than I could.

YouTube link

As to the rest of your entry, I will choose to take the advice of Last Hussar and not feed the troll.

How strange it is for the ivory tower not to have something to say… probably because I was right on the mark. Moving along:

… it is impossible to prove universal or absolute non existence.

Well that took long enough. Finally you get what I've been saying for some time now, that is, one cannot prove that God does not exist… and yet that's what you dogmatically believe… without any proof… or for that matter, with no way of proving it. That, my friend, is what they commonly call "blind faith".

I hope we all now understand that if there was the slightest shred of scientific evidence for the non-existence of the supernatural then it would have surely been presented here… and a long time ago.

It is, however, possible to prove the existence of something, and must come from those who make the claim. The ball is again in your court.

Oh for pity sake. Having recognised your dilemma, we see you resort to the only ploy that you really have left – you must attempt redirect the burden of proof onto those asserting the affirmative proposition (i.e. "The supernatural exists"; my belief) as opposed to those asserting the negative proposition (i.e. "The supernatural does not exist"; which is your belief). However, and it appears that you deliberately chose to ignore this obvious fact – the proposition that "The burden of proof falls on the affirmative position" is itself an affirmative proposition and so requires proof … Oops.

Ok: Enough of this philosophical banter. I think the question we're all busting to know is this…

Since it cannot be shown scientifically that the supernatural does not exist, can it at least be shown scientifically (and let's phrase it this way) that the supernatural is likely to exist?

Since an answer is often demanded of me, I will start here:

Is there anything that we know that we could all agree on that is absolutely true?

Not much is there? The only thing I can think of is that we actually do "think".

If we think then I would logically assume that thinking require a "thinker". Thus, we as "thinkers" exist. Do you agree? If you don't believe we actually exist and can think then there really is no rational reason to continue.

Ok, assuming it is agreed that we exist and can think then it seems that thought requires the passage of "time". Of course it is possible that thought may not require the passage of time but it would be difficult to argue the position that a thought does not require the passage of time. Thus, it appears that time also exists.

What is "time" exactly? Who knows, but I guess what is important at this point is the effect that time has on this discussion, that is, if time exists then events in time have a "beginning" and they have an "end".

If we really exist, then how do we know anything outside "us" really exists? For example, suppose you were totally blind and deaf, couldn't feel, smell or taste anything. How would you know anything outside "you" actually exists? Suppose you were this way since conception. How would you know? What you think exists "outside" you may just be your (very vivid) imagination – a giant illusion. Yes, it may be hard to actually prove that the "outside world" or "universe" about us actually does exist, but it is rational and reasonable to conclude that it actually does exist.

(If it does not exist, then I don't exist along with everything and everyone else. That means you are clearly barmy because you are trying to have a rational discussion with people who don't exist…)

Are our observations about the universe about us real and rational? Again, if you don't believe that our observations about the universe about us are real and rational then, again, there is really no real or rational reason to continue is there?

So where are we so far?

It is rational and reasonable to believe that we actually exist.
It is rational and reasonable to believe that time exists.
It is rational and reasonable to believe that the universe about us actually exists.
It is rational and reasonable to believe that our observations about the universe are real and rational.

Ok. So getting scientific now, what do we rationally observe about this "universe" about us?

One thing that we observe about the universe is that nothing starts to move without first being "pushed". All motion is caused – an object must be acted upon in some way – motion just doesn't happen spontaneously all by itself for no reason.

Another thing that we observe about the universe is that it is governed by what we call the Laws of Thermodynamics. Our real and rational observations show us that these three scientific laws are the most proven and tested scientific laws in all of our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us. No exceptions have ever been found.

Paraphrasing the First Law of Thermodynamics – Energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Matter can be transformed into energy and energy can be transformed into matter, but in doing so, no new matter or energy is ever created and no existing matter or energy is ever eliminated. No exception has ever been found.

Paraphrasing the Second Law of Thermodynamics – The total amount of energy available to do work is always decreasing. Thus, although we cannot destroy energy, the amount of energy available to do work becomes less and less and less each time it is used to do work. No exception has ever been found.

Paraphrasing the Third Law of Thermodynamics – The temperature of matter can never reach absolute zero. This is because to reach absolute zero you would need something colder to draw the heat out and there is nothing colder than absolute zero.

So, based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, we can conclude that the universe has a fixed amount of energy and matter – the universe is unable to create or destroy the energy and matter that exists in the universe in line with the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Next, based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, we observe that universe as we know it is winding down, losing its useable energy in line with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus, we can conclude that there was a beginning because the universe about us does not contain an infinite amount of energy and matter – it has a finite amount of energy and matter. It follows then that since the universe had a beginning then it will eventually have an end… and it appears a very cold and miserable one at that.

Next, based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, we observe that all things go naturally from a more ordered, higher energy state to a lesser ordered, lower energy state if left to themselves – things naturally breakdown from a more ordered, higher energy state to a lesser ordered, lower energy state as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Our real and rational observations then show us that things can only become more ordered and more organised by deliberate intention. Thus, we conclude that intelligence and the ability to direct energy are required to increase order.

For example, you need to maintain your house. You paint. You repair. You replace worn out items, etc. Thus, your intelligence along with your ability to direct and use energy is required to first build your house from its basic components and then to repair it back from its current level of disrepair to its original pristine level. If you choose to do nothing then your house will inevitably continue to slowly decay and fall to bits and will eventually end up a pile of junk to rot, rust and decay away. Like your house, the universe is also winding down, burning out and decaying. Thus, like your house, we can conclude that the initial specific order and complexity that the universe must have had must have had intelligent input.

(On the other hand, evolutionary theory dogmatically insists that increasing complexity and specific order can occur spontaneously within our universe without any such intelligent input whatsoever as clearly seen in the proposed random origin of complex life from basic components for example. That is only possible if the Laws of Thermodynamics are totally circumvented by natural processes and that is something which has never been scientifically observed… ever.)

So:

It is rational and reasonable to believe that we exist.
It is rational and reasonable to believe that time exists.
It is rational and reasonable to believe that the universe about us exists.
It is rational and reasonable to believe that our observations about the universe are real and rational.

We observe that motion exists within our universe. We observe that the natural laws governing the universe cannot spontaneously initiate such motion. Thus, based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, it is rational and reasonable to conclude that something external to the universe initiated such motion.

We observe that energy and matter cannot be created (or destroyed). Thus, based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, it is rational and reasonable to conclude those natural laws governing the universe are unable to create the energy and matter that already exists in the universe – the universe could not have made itself because it cannot make energy and matter.

We observe that specific order exists within our universe. We observe that the natural laws governing the universe cannot provide such specific order. Thus, based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, it is rational and reasonable to conclude that the specific order observed within our universe required external intelligent input.

We observe that the universe is losing its usable energy, its specific order and its overall complexity. Thus, based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, it is rational and reasonable to conclude that those natural laws governing the universe are not even capable of sustaining the universe as it exists – the universe is unable to even maintain itself.

Thus, based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, it is rational and reasonable to conclude that something both intelligent and external to our universe initially provided all of the mass, all of the energy, all of the motion and all of the specific order and complexity that originally existed in the universe simply because our real and rational observations of the scientific laws governing the universe about us show us that those very laws are unable do it themselves.

Thus, overall, this is reasonable and rational scientific evidence that there is likely to be something existing external to our universe – the supernatural.

Now, and as I pointed out earlier, the proposition that "The burden of proof falls on the affirmative position" is itself an affirmative proposition for which you have yet to provide any proof whatsoever. Regardless, I have considered the affirmative position and have shown that there is in fact good scientific evidence that the supernatural (which must be both intelligent and external to our universe) is likely to exist. On the other hand, as you noted at the start, you are completely unable to show us that it is unlikely to exist.

Where to now?

Well, it seems the ball is back in your court… and it would be really nice if the replies were at least somewhat scientific and not philosophical or derogatory for a change. After all, this is a science thread is it not?

I hope we all now understand that if there was the slightest shred of scientific evidence for the non-existence of the supernatural then it would ………

What you say makes no logical sense. It is difficult to argue with someone who employs sentences that are rhetorically fallacious and logically fallacious.

Having recognised your dilemma, we see you resort to the only ploy that you really have left – you must attempt redirect the burden of proof onto those asserting the affirmative proposition………..

My dilemma is that I am in a discussion with someone who employs logical fallacies as arguments.

Not much is there? The only thing I can think of is that we actually do "think".

Thanks for the lecture. I've read Descartes' Discourses. That`s what we do in the "Μvory Tower".

Paraphrasing the First Law of Thermodynamics……..

Oh please! Spare me the physics lecture. A year or so ago you were trying to convince us all that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proved that evolution couldn't occur. Remember?

I'll skip alot of your nonsense and go directly to your next error:

Next, based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, we observe that all things go naturally from a more ordered, higher energy state to a lesser ordered, lower energy state if left to themselves……

WRONG! We don't observe that at all.

For example, you need to maintain your house. You paint. You repair. You replace worn out items, etc. Thus, your intelligence along with your ability to direct and use energy is required to first build your house from its basic components and then to repair it back from its current level of disrepair to its original pristine level.

Overly simplistic argument as that is not how the Universe behaves.

(On the other hand, evolutionary theory dogmatically insists that increasing complexity and specific order can occur spontaneously within our universe without any such intelligent input whatsoever as clearly seen in the proposed random origin of complex life from basic components for example. That is only possible if the Laws of Thermodynamics are totally circumvented by natural processes and that is something which has never been scientifically observed… ever.)

Proof that your lack of understanding in Physics matches your ignorance of biology.

We observe that specific order exists within our universe. We observe that the natural laws governing the universe cannot provide such specific order. Thus, based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, it is rational and reasonable to conclude that the specific order observed within our universe required external intelligent input.

Wrong. We observe nothing of the sort.

We observe that the universe is losing its usable energy, its specific order and its overall complexity.

Wrong. We do not observe this either.

Thus, based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, it is rational and reasonable to conclude that something both intelligent and external to our universe initially provided all of the mass, all of the energy, all of the motion and all of the specific order and complexity that originally existed in the universe simply because our real and rational observations of the scientific laws governing the universe about us show us that those very laws are unable do it themselves.

Your summation is wrong because the suppositions that led you here are wrong.

Thus, overall, this is reasonable and rational scientific evidence that there is likely to be something existing external to our universe – the supernatural.

Again wrong……..see above. Plus you obviously have a different definition for "scientific evidence" than most.

Well, it seems the ball is back in your court… and it would be really nice if the replies were at least somewhat scientific and not philosophical or derogatory for a change. After all, this is a science thread is it not?

First, this is a message board. No Science is being done here…..by anyone. We are simply discussing issues within or about Science. Some of us try to use logic and well reasoned arguments in order to do so. Some of us have serious problems with that. As for being derogatory, I'm sorry but not all opinions and statements are equally worthy of respect and consideration. Some are just plain stupid.

One example:

"…based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, we observe that all things go naturally from a more ordered, higher energy state to a lesser ordered, lower energy state if left to themselves…..

Sorry, but given the confines of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, observations show the exact opposite to what you proclaim.

After the Big Bang (BB), in the Planck epoch, the 4 fundamental forces gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear are actually one unified field. Gravity then peels off and becomes an individual force.

As particles go there are none at first. Then quarks appear, then hadrons, then leptons, then photons form. Finally, at 3 minutes into the BB the quarks form the first neutrons and protons. By 70k years baryons and photons are matched and dark matter forms (baryonic or non-baryonic?).

By 380K years neutrons, protons and electrons form the first atoms as Hydrogen and Helium dominate the Universe.

Until 800K years after the BB dark, hazy ionized plasma dominates. Gravity continues to coalesce the ionizing plasma until at 300MY to 1BY after BB the first stars and Quasars form. Third generation stars begin building the rest of the heavier elements. Mass aggregates to form the first Galaxies. Thanks again, Gravity. Here is an infant galaxy from 13 Billion years ago (about 500MY after BB)

link

The Universe at this point is roughly 5% of it's current size. Gravity continues to act on the galaxies which form Groups, Clusters and Super Clusters. As the Universes expansion is accelerating, Super Clusters will be the biggest formation within the Universe.

Within, the galaxies are billions of Suns, many with their own planets. Some planets have geological activity and atmospheres. Some fly through soot enhanced nebulae and get doused with carbon, which was recently released from exploding stars. Some develop complex weather systems and complex carbon structures, such as ourselves.

This is what we see and observe, TJ. Ever since the BB we get an increase in order and complexity. If you can't get your head around that, without contradicting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then you have some science to learn.

Your serve.

TJ,

Your problem is that you get your science from the likes of here:

link

Or here:

link

and not here:

link

msowww.anu.edu.au/~brian

An Aussie Nobel Prize winner (2011). Couldn't hurt to sit in on some of his classes. I included the first as Brian Schmidt had lectured at my Alma Mater.

A small question. The first link has an animated graphic that shows that "human reasoning" leads to "Satan". Do you personally believe that?

So TJ is supposedly, entirely, up in the night?

What about the "great heat death"? I have read about that occurring. It is countered by something I can't recall the name of, but like a paddle ball that goes out to the limit of its rubber band, then races back to the "center", and gets smacked back to the limit of its rubber band, again and again, endlessly-possibly: the universe's mass is expanding, and speeding up to past the speed of light, i.e. beyond our purview: then at some point the mass is somehow attracted back to the "center", where endless BBs occur. Either theory is simply that: theory.

I don't care which theory one holds; or neither, or something else: what TJ concludes is an inescapable fact: Existence of this universe in the first place is caused by something other than the interrelationship of matter and energy (being the same thing, just in varying proportion; some energy and some matter). In a limited or enclosed system, what TJ said holds true, without exception: matter and energy break down into simpler forms, as the energy "converts" to inert matter. That this universe had a beginning which was more simple for several hundred K years does not remove that fact of enclosed systems assuming an entropy that will exist forever without outside intervention. And this universe, complex as it is NOW, is not remaining so. Therefore, the evidence is that this universe is itself an enclosed system; and that being the case, something OUTSIDE of its manifesting matter and energy Caused it….

Hi Doug,

The eventual fate of the Universe comes down to a few theories:

link

link

I see that the "Steady State" Theory of Hoyle, Gold and Bondi doesn't even rate any more. They could never explain how the Universe was "steady" and constant with the obvious observations of being red shifted.

As for the others, it depends on the ultimate mass of the Universe. If there is enough mass, then a Big Crunch can occur due to gravitational attraction of that mass. But most of the mass is in the form of Dark Matter, which we know little about. Then we have Dark Energy which is an expansive force. Can Dark Energy overpower gravity and expand the Universe so much that we have a Big Freeze? Since we don't know much about Dark Energy either, it is hard for us to say. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are assumed to make up 90+% of the Universe. I have talked to you about this very topic before.

Either theory is simply that: theory.

Never say that when discussing science. A Theory is the best thing going in Science. It is the best "model" that explains observed phenomena. Science can't do better than that.

Existence of this universe in the first place is caused by something other than the interrelationship of matter and energy (being the same thing, just in varying proportion; some energy and some matter).

Sorry, but that is an unsubstantiated opinion and flies in the face of current cosmology.

And this universe, complex as it is NOW, is not remaining so.

True. But that is not what TJ alleges. "…based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, we observe that all things go naturally from a more ordered, higher energy state to a lesser ordered, lower energy state if left to themselves…." Contrary to that statement, we observe that the Universe actually has become more ordered and more complex over the entire period of existence.

Assuming the Big Freeze is the actual scenario. Calculations of Hawking radiation decay from super massive black holes gives an estimate of 10^100 years from now for the freeze to start (that's 10 to the power of 100 years from now!!) Our Universe is only 13^9 years old. A virtual infant. There is a lot of order and complexity still left in the old girl.

However, due to the speed of the expansion the Universe may have hit the size ceiling for complexity. Cosmologists think that nothing bigger than Super Clusters will form.

Therefore, the evidence is that this universe is itself an enclosed system; and that being the case, something OUTSIDE of its manifesting matter and energy Caused it….

1 agree with the first part. The second clause of the sentence is unsubstantiated opinion. There is no evidence for this assertion. You can put as much lipstick as possible on Aquinas' Cosmological Argument, but that doesn't make it a fact. Nor does it hide the special pleading of its' adherents. We've been over this ground too.

Some further interesting reading:

link

You keep trotting out the denial, yet offer nothing in the place of a Cause behind the start-up of the Point Of Singularity. A PoS (heheh, the use of acronyms is funny sometimes) cannot Exist without some Cause. If we assume an uncaused Cause that is as far as we can go. Existence is a fact; it is a Problem; science is in the "business" of examining such problems; and therefore science's ultimate goal must be to explain why/how Existence in the first place Is. All lesser steps / studies along the way are mere appendages to that fundamental question….

You keep trotting out the denial, yet offer nothing in the place of a Cause behind the start-up of the Point Of Singularity.

I'm not trotting any denial. I'm simply saying that you are making a statement, without evidence for it. Your obvious belief in that statement doesn't make it true. I cannot offer anything better than unsubstantiated opinion myself. That is why I don't.

On a quantum level matter pops in and out of existence all the time. It's called Quantum flux. Also there are things called virtual particles that seem to only exist for a small amount of time. The beginning of the BB was a quantum event. Maybe the Universe is flux gone wild.

The people studying these events all say that the Universe does not come from anything but itself (Hawking, Mlodinow, Krause). I can't find any cosmologist that supports your view. Doesn't mean there aren't any.

A great many words TJ, but you did not answer my question :

This is interesting. Which spiritual/supernatural method would you use for measuring the existance/non-existance of the spiritual/supernatural TJ?

You can't "measure" the metaphysical with the empirical. You can't examine it with anything more than thought.

The question/problem of Existence remains.

To assume that "the universe does not come from anything but itself" is merely making word plays to put off the question.

Thinking about it for any amount of time causes the thinker to come face to face with the illogicality of a facile conclusion that the universe comes from itself, ergo there is no "God".

If the universe comes from itself, and we are intelligent and aware, then the universe is intelligent and aware, because we are not apart from the universe.

If the universe is intelligent and aware, then being its own "Cause" it follows that an infinite Cause must possess far more (infinite) intelligence/awareness) than mere mortals do; we are caused by the universe by its natural processes; yet we possess intelligence/awareness. To assume that the universe is somehow bereft of the very trait that makes us unique within our observations of life, is to take a position that has no evidence to support it.

The scientist who points to religious dogmas, disproves the literalness of the dogmas through science, then accepts that "the universe does not come from anything but itself"; and arrives at the conclusion that there is no "God", simply because science has caused man-made religious dogmas to retreat; has leaped to a conclusion that there is no "God" without any evidence to support it: for the question/problem of existence remains….

Contrary to that statement, we observe that the Universe actually has become more ordered and more complex over the entire period of existence

Wishful thinking. Misses the point completely…

This is interesting. Which spiritual/supernatural method would you use for measuring the existance/non-existance of the spiritual/supernatural TJ?

Another one who misses the point completely…

Another one who misses the point completely…

Very dismissive TJ. Why don't you elucidate on the point that appears to be eluding me/us?

TJ, your original post asked:

<'What exactly is the evidence that science and the scientific method are the only way to show that something exists?'>

How exactly is asking 'What other methods are there?' missing the point?

And if directly addressing your original post IS missing the point, perhaps you could be so kind as to tell us what your point is?

Wishful thinking

No TJ. Not wishful thinking at all

TJ, you wrote this:

Next, based on our real and rational scientific observations of the universe about us, we observe that all things go naturally from a more ordered, higher energy state to a lesser ordered, lower energy state if left to themselves……

What we actually see is that the 5% of the Universe, that is made of elements and visible, actually becomes more complex when left to itself. I showed you how this complexity developed with my Feb.17th entry.

It's there in your night sky. Take a look at the Hubble photographs. They are all there for anyone to see. Hardly "wishful thinking".

Misses the point completely…

There was a point? Since I'm in rather good company in not getting the "point", can we assume you have difficulty in putting your "point" across? Perhaps a less wordy approach would be worthwhile.