101. Comment #86318 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 1:40 am

And yet, you tried to say "scientific naturalism", falls apart because you can't fathom quantum mechanics, so objective reality fuzzies away, and you can shoehorn in whatever makes you happy, namely theism.

You see, Dianelos misses two key logical points:

First, the issues raised by QM question "objective reality", not just "objective 'physical' reality" (whatever that means). It does not matter if the things QM are observing are elves rather than electrons - we are still seeing odd things happen.

Second, even if one model of reality is wildly wrong, this is no evidence for an alternative model such as idealistic theism. You have to start from scratch and come up with a new model that does better than the original. I would love to see any experimental predictions of idealistic theism.

You know what? I am going to call Dianelos a full-on creationist. Because that is what he is. Just like creationists look at fossils and the supposed gaps and say that we are being fooled into believing in evolution, and the fossils are the result of magic (God's work), Dianelos claims that we are being fooled into believing in a physical world, and the observations of QM are the result of magic (God's work).

I claim that whenever someone looks at scientific results, and (this part is important) against the beliefs of just about all the experts in that field, claims that these results are too unbelievable or absurd, and a better explanation is 'God did it', they are, for all intents and purposes, a Creationist. The arrogance of believing that they know more than the experts in the field is one of the most serious symptoms.

Other Comments by steve99

102. Comment #86340 by Peacebeuponme on November 9, 2007 at 2:17 am

Dianelos

What I am saying is that it is overwhelmingly obvious to me that to help somebody in need is better than to instead torture them for fun, and that this is true not because of personal opinion or social convention (and hence is objectively true).Blockquote>
Better how? Against what criteria?

Better for them because they don't get tortured. Better for you because of the warm feelings you get from helping them.
That's it.

I don't think so. You see the criterion you suggest is utilitarianism (i.e. to increase the overall happiness), but utilitarianism does not work: To kill a terminally ill patient in order to harvest her organs and save the life of five people does clearly increase overall happiness but is clearly not better than not killing her.

So, better how? Against what criterion? My answer will not make much sense to a non-theist I am afraid, but here it is anyway: Actions change the person who makes them: good actions make them better and bad actions make them worse. So the criterion of moral act is how it changes the person who makes it. But against what criterion does a person become a better person? The criterion here is how that change brings a person's character closer to God's character.

I think that puts you at a massive intellectual disadvantage. This whole thread is about a refutation of an argument for the existence of God, and you have now had to presuppose his existence and presuppose the existence of objective morality in order that they support each other. As you have guessed I would say: that last paragraph really is meaningless waffle.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

103. Comment #86341 by epeeist on November 9, 2007 at 2:33 am

Comment #86214 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Strictly speaking science only models physical phenomena.

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer.

Knock one down, turn it around, 98 bottles of beer on the wall.

98 bottles of beer on the wall, 98 bottles of beer.

Repeat ad nauseum

Other Comments by epeeist

104. Comment #86347 by steve99 on November 9, 2007 at 2:56 am

Strictly speaking science only models physical phenomena.

Oh, I had missed this joke.

No, Dianelos, strictly speaking science studies objective reality. Even the supernatural is amenable to scientific study. Even the abstract and non-physical is subject to scientific study. Mathematics was termed 'the Queen of the Sciences' by Gauss, yet it deals with abstract reality, not physical reality.

Stop trying to redefine words. I know what you are trying to do here - to exclude your GodWorld from the same laws and rules as the physical reality you so dislike.

Other Comments by steve99

105. Comment #86348 by irate_atheist on November 9, 2007 at 3:04 am

103. Comment #86341 by epeeist -

Hey! Stop wasting good beer!

Other Comments by irate_atheist

106. Comment #86349 by epeeist on November 9, 2007 at 3:07 am

Comment #86347 by steve99

Strictly speaking science only models physical phenomena.

Oh, I had missed this joke.

Probably because you have seen it (and refuted it) so many times before that your mind just didn't register it.

And yes, DG is just another creationist. I had thought him a bit more dangerous than the likes of the AiG people because he sounds a bit more plausible. However he has become a joke in a similar, but lesser, way to Behe (see the panning Abbie Smith gives him).

At the moment the other person on the site that he reminds me of most is ADH.

Other Comments by epeeist

107. Comment #86351 by phil rimmer on November 9, 2007 at 3:13 am

You know what? I am going to call Dianelos a full-on creationist.

Hurrah!

This is the only explanation for why a seemingly intelligent man should believe positing a universal consciousness as a terminating point for the questions posed by science is in any way satisfying.

The man needs closure and quick. Stultifying!

His subjective data- "This is great!"
Our subjective data- "Its pants!"

His mantra- "My explanation is much more satisfying etc." never has the common human decency to add (because of the sheer evidence of the dissenting views) the words "to me".

Other Comments by phil rimmer

108. Comment #86352 by epeeist on November 9, 2007 at 3:13 am

Comment #86348 by irate_atheist

Hey! Stop wasting good beer!

Ok - here's another analogy instead.

Anyone with children will tell you that the one thing they enjoy is throwing their toys out of the pram. You pick them up, dust them down, put them back in the pram. Two yards further on, another flying teddy bear (science models physical phenomena, naturalism is in a crisis, atheists can't cope with objective morality).

Other Comments by epeeist

109. Comment #86407 by apaeter on November 9, 2007 at 6:56 am

DG-

No, that's definitely not what I am saying. I believe that logic, math, science, and indeed morality too, are all objective, and hence are not human constructs. We discover true logical, mathematical, scientific, and moral propositions; sometimes it's difficult, there is some disagreement, it's a work in progress, but there is something objective out there that these true propositions refer to.
On the contrary, I think they do have ontological value; when true they represent facts about objective reality.

Yes, well, I assumed you understood where I was coming from, so I didn't preface it with "in a purely naturalist (atheist) universe..." Still, thanks for that answer.

The thing is, you are actually asserting the existence of a supernatural, universal reality on which human knowledge is contingent, and the supernatural part is just gratuitous. Well, okay, I could echo other people in this thread by saying: back it up. because it seems to me that things like a changing zeitgeist, changing physical models, the waning and waxing of compassion or hate in our societies, and so on, against the backdrop of "the universe" seem to lend more support to the notion of human constructs. I mean, in what way are justice, love, logic, cruelty etc. universals? Show me an instance of justice among the moons of Saturn. Or love. It just doesn't make any sense outside of human interaction. But I feel dumb even bringing it up again.

The whole argument against scientific naturalism reminds me of a teenager who just saw The Matrix for the first time, or a student who heard his first philo 101 lecture. "Hey dude, did you know that nothing is real?! It's all an illusion." Fair enough, that's a position that cannot be disproved by definition, but it also doesn't allow any conclusions concerning the nature of nature, super- or otherwise. :)

Other Comments by apaeter

110. Comment #86573 by Diacanu on November 9, 2007 at 4:22 pm

So, d'ya s'pose DG is gonna come back to this thread, or hope we forget about our questions?

Other Comments by Diacanu

111. Comment #86599 by Dr Benway on November 9, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Steve99: No, Dianelos, strictly speaking science studies objective reality.

Just to riff on your point: "objective" being operationally defined as "that which can be corroborated." Mathematical proofs can be corroborated just as physical events can be corroborated.

We don't need to take a metaphysical stand regarding the ultimate nature of reality in order to corroborate evidence. The world may be "physical" or it may behave as if it were physical. No matter.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

112. Comment #86711 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 10, 2007 at 2:36 am

Steve99 (post 75, or #86169):

And what's worse it's also a fact that both the number and the size of the holes is growing; at the beginning of the 20th century when science was still classical the situation was much better than now, but since then scientific discoveries have pushed scientific naturalism into an ever shaky place - which is a problem for scientific naturalism but not for science of course which is doing just splendidly. So scientific naturalism does not look good at all right now.

Nonsense. The reason why there is more unexplained (like fine tuning) is that the area that science is studying has vastly increased.

Indeed our knowledge of the phenomenal reality that science studies has vastly increased, and one would expect that therefore our knowledge about the objective reality that produces phenomenal reality would become more sharp and unequivocal. But for those who believe in scientific naturalism exactly the opposite has happened: the more we learn about phenomenal reality the less unequivocal and the more shaky their understanding of objective reality has become. Indeed, as we saw, the number and size of holes is increasing. So what's factually happening is the opposite of what one would expect if scientific naturalism were true.

Your argument is like suggesting we abandon the use of maps because we don't have any knowledge of the geography of newly discovered planet Gliese 581.

Perhaps you are suggesting a good analogy here: Phenomenal reality is like the surface of a planet, which science maps. Objective reality is like the not directly visible underground of that planet which accounts for that planet's surface and which ontology tries to map. Now there is school of ontology called X such that the more unequivocal the scientific maps of that planet's surface become the less unequivocal its maps for that planets underground become. I am saying this fact is reason to doubt that X is true; but you say that what's happening is on the contrary what one should expect. So, tell me, if science in the future keeps producing more and more unequivocal maps of phenomenal reality, do you expect scientific naturalism to keep producing less and less unequivocal maps of objective reality?

I am afraid science isn't going to stand still, and restrict its areas of study until you are happy that there are no gaps left in our understanding!

It's interesting to observe how you keep trying to toss scientific naturalism's problems onto science's lap. We are not discussing any problems of science here; very obviously science is doing splendidly well. What we are discussing is scientific naturalism's growing pains for accounting for the objective reality that produces the phenomenal reality that science is so well mapping. Which, incidentally, is not even the primary problem of scientific naturalism; its primary problem is the transcendental argument we have been discussing in this thread.

What is happening is simply splendid for scientific naturalism - it has opened up whole new vistas of areas for exploration.

Oh I see: The more holes and paradoxes the better, eh? I think there is this fable by Aesop of the cat that lost its tail in an accident, and then went around claiming that lacking a tail is the pinnacle of elegance.

As I said, that's perfectly fine. But what happens in our discussion is significantly different, for it goes like this:

Dianelos: "Some ethical precepts at least are objective – it's obvious".

Steve: "Sorry, no ethical precepts are objective".

Dianelos: "So, where's the evidence for that?" (see my post #85462 above)

Steve: "--"

Tsk. Epeeist has told you off about this before. You are the one claiming something positively exists, not me. I want evidence for your positive assertion that ethical precepts are objective. You are asserting the existence of something. Prove it.

I hope you are joking. I find the trick of pushing the burden the proof around to be shameful, because reason requires one justify all claims no matter their form (and I approvingly notice that Dawkins in his TGD at least did not shy away from trying to justify his belief in the non-existence of a creator God). But let me play this childish game and change my claim into: "No subjective ethical concepts exist". That's a negative existential claim and I don't need to justify it, correct? And if you disagree with it and claim that subjective ethical concepts exist it's you who have the "burden of proof".

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

113. Comment #86713 by BMMcArdle on November 10, 2007 at 2:41 am

Dear Dianelos,
Were you Baptised?
Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?
Do you believe in The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

114. Comment #86718 by epeeist on November 10, 2007 at 2:47 am

Comment #86711 by Dianelos Georgoudis

I find the trick of pushing the burden the proof around to be shameful, because reason requires one justify all claims no matter their form (and I approvingly notice that Dawkins in his TGD at least did not shy away from trying to justify his belief in the non-existence of a creator God). But let me play this childish game and change my claim into: "No subjective ethical concepts exist". That's a negative existential claim and I don't need to justify it, correct? And if you disagree with it and claim that subjective ethical concepts exist it's you who have the "burden of proof".

As with virtually everything else you push you have a half understanding beyond which you are not prepared to go.

The great physical theories of the 20th century (GR, QM and QFT) provide a convincing view of reality though it is obvious that they are not complete.

If you wish to counter this with another theory then the burden of proof is on you to show where the failures are and what your theory can do that is better.

None of this you have done (or even got close to).

Similarly with your claim for "objective morality". You have been shown that different cultures and different times have different sets of behaviours. You claim that the "moral zeitgeist is improving" but offer no evidence that this is because of the existence of objective morality. You offer no way that objective morality could be recognised. You haven't even managed to show that even if it existed objective morality would have a religious basis.

Other Comments by epeeist

115. Comment #86720 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 2:55 am

But for those who believe in scientific naturalism exactly the opposite has happened: the more we learn about phenomenal reality the less unequivocal and the more shaky their understanding of objective reality has become. Indeed, as we saw, the number and size of holes is increasing.

No, the number and size of holes in some areas is quite definitely decreasing. We now have a good understanding of space and time down to levels which would be beyond the imagining of previous generations, and we can predict things to phenomenal accuracy.

do you expect scientific naturalism to keep producing less and less unequivocal maps of objective reality?

No, I don't. As new areas of research open up, we may find our maps completely replaced. That is the beauty of science. Unlike religion it is humble, and will admit when it is wrong.

Unlike you, I don't expect mankind to be able to understand reality. It would be nice if we could, but there is no guarantee.

What we are discussing is scientific naturalism's growing pains for accounting for the phenomenal reality that science is so well mapping. Which, incidentally, is not even the primary problem of scientific naturalism; its primary problem is the transcendental argument we have been discussing in this thread.

No, the primary problem is that you are inventing problems as an excuse for supernaturalism. And, the problems you invent are still there in supernaturalism.

Oh I see: The more holes and paradoxes the better, eh?

Absolutely! That is what is such fun about science! We aren't going to sit around all smug like you with the 'God did it' answer for everything.

I hope you are joking. I find the trick of pushing the burden the proof around to be shameful, because reason requires one justify all claims no matter their form (and I approvingly notice that Dawkins in his TGD at least did not shy away from trying to justify his belief in the non-existence of a creator God). But let me play this childish game and change my claim into: "No subjective ethical concepts exist". That's a negative existential claim and I don't need to justify it, correct? And if you disagree with it and claim that subjective ethical concepts exist it's you who have the "burden of proof".

We are talking about the positive existence of something objective. If something actually exists, and is objective, you should be able to prove its existence.

We were all sitting around here quite happily, when you walked in and said 'hey chaps - there is objective morality'. Why should we take you at your word? So, go on then. Prove that there is objective morality. And 'because it is obvious' is not evidence.

Other Comments by steve99

116. Comment #86723 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 10, 2007 at 2:59 am

Goldy (post 95 or #86233

DG, do you not answer some questions because they are too hard for you or do you just ignore persistent people who ask awkward questions?

Neither. Time permitting I try to comment on posts I find interesting.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

117. Comment #86727 by BMMcArdle on November 10, 2007 at 3:03 am

Dianelos,
Time permitting, will you answer the three yes-or-no questions I submitted?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

118. Comment #86729 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 10, 2007 at 3:12 am

Steve99 (post 101 or #86318)

I would love to see any experimental predictions of idealistic theism.

And I would love to see any experimental predictions of scientific naturalism. Tell you what: For each experimental prediction of scientific naturalism you give me, I'll give you one experimental prediction of idealistic theism :-)

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

119. Comment #86731 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 3:17 am

And I would love to see any experimental predictions of scientific naturalism. Tell you what: For each experimental prediction of scientific naturalism you give me, I'll give you one experimental prediction of idealistic theism :-)

OK, here is one: The orbit of planets around other suns can be explained entirely by theories of gravity. No pushing by angels required.

Your turn.

Other Comments by steve99

120. Comment #86763 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 10, 2007 at 5:35 am

Apaeter (post 109 or #86407)

The thing is, you are actually asserting the existence of a supernatural, universal reality on which human knowledge is contingent, and the supernatural part is just gratuitous.

I have not used the term "supernatural" in the post you are responding to, so I wonder what do you mean when you say "supernatural"?

Perhaps we can understand supernaturalism by contrasting it to naturalism. Now naturalism itself is a somehow vague concept. In general naturalism is understood as the claim that the various concepts used by the natural sciences (such as electrons, spacetime being curved by mass, natural evolution, etc) not only refer to parts of reality (both objective and phenomenal) but also exhaust it, i.e. that all parts of reality are now or can in principle be described but concepts of the natural sciences. (Which, incidentally, entails that knowledge about them is to be gained by using the scientific method). An even stronger version of naturalism claims that all meaningful propositions are or can be reduced to propositions of natural science. All versions of naturalism are contingent on the natural sciences, and hence one often speaks of "scientific naturalism". Supernaturalism then can be understood as the negation of naturalism, namely as the weaker claim that there are meaningful propositions that cannot be reduced to propositions of natural science, or the stronger claim that there are parts of objective reality that cannot be described by the concepts of the natural sciences.

As I have long here argued (with little apparent success it seems) all forms of scientific naturalism are deeply problematic. For example how the color green looks like is part of reality, but the natural sciences have no way to describe or investigate it, simply because the natural sciences are circumscribed by the scientific method which only uses objective observations, and how the color green looks like is subjective. Or, to mention another example, the stronger version of scientific naturalism would render even mathematical propositions meaningless, and the weaker version would place mathematical objects and laws in the realm of the non-objective opposing the deepest intuitions of the mathematicians.

Finally I would like to mention a popular understanding of naturalism as the claim that all physical phenomena that can be investigated scientifically can also (at least in principle) be explained by the natural sciences. This claim is about phenomenal reality only, and as such can easily be accepted by theists also. In my mind it's a pretty incontrovertible claim; under that latter definition I am a naturalist also.

it seems to me that things like a changing zeitgeist, changing physical models, the waning and waxing of compassion or hate in our societies, and so on, against the backdrop of "the universe" seem to lend more support to the notion of human constructs.

I am not sure how you mean that, as all knowledge (or to be precise knowledge-claims) are "human constructs". The question at hand is whether ethical claims (which are all human constructs) should be understood as subjective or objective, i.e. referring only to a state of human minds or to also refer to some part of reality that is independent of human minds.

[Love] just doesn't make any sense outside of human interaction.

I am afraid you are begging the question here, as you assume the truth of scientific naturalism. If scientific naturalism is false and theism is true then love makes eminent sense outside of human interaction.

The whole argument against scientific naturalism reminds me of a teenager who just saw The Matrix for the first time, or a student who heard his first philo 101 lecture. "Hey dude, did you know that nothing is real?! It's all an illusion."

Actually the Matrix movie is very useful because it helps people visualize the difference between phenomenal and objective reality (which in the movie are called the "matrix" and the "real world" respectively). Now that distinction was well known and well understood by philosophers from Plato to Russell. What impresses me is that even after that movie, and after all my arguments in this forum, people still reject my obvious claim that "strictly speaking science only models physical phenomena". But of course the scientists in the Matrix are not investigating the real world. Now at this juncture somebody might argue that the Matrix movie is science fiction and that reality is not like that movie describes – but that argument misses the point.

The point is this: If scientific naturalism is true then consciousness can be produced by some physical system. But then it is possible (with some finite probability) that our consciousness is produced by an objective reality (the Matrix, a computer simulation, whatever) which is entirely different from the phenomenal world we in fact observe around us, (i.e. that all we observe around as is an illusion as you put it). But if the phenomenal world that science studies is entirely different from objective reality then scientific naturalism is false. So in short, the premise that scientific naturalism is true implies that scientific naturalism may be false. Which is yet another way to point out the intrinsic incoherence of scientific naturalism: it's kind of self-negating.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

121. Comment #86776 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 6:15 am

Or, to mention another example, the stronger version of scientific naturalism would render even mathematical propositions meaningless, and the weaker version would place mathematical objects and laws in the realm of the non-objective opposing the deepest intuitions of the mathematicians.

We have been over this many times. This is just gibberish. You make the mistake of reification, in claiming that abstractions (like mathematics) are real things which have some sort of concrete existence.

Mathematics is objective, but abstract. It does not require any substance for its existence, either physical or supernatural.

This is such a common philosophical mistake, and so easily corrected once it is pointed out, that one has to question your motives in repeating it again and again.

But if the phenomenal world that science studies is entirely different from objective reality then scientific naturalism is false.

That is a big IF. Prove it. If you can't, then the simplest explanation is that the phenomenal world is the same as objective reality.

All you are saying here is "if we are all being fooled by Magic Man In The Sky, then science isn't investigating reality". In order to be taken seriously, you had better have some evidence for this.

In fact, the things you need to back up with evidence are building up....

1. There is a big universal morality meter somewhere that indicates that God is perfectly good.

2. Objective morality exists

3. We live in a simulation (such as God's mind)

Come on then! (And by the way ... 'it's obvious' is not evidence)

(I am also owed a experimentally testable prediction of idealistic theism)

Other Comments by steve99

122. Comment #86819 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 8:09 am

Dianelos, you're too hung up on the distinction between phenomenal world and objective reality. Try this: pretend that we're all talking about the phenomenal world. We're all judging hypotheses by virtue of how well they explain phenomena. Pretend no one is talking about "reality" as you imagine it. Do this for one week.

You are closer to atheism than theism, with respect to explanations for phenomena. You're on our team. Trust me, we're more simpatico than those Christian Embassy blokes. Read this article:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071107_the_cancer_from_within/

Other Comments by Dr Benway

123. Comment #86852 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 10, 2007 at 10:11 am

Dr Benway (post 111 or #86599)

Just to riff on your point: "objective" being operationally defined as "that which can be corroborated." Mathematical proofs can be corroborated just as physical events can be corroborated.

Doesn't work I think. It's true you can corroborate (most) proofs, but proofs are only formal production systems. But you can't corroborate what counts which is the truth of some mathematical propositions, for example that there is no greatest prime number, nor that (10^1000)*(10^1000)=10^2000. Neither can you corroborate physical events such as the Big Bang or macroevolution. Neither can you corroborate scientific propositions such as that all metals melt at some temperature. Our path to knowledge is much more complex (and indirect) than "corroboration".

I think that you as well as Dawkins display the kind of thinking illustrated by the saying "to a hammer everything looks like a nail". You are a doctor and just because in medicine all claims can be corroborated you imagine that this is a general principle. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and just because Darwinism explains organized complexity based on a simple principle he imagines that all explanations must be like that. In general I think this kind of attitude nicely explains the modern phenomenon that the greater the scientist the less probably they believe in God: The greater the scientist today the more overspecialized they are, and therefore the more naive their understanding of the broader issues of philosophy is.

We don't need to take a metaphysical stand regarding the ultimate nature of reality in order to corroborate evidence. The world may be "physical" or it may behave as if it were physical. No matter.

True, in the sense that you don't need any methaphysics in order to cure a patient or build an airplane, or in order to explain the organized complexity of the species or why the sky is blue. On the other hand we all do methaphysics in the sense that we all have some beliefs about how objective reality is, even though, as you say, whatever these beliefs may be does not matter at all in many contexts. On the other hand they do matter in how we think about ourselves, and indeed in how we decide to live our lives – which of course affects not only us but other people and nature in general too. How much these beliefs affect us and our environment is debatable, but I tend to agree with Sam Harris that the influence of our ontological beliefs is not insignificant.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

124. Comment #86854 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 10:18 am

On the other hand we all do methaphysics in the sense that we all have some beliefs about how objective reality is, even though, as you say, whatever these beliefs may be does not matter at all in many contexts.

I try not to accept propositions that go beyond the data, unless necessary for communication.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

125. Comment #86857 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 10:30 am

The greater the scientist today the more overspecialized they are, and therefore the more naive their understanding of the broader issues of philosophy is.

This is a very big claim. Please provide evidence.

(Don't forget there are other claims also awaiting evidence).

The issue is not the greater the scientist, the less they believe in God. Increased atheism is (as I understand it) correlated with general increased education, not just science.

And you will find plenty of atheist modern philosophers, so that argument doesn't work either.

Other Comments by steve99

126. Comment #86866 by epeeist on November 10, 2007 at 10:48 am

Comment #86852 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Doesn't work I think. It's true you can corroborate (most) proofs, but proofs are only formal production systems.

This surely depends on whether you are an idealist or not.

But you can't corroborate what counts which is the truth

Besides all the other things you have been asked, and for which you have provided no evidence, could you also tell us what you mean by "truth"?


Dr. Benway - I think you may have a patient waiting.

Other Comments by epeeist

127. Comment #86950 by Diacanu on November 10, 2007 at 1:58 pm

DG-

Time permitting I try to comment on posts I find interesting.

Then I'm sure mine are next in the queue.
*smirk*

Other Comments by Diacanu

128. Comment #87013 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 11, 2007 at 2:00 am

Epeeist (post 114 or #86718

The great physical theories of the 20th century (GR, QM and QFT) provide a convincing view of reality though it is obvious that they are not complete.

What you write here is factually true if by "reality" you mean "phenomenal reality", but is factually false if by "reality" you mean "objective reality". As far as objective reality goes the great physical theories of the 20th century have falsified many of the previous intuitions of how physical reality is and have left scientific naturalists more perplexed not to mention more in mutual disagreement than in any other time in history. It's a deeply paradoxical situation: One would have expected the opposite, namely that the better we understand the mechanical nature of physical phenomena the more unequivocal and objective our knowledge about the underlying physical reality would become. But it has not played out this way and right now scientific naturalists cannot even agree whether the visible universe is the only one or if there are 10^100+ other universes, or whether physical reality is deterministic or not, etc. And I haven't even mentioned the mind-body problem. Of course a scientific naturalist may hope that the situation will somehow change in the future, but there is no sign of that happening, and there are good philosophical reasons why such hope is doomed.

If you wish to counter this with another theory then the burden of proof is on you to show where the failures are and what your theory can do that is better. None of this you have done (or even got close to).

But I have done that in the McGrath thread: I offered idealistic theism as a much more successful ontological theory than scientific naturalism.

Similarly with your claim for "objective morality". You have been shown that different cultures and different times have different sets of behaviours. You claim that the "moral zeitgeist is improving" but offer no evidence that this is because of the existence of objective morality.

That the moral Zeitgeist is improving is not specifically my claim; it is one of the basic claims of New Atheism with which I happen to agree.

You offer no way that objective morality could be recognised. You haven't even managed to show that even if it existed objective morality would have a religious basis.

I disagree. If one accepts that objective reality is intrinsically ethical it is tantamount to adopting a religious ontology. Even more I think one adopts a theistic worldview, because the concept of ethics makes no sense at the absence of conscious subject, and therefore ethics as an intrinsic aspect of the whole of reality makes no sense without a conscious subject as an intrinsic aspect of the whole of reality.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

129. Comment #87016 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 2:18 am

I offered idealistic theism as a much more successful ontological theory than scientific naturalism.

You offered it, and we refused it. We refused it because it was only more successful if we accept your views on things. We don't. You first have to provide evidence for your views... like these ones:

If one accepts that objective reality is intrinsically ethical

I might, if you provided evidence. Please do so.

Even more I think one adopts a theistic worldview, because the concept of ethics makes no sense at the absence of conscious subject

You see, this is an argument for ethics not being objective. They can't be if they require a conscious subject - by definition, that means they are subjective.

Other Comments by steve99

130. Comment #87018 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 11, 2007 at 2:24 am

Steve99 ( post 115 or #86720

What we are discussing is scientific naturalism's growing pains for accounting for the phenomenal reality that science is so well mapping. Which, incidentally, is not even the primary problem of scientific naturalism; its primary problem is the transcendental argument we have been discussing in this thread.

No, the primary problem is that you are inventing problems as an excuse for supernaturalism. And, the problems you invent are still there in supernaturalism.

First of all I see now my wording above is ambiguous. I meant : "What we are discussing is scientific naturalism's growing pains for accounting for the objective reality that produces the phenomenal reality that science is so well mapping." I will edit the original post. As for me inventing problems I don't think that's true; after all I learned about scientific naturalism's problems by reading books written by scientific naturalists: mainly scientists discussing what scientific knowledge implies about objective reality. As for idealistic theism having the same problems, we've been over that already: A worldview that posits that fundamentally reality is physical has to explain how a physical system produces consciousness; but obviously a worldview that posits that fundamentally reality is conscious does not have this particular problem. I am not sure why you have trouble understanding this, and I don't know how better to explain it.

Oh I see: The more holes and paradoxes the better, eh?

Absolutely! That is what is such fun about science! We aren't going to sit around all smug like you with the 'God did it' answer for everything.

I was not discussing the holes of science but the holes of scientific naturalism. Steve feel free to keep conflating science with scientific naturalism, but the fact that I, being an idealistic theist, can agree with every single sentence written in a scientific or technological book, not to mention that theists are winning today the Nobel price in physics, belies your belief that science and scientific naturalism are the same thing or that the former implies the latter.

We are talking about the positive existence of something objective. If something actually exists, and is objective, you should be able to prove its existence.

Prove then the objective existence of the moon. Or of the Statue of Liberty if you prefer.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

131. Comment #87019 by epeeist on November 11, 2007 at 2:26 am

Comment #87013 by Dianelos Georgoudis

What you write here is factually true if by "reality" you mean "phenomenal reality", but is factually false if by "reality" you mean "objective reality".

Sez you. What you say three times doesn't make it true.

As far as objective reality goes the great physical theories of the 20th century have falsified many of the previous intuitions of how physical reality is and have left scientific naturalists more perplexed not to mention more in mutual disagreement than in any other time in history.

I really didn't think you would fall for so transparent a piece of second intention.

Pre-20th century physics wasn't "perplexed" simply because they didn't have the observations that we have. If they had then their world view would have been in even more disarray than you claim for 20th century physics. With the advent of the three theories I named things have actually become more coherent, we can explain reality in a much more satisfying way than previously.

As I have said the theories are incomplete (and as always contingent), but a theory that can predict phenomena to 1 part in 10¹¹ as QFT can (with 1 part in 10¹⁴ apparently possible for GR) must be on the right track.

Oh, and go to bed tonight with this thought it mind. Just because the sun rose this morning doesn't prove it will rise tomorrow. All we have is strong corroboration that it will do so.

Other Comments by epeeist

132. Comment #87020 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 2:38 am

A worldview that posits that fundamentally reality is physical has to explain how a physical system produces consciousness; but obviously a worldview that posits that fundamentally reality is conscious does not have this particular problem. I am not sure why you have trouble understanding this, and I don't know how better to explain it.

It does have a problem. I could just as easily say (as David Chalmers does) that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality in our physical universe. You therefore have no basis on which to use this as an argument for idealistic theism.

I, being an idealistic theist, can agree with every single sentence written in a scientific or technological book,

No, you can't. As you have already pointed out, you choose idealistic theism because you find some sentences written in scientific books absurd.

Prove then the objective existence of the moon. Or of the Statue of Liberty if you prefer.

When I talk to other people, I get consistent reports of what those objects are and where they are. When I talk to other people, I get inconsistent reports of whether or not objective ethics exist and what they consist of. This more likely suggests a lack of objectivity, and a dependence on viewpoint. So, evidence please...

You also owe me an experimental prediction of idealistic theism - remember?

Other Comments by steve99

133. Comment #87021 by epeeist on November 11, 2007 at 2:40 am

Comment #87020 by steve99

You also owe me an experimental prediction of idealistic theism - remember?

And don't forget my definition of truth.

Other Comments by epeeist

134. Comment #87023 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 11, 2007 at 2:53 am

BMMcArdle (post 117 or #86727):

Time permitting, will you answer the three yes-or-no questions I submitted?

OK, here you go:

Were you Baptised?

Yes (even though I don't understand your capital "B" :-)

Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?

I know that wording is a big deal in some Evangelical circles but I have no idea what it actually means. Let me rephrase it the closest I think I can come to that question: Do you believe that the second hypostasis of God (which Christians call "Jesus Christ") is the path towards God (which path Christians call "salvation")? Yes.

Do you believe in The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost?

Yes.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

135. Comment #87025 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 11, 2007 at 3:07 am

Steve99 (post 119 or #86731):

And I would love to see any experimental predictions of scientific naturalism. Tell you what: For each experimental prediction of scientific naturalism you give me, I'll give you one experimental prediction of idealistic theism :-)

OK, here is one: The orbit of planets around other suns can be explained entirely by theories of gravity. No pushing by angels required.

I am not sure what your prediction actually predicts, but no matter, let me give you the corresponding "prediction" of idealistic theism:

The orbits of the planets around the sun which are present in our conscious experience can be explained entirely by theories of gravity. No pushing of objectively existing planets by an objectively existing gravity required. And no explanation about how an objectively existing gravity actually manages to push these objectively existing planets around. You may ask: What then pushes the planets? The answer is: The movement of the planets as observed in our conscious experience is directly caused by God. You may further ask: How does God manage to push our conscious experience in this way? The answer is: Roughly in the same way that physical gravity manages to push physical planets around :-)


Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

136. Comment #87028 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 3:16 am

I am not sure what your prediction actually predicts

It predicts that the orbits of planets can be calculated only using current theories of gravity, and no additional fact will need to be invoked, such as the supernatural.

The answer is: The movement of the planets as observed in our conscious experience is directly caused by God.

That won't do. I asked for an experimental prediction, not an opinion about how it happens. You will first need to provide hard evidence that God exists, and that he causes our experience. We will need to be able to test those by experiment. And, 'it is obvious' is not evidence.

How does God manage to push our conscious experience in this way? The answer is: Roughly in the same way that physical gravity manages to push physical planets around :-)

No, that won't do. You aren't claiming a Spinozan God who simply instantiates the laws of the Universe. You are claiming a being who actively simulates things, and who consists of three parts, and who resurrected Jesus.

My experiment is designed to show that you don't need to invoke the supernatural. I don't need to show that the supernatural does not exist. Just that you don't need it.

You make a strong claim. You claim that the supernatural does exist. Therefore you need to describe an experiment that objectively (i.e. so that just about everyone would come to the same conclusion) illustrates the presence of supernatural effects.

Other Comments by steve99

137. Comment #87061 by Timnea on November 11, 2007 at 6:01 am

Dianelos

You objectively crack me up with your objective bullshit artistry ;-)

Other Comments by Timnea

138. Comment #87072 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 6:26 am

Neither can you corroborate scientific propositions such as that all metals melt at some temperature.

You've said this a few times. It seems a simple thing, establishing the melting point of some metal. So I'm puzzled by your meaning here.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

139. Comment #87096 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 11, 2007 at 7:48 am

Steve99 (post 121 or #86776):

Mathematics is objective, but abstract. It does not require any substance for its existence, either physical or supernatural.

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that mathematical objects (such as numbers) exist objectively, but without any substance (either physical or supernatural). So, I wonder, where exactly in the universe are these objects?

Further, some mathematical objects are very complex, and according to Dawkins in TGD it's not good enough to say "they just are"; rather one must give a simple explanation for them. So how were they formed? Where to they come from?

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

140. Comment #87099 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 8:04 am

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that mathematical objects (such as numbers) exist objectively, but without any substance (either physical or supernatural). So, I wonder, where exactly in the universe are these objects?

They don't exist anywhere in the universe. That is what 'abstract' means. Things don't have to exist anywhere in the universe to be objectively true. The difference between mathematics and ethics is that there are logical steps to mathematical truths given simple axioms. There are no such logical steps to ethical 'truths' from simple axioms.

Further, some mathematical objects are very complex, and according to Dawkins in TGD it's not good enough to say "they just are"; rather one must give a simple explanation for them.

No, that is not what Dawkins says at all. He does not say that complex things can't "just be". What he says is that it is unreasonable to explain the existence of complex things using more complex things.

I really think you need to go back and read TGD again. Carefully. You seem to have little idea of its content. We have seen this before when you claimed Dawkins was against the idea of a Creator, when all he actually is against are Creators that have not evolved.

So how were they formed? Where to they come from?

They just are. They are where you get to if you choose certain axioms, unlike ethics.

We all agree on the value of Pi (well, apart from some religious), but not on the meaning of good and evil. If you have some method of determining good and evil that is equivalent to the formula for calculating Pi, you would make philosophical history.

And by the way, you still owe me an experimental prediction of idealistic theism. And evidence for objective ethics. And how I find the universal right-and-wrong meter that will reveal that God is perfectly good.

Other Comments by steve99

141. Comment #87103 by epeeist on November 11, 2007 at 8:09 am

Comment #87072 by Dr Benway

You've said this a few times. It seems a simple thing, establishing the melting point of some metal. So I'm puzzled by your meaning here.

It is actually part of a larger quotation.

Also, valid scientific statements such as "black holes exist" or "all metals melt at some temperature" cannot be falsified.

However, he can't see the difference between the two statements.

Other Comments by epeeist

142. Comment #87104 by epeeist on November 11, 2007 at 8:11 am

Comment #87096 by Dianelos Georgoudis

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that mathematical objects (such as numbers) exist objectively, but without any substance (either physical or supernatural). So, I wonder, where exactly in the universe are these objects?

As I said, you can consider them as Platonic ideals.

Other Comments by epeeist

143. Comment #87110 by BillySands on November 11, 2007 at 8:14 am

That's an argument?

Other Comments by BillySands

144. Comment #87117 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 8:31 am

Also, valid scientific statements such as "black holes exist" or "all metals melt at some temperature" cannot be falsified.

I must be simple. We can see black holes through telescopes. Why would we seek to falsify stuff we've actually seen?

Neither can you corroborate physical events such as the Big Bang or macroevolution

I can corroborate the observations that falsify a Big Bang null hypothesis, or a macroevolution null hypothesis.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

145. Comment #87122 by Denevius on November 11, 2007 at 8:56 am

This has been an interesting discussion.

The one thing I find truly disheartening is that, on the surface, Dianelos Georgoudis sounds like he/she's making really valid points. It probably has a lot to do with the fact that he/she truly believes their argument.

But then, this individual will take this well thought out, but ultimately exceptionally flawed, way of thinking to very unsophisticated people, and will whelm them into accepting these irrational statements as valid arguments.

There simply are not enough Steve99s out there to counter Dianelos Georgoudis' particular brand of irrational statements because, to be honest, Dianelos Georgoudis would have wiped the ground with most of you others who responded here if he had just debated you.

Thanks Steve.

Other Comments by Denevius

146. Comment #87123 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 11, 2007 at 9:03 am

Dr Benway (post 122 or #86819):

Dianelos, you're too hung up on the distinction between phenomenal world and objective reality.

Well, the distinction between phenomenal and objective reality is really basic in ontology. In the context of discussing ontology you telling me that I am too hung up on that distinction, is like telling a mathematician that they are too hung up on logic, or telling a physicist that they are too hung up on mathematics.

Try this: pretend that we're all talking about the phenomenal world. :-) It's kind of difficult to pretend that. After all when Dawkins in TGD claims that there is no God he is not making a claim about phenomenal reality, but about reality – which of course includes objective reality. Atheism is defined by an ontological belief, namely the belief that the objective reality that produces all phenomena in our experience does not contain a being with the properties of God.

We're all judging hypotheses by virtue of how well they explain phenomena.

In the context of explaining physical phenomena I am a naturalist too.

You are closer to atheism than theism, with respect to explanations for phenomena.

I am fully an atheist with respect to explanations for physical phenomena. I suppose any educated person today knows that there is no reason to doubt that all physical phenomena (including two of the remaining big problems of science, namely the origin of life and the origin of human intelligence) can be explained on purely physical/mechanical grounds.

But I am curious about how the objective reality which by definition produces these phenomena might be. And the hypothesis that objective reality too can be described on purely physical/mechanical grounds (namely the hypothesis of naturalism) turns out to be very problematic, which is a rather surprising and paradoxical turn of events. That's not just my opinion: several naturalist philosophers working today not only have written about these problems but are so convinced that these problems are unsolvable that they are already suggesting a change away from orthodox naturalism into some kind of more "pluralistic" naturalism, or, as in the case of David Chalmers a change into some kind of dualistic understanding of reality.

Trust me, we're more simpatico than those Christian Embassy blokes.

Well, probably most of my friends are atheists. But here I am not looking for groovy intellectual team mates. Rather I find it instructive to discuss with atheists in order to better understand how they think, and to check and put my own thoughts in order.

Thanks for the link. "Christian supremacist warrior" is about as incongruous an expression as any I can think of.


Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

147. Comment #87124 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 9:08 am

In the context of explaining physical phenomena I am a naturalist too.

No, you aren't. You claim there are holes in the explanations of physical phenomena that point to a non-naturalist explanation. You claim that the only explanation for what is going on is that a supernatural agent - God - influences our minds.



Other Comments by steve99

148. Comment #87132 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 9:31 am

But then, this individual will take this well thought out, but ultimately exceptionally flawed, way of thinking to very unsophisticated people, and will whelm them into accepting these irrational statements as valid arguments.

That is indeed the danger. Much (OK, most) of what Dianelos writes are like those math puzzles that after a long series of equations, show that 1 = 2 or something similar. It all looks so convincing, but you just know that somewhere in there is a division by zero carefully hidden - a logical mistake.

There simply are not enough Steve99s out there to counter Dianelos Georgoudis' particular brand of irrational statements because, to be honest, Dianelos Georgoudis would have wiped the ground with most of you others who responded here if he had just debated you.

That is flattering, but not fair to so many contributors, who frequently manage to put forward a point in a sentence, or even a word, that takes me far longer. (I need not name names, you know who you are)

Other Comments by steve99

149. Comment #87153 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 11, 2007 at 10:58 am

Steve99 ( post 125 or #86857):

The greater the scientist today the more overspecialized they are, and therefore the more naive their understanding of the broader issues of philosophy is.

This is a very big claim. Please provide evidence.

Well, the fact that scientific research today has become much more complex than it was even in the recent past, and that (on average) in order to excel today scientists must single-mindedly work their craft is I think common knowledge. Scientists' general disdain for philosophy is also well-known I think. Dawkins in his TGD couldn't help evidencing that when in some place he spoke of a "philosophical chestnut" (if I remember correctly).

And you will find plenty of atheist modern philosophers, so that argument doesn't work either.

You're making a good point there. I am not sure how to explain this phenomenon, but I think that philosophy, not being a hard science as it were, is more dependent on fashion than philosophers themselves recognize or like to concede – and most modern philosophers do appear to be awestruck by, not to mention infatuated (and maybe a little jealous) with science's success. In a book I am now reading a philosopher writes how it has become customary for philosophical papers to somewhere mention that their position is "naturalistic" as if to preclude any criticisms on this point. Indeed only a few decades ago you'd hardly find theistic philosophers in Western academia including in the US, but the tide appears to be already turning. One way or the other, there is clearly much noise in philosophy, but the better philosophical ideas will survive. Now my claim is that the existence of God is the better explanation for the whole of our experience of life, and therefore I predict that humanity as a whole will move towards that realization in the future. I think the modern atheist phenomenon will in the future be understood as a temporary reaction against religion's superstitious past and dogmatic nature. Indeed I find it probable that modern atheism will play a positive role by helping bring religion's many flaws to the surface which will force religious people to deal with them and clean up their house as it were. And new atheism's visibility will motivate scientific research about and I think falsification of some of its principal claims, namely that religious belief is conducive to immoral behavior and/or that atheism is conducive to moral behavior. We shall to wait and see.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

150. Comment #87158 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 11, 2007 at 11:11 am

Epeeist (post 126 or #86866):

It's true you can corroborate (most) proofs, but proofs are only formal production systems.

This surely depends on whether you are an idealist or not.

How does my proposition above depend on idealism?

But you can't corroborate what counts which is the truth

Besides all the other things you have been asked, and for which you have provided no evidence, could you also tell us what you mean by "truth"?

Ah, that's a key question, isn't it? Maybe the key question; after all it makes little sense to debate whether a proposition is true or not without being clear what "truth" means. My understanding of truth is completely pragmatical. Let me think a little how to put in writing what I think about this important issue. Meanwhile, if you wish, it would be interesting if you explained what you mean by "truth".

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis