But I have a description. And for what happened long before the big bang too. And after ours. — Hillary

But there are quite a few speculative hypotheses like this. How do you justify settling on a particular one?

The whole history of periodic big bangs is natural. And because I can't know more than an infinite past (in which time starts from zero over and over) so what else to conclude that the gods started it infinitely long ago? — Hillary

What makes you so sure the past is infinite? How do you reconcile an infinite past with time starting over?

what else to conclude that the gods started it infinitely long ago? What ignorance you refer too? — Hillary

What does it mean to be "infinitely long ago"? Infinite past seems to entail no beginning.

I referred to an argument from ignorance: i.e. we don't know what happened, so you insist "therefore it must be X". The problem is there there are many existing speculative hypotheses available today, and there's many more could be developed. How did you choose the one you embrace?

What's sacred? Good question! — Hillary

I'm asking what you mean by the term (which you used), not what IS sacred.

3. Atmospheric studies of potentially habitable exoplanets (colonization)
— Agent Smith
Easy there, conquistador. :sweat: — 180 Proof


:lol:

Enthusiastic as ever! — Hillary

Smith is quite the optimist. I wonder if he's anticipating warp drive, suspended animation, teleportation - or something else.

Well, the universe needs a reason and a kind of sacredness. A non-scientific reason, since I have a scientific description from beginning to end. I don't see how one can go deeper. Of course you can say that's because we don't know but I think we can know. So the three combined give reason, sacredness, and an vision of how gods and heaven look like (like life and the universe) And a reason why they created the basics in the first place. And the sacredness tells that we should treat all life as sacred. — Hillary

I'll assume that by "universe", you're referring to the stars/galaxies/dark matter etc that were produced by the big bang that cosmologists study. It's true that we don't have a scientific description of what existed prior to the inflationary period - but why would you assume this implies it's probably not natural? Why assume we can't go deeper, when you consider the gaps in scientific understanding (quantum mechanics and general relativity aren't reconciled - but theoretical physicists generally believe they will one day be reconciled). You say "we can know", but do you allow for theoretical physics to advance and answer at least some of the questions? It sounds too much like argument from ignorance.

Sacredness? Please explain what that is, and what leads you to believe there is such a thing. Why think there's a heaven? Is it a non-physical place, is it just a natural container for the universe? What's the basis of your "vision"?

What you mean by justified? Evidence? — Hillary

Some sort of epistemic justification, including (but not limited to): deduction, induction, abduction, inference to the best explanation...

I couldn't find my car keys this morning, despite the fact that I always hang them on the hook by the front door. Am I justified in blaming a poltergeist?

The constants are what they are, and there are consequences. This doesn't mean they're "right". — Relativist


No. But for life they are right. — Hillary

Life is a consequence of what they are. Different values would have led to different consequences.

Yes. Hawking said that. The gods breath the fire, the charge, into them. — Hillary

OK, but it still reflects a platonist perspective. Law realism seems much more reasonable.

Of course it's speculation. So what? — Hillary

Simply that it's not rational, because it's unjustifiable.

Why assume the uncaused thing(s) are as complex as intelligent being(s)?
— Relativist

Because them gods are the non-material forms of life, as heaven is the form of the universe. Without the evolving into beings... — Hillary

This is pure speculation. There is no evidence for it. This is true of many things you've asserted. I don't see how these can possibly be justified beliefs.

The right coupling strengths of particles, which determines interaction, and are just numbers and determine the relative strengths of vertex factors, The right speed of light. The right Planck constant. The dimensionslity of space, though for three dimensions there are as many translational as rotational degrees of freedom. They could be interrelated though but still. Where does it come from? What blows the fire into the equations? — Hillary

The constants are what they are, and there are consequences. This doesn't mean they're "right".

The "fire in the equations" (sounds like something Vilenkin said) is based on a platonic view of laws of nature: equations existing in platonic heaven that mysteriously affect the objects to which they apply. Law realists (e.g. Armstrong, Tooley, Sosa) view laws of nature as physical relations, part of the physical structure of the world, existing exclusively in their instantiations . e.g.the attraction between electron and proton reflects a physical relation between them.

Just try to imagine how particles, virtual ones, or real ones, and the space the move in (which can be made of the hidden variables of QM) can come into existence. With all the right properties (or a mechanism to include all possibilities, which isn't the string landscape, and why not simply posing that they have the right qualities.). From nothing. I can't explain that. And the direction in which they move, towards the greater entropy, is an indication too. — Hillary

What do you mean by "right qualities"?

Why do you assume there are QM hidden
variables? Does quantum indeterminacy unsatisfying?

You agree something exists that is uncaused. Do you also agree that it didn't "come into" existence?

Why assume the uncaused thing(s) are as complex as intelligent being(s)?

Non-intelligent matter, like elementary particles and space, etc. need intelligences to exist. — Hillary

What makes you think that?

It appears to me that intelligence entails complex processes, which are produced by complex entities- there's a dependency on underlying, complex structure. This implies that without components that work together, there can be no intelligence. Why think intelligence can be produced without this?

Not sure I follow you here... You mean not everything can be known? — Hillary

Yes, more than likely. You should agree, since you believe there are gods. How could you possibly determine their properties?

Because they are different from the material universe. They are eternal intelligences, without the need for explanation. — Hillary

Sounds like a special pleading. You acknowledge that something exists without explanation, and we agree on that. IMO, the notion that it is something as complex as intelligent beings seems absurd.

But the everyday world was not looked at in the experiments. — Hillary

But the phenomena does manifest itself in a detectable way.

If there is a god, it is probably not directly detectable. If one is open to that possibility, one should be open to the existence of other non-detectable things.

But I mean, if there are 2 basics, you can't go deeper logically. Two basis particles is the minimum. It can't be one. — Hillary

Logically, humans can't go deeper in exploration, but that does not mean that's all there is. Remember, I wad responding to this:

I think everything can actually be known. — Hillary

No. But neither is there not to claim. And I think the incapacity of physics to find the cause of it's ingredients, elementary particles, pretty good reason for such assumption. — Hillary

Why exempt god(s) from requiring a reason for existing?

It's not so weird if you understand it from a certain angle, — Hillary

It's weird in the sense that no one would have proposed it based on everyday experience of the world. The behavior did, at least, have an experimental manifestation. But there could be weirdness that doesn't manifest itself this way. We don't know what we don't know.

Two basic massless particles, beneath the standard model seems the bottom. You logically can't go deeper. Or can we? — Hillary

We may not be able to explore deeper, but that doesn't mean this is truly fundamental. We used to think protons and neutrons were fundamental.

Exactly! I said that earlier somewhere. When the gaps are closed, gods provide the last closure. — Hillary

The point is that the psychological need for causal closure makes some of us overly willing to accept answers just because they are answers, in spite of weak support and implausibility.

But so is Dawkins' interpretation of evolution. The selfish genes or memes testify and this is based on a dogma even: The central dogma of molecular biology. — Hillary

I assure you, Dawkins believes the processes are deterministic (perhaps with some influence from quantum indeterminacy). Genes are not making choices based on some sense of self-interest. The descriptions are terms of art.

The question is asked because there has to be a reason. — Hillary

That's an assumption you make. There is no objective basis for the claim. Everything that exists has been caused by something prior, which can be described as a "causal reason" , but it's a phrasing to describe our motivation to discover "why?" There's no objective basis for assuming intentionality.

And the fine-tuning argument is a good indication for the reason. The coupling constants (electric, color, and hypercolor charge, and to some extent mass) need to have a fixed ratio. In the string landscape 10exp 500 possibilities are offered but in the face of infinity this is small. — Hillary

The constants are what they are, and the universe has evolved accordingly. Fine tuning arguments assume there was a design objective and remark at the improbability of meeting the objective. The exact state of the universe today is grossly improbable, because of the many instances of prior quantum indeterministic events. But every unrealized state would have been equally improbable - so it is an absolute certainty that the universe would exist in a low probability state. Only if you assume humans (or a life permitting universe) was a goal does it seem remarkable that this particular universe came to be.

There just has to be intelligences behind it. Or not, who knows, but I feel more comfortable, in the knowledge that there is such reason behind it. — Hillary

There is a psychological phenomenon called "the need for cognitive closure." We all have it to some degree - it's related to curiosity. But it can also drive people to embrace answers just because they are answers. Conspiracy theorists have a high need for cognitive closure. Plausibility takes a back seat, explanatory scope is the driver. "Knowing" the answer gives them comfort. IMO, it's worthwhile to seek answers, but counterproductive to land on answers just because of the compulsion to have an answer, rather than applying reasonable epistemic standards.

Words refer to mental concepts - usually fuzzy concepts (e.g. "shoe"). A definition is an attempt to convey the concept associated with the word. Because the concept is fuzzy, there isn't a strict set of properties that unequivocally define it. But the most significant properties are conveyed, based on the most common usage.

I think everything can actually be known. Why not? — Hillary

How could we ever determine the nature of the "bottom layer" of reality? Even if a model were developed (something like the standard model of particle physics), we could never know that there isn't something even more fundamental.

Quantum mechanics is weird - had we not been able to measure the weirdness (eg double slit), no one would have proposed such an odd model. Physical reality may very well have weirdness that doesn't expose itself to us. There would be no way to know.

Assume God created the world. What exactly did he create? Would there be any way to determine this?

The standard view on evolution, genes or memes trying to replicate, says the purpose of life is to do exactly that. — Hillary

My issue is that "purpose" suggests intentionality, and intentionality implies an intelligence directing it. Theists often reply, "of course there is!", but that's not a deduction, it's an interpretation from a theist point of view.

A question popular among theists is: "why is there something rather than nothing?" But this assumes there is a reason - so to ask the question implies one assumes there is intentionality behind it all. Similarly, fine-tuning arguments assume there's a reason (or design objective).

Of course, I'm not going to convince you there isn't intentionality behind it all, but I'd like you to see that you can't prove (or justify) God's existence by assuming there is intentionality - that's circular.

Interesting. My position was formulated after reading Penelope Mackie.

I argue from knowledge of the cosmos. I know the workings of the cosmos. And thats the basis of my my default position that next to the cosmos gods exist. — Hillary

What do you mean by "default position"? I had assumed you were mirroring atheists who propose that atheism should be assumed as a starting point, but your statement implies you concluded it only after learning about the cosmos, after previously having a contrary or neutral position.

Yes you have. You consider them non existent — Hillary

After growing up Catholic, and spending years questioning what I'd been taught, I concluded gods don't exist. My default would have been to unquestioningly accept what I was taught, like most theists do.

just to be safe you say that might evidence show up you believe in them. — Hillary

That's a weird charge. Do you think it's 【u]better[/u] to cling to beliefs irrespective of evidence to the contrary?!

The imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade is only one component in the culmination of this, IMO, 50-60 year long reactionary, ethno-nationalist movement. — 180 Proof

That sounds reasonable.

I just can't imagine we are the result of coincidental quantum fluctuation leading to an evolving universe. — Hillary

"Coincidental"? Please identify the things upu consider coincidental.

Or that we are the result of evolving life whose only purpose it is to pass on genes or memes.

Notice that you assume there is a "purpose". If I flip a coin and it comes up tails, does that fulfill a purpose?

There has to be something unexplainable in the universe ...

There's a lot that isn't explained today, and I see no reason to believe humanity will ever explain everything. The actual nature of reality may never be known, but this is a reflection of our limitations. So I don't see how one can draw conclusions from this.

What if it's the case 'you are not even "you"'? (e.g. PSM) — 180 Proof

I'm not me, given the elapse of time between entering "I" and "me".

I know this sounds silly, so I'm having fun with it, but consider the alternative: what are the necessary and sufficient properties for being YOU?

Imagine going back in time and encountering your 10-year old "self". Will you be confused as to which of you is the guy who traveled back in time? There are clear differences between the two (e.g. different biological ages, different heights, you have experience and memories the 10-year old lacks, differences in interests and education... ).

Individual identity is a fuzzy concept.

Before I made my first complaint about your semantic nonsense, I searched a number of sources (SEP. IEP, Blackwell,...) to see if your usage was common. It's not. I gave you the opportunity to provide such a source. You had nothing. You even lied by claiming you weren't appealing to a standard dictionary, right after doing so. You are hell-bent on playing semantic policeman based on the semantics you like. I'm not interested in spinning my wheels on such bullshit, so I'm done arguing with you about it.

Now you deny that the act of Withholding judgment means that you don't accept a claim and non acceptance isn't synonymous to rejection?
And now you ask for a "work of epistemology that uses the term reject.....in such a manner".
Dude...open a dictionary. — Nickolasgaspar

I complained earlier:

Nick: "our dictionaries provide the opposite of that action"

Your usage appears to be non-standard in the realm of philosophy. Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic, since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy. — Relativist

You responded:

Did I???...in fact I didn't point to a dictionary at all. — Nickolasgaspar

But you had. And now you're doing it again.

You're arguing semantics, and insisting that your usage of the word "reject" is (somehow) required. You're wrong. I explained what I meant (and I believe my terminology is consistent with published epistemology), so we should be able to communicate. But you seem to insist I use your non-standard definition. I don't understand why this is so important to you. We seem to agree on almost everything else.

Is English not your first language?

The example is specific.
Non acceptance(rejection) includes Ps that we are not convinced of and Ps~ that we think they are false. — Nickolasgaspar

Point me at a work of epistemology that uses the term "reject" in such a manner.

Pro-lifers are also pro-voter suppression (and pro-death penalty). Why? It's all about demographic control. — 180 Proof

I'm sympathetic to your view, but it sounds almost like a conspiracy theory. I'd say it's about power: Republicans latched onto the Jerry Falwell inspired "pro-life" movement because it was low hanging fruit for a large block of voters, and it conflicts with none of their principles (few as they are). It's been a successful strategy.

Are we our personality? Are we a soul? Are we our brain? What makes the real us? — TiredThinker

I hold to the identity of indiscernables and indiscernability of the identical.

IOW, iff A and B have identical properties, then A is identical to B.

I am something with a specific set of properties. I am not identical to the guy waking up in my bed tomorrow (he will have experienced some TV shows, and a night of sleep that I haven't experienced, among other differences), but we're closely related. My "identity" consists of a temporal causal chain that connects all these guys. My view is called perdurantism. IMO, it's the least-worst account of personal identity.

WHEN DID I say that he is not free to hold irrational beliefs? — Nickolasgaspar

You didn't. I was responding to this:

you are the one who needs to provide evidence. — Nickolasgaspar

I was explaining why he doesn't "need to" do anything. You come off as overly aggressive. You can ask him to justify his beliefs, you can express skepticism that his position is justifiable. You can ask him to explain his reasoning. I just think you should soften it up, a bit..

The existence of the universe is sufficient proof for me. Science offers no reason, only mechanisms. The mechanisms and the material it offers can't provide reason for its own existence. — Hillary

So you seem to believe there has to be a reason for everything. Why think so?

To be honest, that seems to me to be an assumption rooted in theism.

It is a statement of my attitude toward p: i believe p to be false. Why is that a problem?
— Relativist
As you said its your attitude......not other people's attitude or the Default Position one should hold for p. — Nickolasgaspar

Sure, but that's not a problem. If you've used p to try and convince me that q is true, it suffices to tell you "but I reject p". You are then free to challenge my position on p.

If you project your attitude on others then you will end up with a Strawman.

You're assuming a context. Some contexts might call for more discussion about p, but I'm just defending my usage of the simple statement.

If you only reject P when you believe it is false then that should mean that you accept P when you are not convinced/reserve judgment of P?

No. There are 3 possible attitudes I can express, not 2:
1) I accept p as true; or
2) I reject p (believe p false); or
3)I reserve judgment on p (e.g. because I have insufficient information to either accept it or reject it).

Anyone" doesn't have some abstract "burden of proof''. Only claims have burden of proof. Those you accept them and promote them are oblige to meet it....if of course they are interested in accepting reasonable beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar

A "claim" is a statement made by a person; it is a statement of a belief held by the person. The person (not the statement) has a burden to defend it, and only if he's promoting it - trying to convince others.

In the colloquial usage of the term, when we demand proof we literally demand Objective facts that can falsify or verify a claim — Nickolasgaspar

But we all hold falsifiable beliefs, and this can be rational. Demanding proof is expecting too much, because in practice it often means "convince me". Rather, request a justification and (if the guy is being rational), you'll find it's based on something else you disagree with. You can take such a conversation down several levels without being convinced - but you can (perhaps) learn to appreciate he has some depth to his reasoning.

No one is or should make absolute claims about knowledge or proof or certainty.
That said no one should ever believe or promote claims with zero justification just because there is a weakness in the way we can verify/falsify things. — Nickolasgaspar

I agree on both these points

"I reject p" (where p is some proposition), it means I believe ~p.
— Relativist
That is a problem because "I believe ~p" is NOT a direct logical negation of the proposition P! — Nickolasgaspar

It is a statement of my attitude toward p: i believe p to be false. Why is that a problem?

Grow up Mr Hillary! You are the magical thinker who talks about gods. you are the one who needs to provide evidence. — Nickolasgaspar

I'll defend Hillary (a bit). He is free to hold irrational beliefs. He is free to hold rational beliefs and decline to share his justification. We are free to remain unconvinced that he could justify it. If he'd like to convince others that his belief in God is rational, then (and only then) he would need to demonstrate that its rational by sharing and discussing his reasoning.

Doesn't 'rational justification' count as meeting a burden of proof - this latter term is archaic English. Isn't proof traditionally just an argument that establishes the validity of a proposition? — Tom Storm

It could, but it's ambiguous and leads to misunderstanding. There's an active thread on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). The KCA is purported to be a "proof" of God's existence. Someone making this claim has the burden to demonstrate its soundness - this is a real "burden of proof". On the other hand, a theist may provide a perfectly rational justification for his belief (e.g. God spoke to him directly) even though it has no power to persuade. No burden of proof.

I think we agree on most of the issues we've discussed. But to be clear, when I say "I reject p" (where p is some proposition), it means I believe ~p. This is irrespective of any justification I may have, and it doesn't mean I'm closed minded about it. I'd use different language to reflect a withholding of judgment.