Since most of the posts on this thread have been dismissive of the philosophical arguments presented in Return of the God Hypothesis, for an eternal, logical, intelligent, and intentional First Cause of the physical universe, I'm adding a Post Script to summarize Stephen Meyer's Epilogue, in which he responds to "scientific objections to its arguments" with scientific counter-arguments.

# Anthropomorphic Fine Tuning
"Lawrence Krauss challenged the idea that the physical parameters of our universe were fine-tuned to make life possible". Instead, he argued that "life on earth is fine-tuned to the universe".
Meyer : "the precise fine tuning of many critical factors needed to arise first before any conceivable form of life could have begun to evolve . . . "
Note --- Hence, a nursery world compatible with Life was a necessary prerequisite for fragile life to emerge from thermodynamic processes that produce only Entropy. In my thesis, I labeled that Vital Force (Negentropy) as positive Enformy*1*2.

*1. A Theory of Enformed Systems :
"Under TES, enformy, the capacity to organize, is essential to morphogenesis"
https://vxm.com/2.CompTheory.html

*2. Enformy vs Entropy :
Entropy is a property of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That glitch is what I call Enformy : the tendency to create new forms of matter (morphogenesis).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html


# Eternally Cycling Multiverse
"Several cosmological models have appeared . . . . to portray the universe as infinitely old". "Roger Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology*3 and Paul Steinhardt's cyclic cosmology . . . . oscillating universe".
Meyer : "This model was subject to the problem of steadily increasing entropy . . . . with each cycle". "To address this problem, Penroses's model invokes a hypothetical Phantom Field with powers associated with no known physical field (but instead, only with a god-like agency)".
Note --- Physical Eternity must have some way to deal with destructive Entropy. On Earth, Life has adapted to the seeming inevitability of Death, by importing energy from outside the living organism. Hence, Life is an open system --- organized in a manner to capture and make use of the Morphological Potential that is inherent in ambient Energy.

*3. Is conformal cyclic cosmology really debunked?
". . . . CCC is wrong because it violates the conservation of information, something that you need to do physics in the first place, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, . . ."
https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/jfu7mm/is_conformal_cyclic_cosmology_really_debunked/

Note --- Meyer labels his Intelligent Designer theory generically as "Theism", which could apply to any of the thousands of world religions and god-models. Yet, he avoids specifying that his designer is supposed to be the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Ironically, his scientific arguments are identical to those of Deists, who don't accept the Bible as the Word of God. Instead, they read Nature as the Work of G*D.

A preference that can't be justified has no place in a discussion. In this case the justification for eliminativism would be parsimony. — goremand

How do you justify a preference for parsimony? Does it allow you to summarily eliminate the entities you don't like?

Qualitative Experience can't be dissected by scientists, so simply eliminate it as immaterial. But then, Metaphysics is all about immaterial ideas, so eliminate Philosophy : yes/no? :smile:

Because it can lack firmness and consistency when applied to complex ideas or phenomena, Occam's razor is more commonly seen as a guiding heuristic than as a principle of absolute truth. ___Wikipedia

But of course. Qualia is the very thing to be eliminated, there will be no Love and no Redness. That is not the problem but the solution. — goremand

Perhaps the most parsimonious way to eliminate Qualia is suicide. :joke:

An aside. One of the problems for me is the emotional ladenness of this kind of wording. 'Accident' is already contrived as unfortunate. 'Chance' and 'haphazard' also sound like they have a criticism built into the very wording. It's a way of wrapping it all up as 'meaningful' versus 'dumb luck'... Essentially a William Lane Craig move. — Tom Storm

Actually, I had never heard of the term, Accidentalism, until I stumbled across it while researching the opposite of Creation & Causation & Determinism. Apparently, it's an ancient concept to characterize a chaotic worldview. So, it was not made-up by Craig or Meyer or Gnomon to troll those who troll Intelligent Design proponents. Apparently, the Accidentalists (Epicureans ?) preferred "dumb luck" to "design".

Denial of Design in the real world seems to require Accidentalism*1 as an explanation for the natural rational order that Science depends on. For example, how did the Big Bang begin with nothing but extreme heat & pressure, yet then evolve into what Darwin described as "From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved".

Many cosmologists, who recognize the "unfortunate" "haphazardness" of Accidentalism, postulate (by inference, not evidence) that the Bang was organized by pre-existing logical Natural Laws, which in the works of men, are signs of design. Since the advent of Quantum Theory, the role of randomness*2 in physics is undeniable, except by Einstein. However, Darwin's theory combined Randomness (variation) with Selection (design) to describe how Nature has evolved into Cosmos instead of Chaos*3. :smile:


*1. Accidentalism
Theory that the flow of events is unpredictable, or for Epicureans, that mental events are specifically unpredictable. See also chaos, determinism, libertarianism, tychism.
https://philosophy.en-academic.com/20/accidentalism

*2. Tychism (Greek: τύχη, lit. 'chance') is a thesis proposed by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce that holds that absolute chance, or indeterminism, is a real factor operative in the universe. This doctrine forms a central part of Peirce's comprehensive evolutionary cosmology. It may be considered both the direct opposite of Albert Einstein's oft quoted dictum that: "God does not play dice with the universe" and an early philosophical anticipation of Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychism

*3. Cosmos vs Chaos
In Plato's Timaeus, he describes the universe as a rational, ordered cosmos created by a divine Craftsman, or Demiurge, from a pre-existing chaos. Plato's use of the term "chaos" is not meant to imply a complete lack of order, but rather a type of order that is opposed to reason. Plato's cosmos is dynamic, with a chaotic tendency that can undermine the rational order of the world.
___Google AI overview

No, you tend to overinterpret what I write somewhat. I only know Strawson as a critic of eliminativism, and that's the role he plays in the article. — goremand

I don't know anything about Eliminativism, beyond the Wikipedia article that discusses both sides of the argument. But my first impression is that both Materialism/Eliminativism, and Mentalism/Positivism --- or whatever the opposite theory is called --- are metaphysical conjectures, not scientific facts. So, lacking slam-dunk physical evidence pro or con, the argument could go on forever, as in this thread. Therefore, the contrasting views seem to be based on a personal preference for one kind of world or another : tangible, physical stuff vs imaginary, metaphysical*1 concepts.

The Mental world has been interpreted in terms of Souls & Spirits and Ghosts & Goblins ; but also in terms of Intelligence & Information. On the other hand, the Eliminativist position seems to be lacking any notion of a mechanism by which conceptual Qualia, such as Redness & Love could emerge from perceptual Matter by natural means. Hence, your preference for "clear" Black vs White dichotomies seems doomed to frustration. Unless of course, you simply believe one or the other based on Faith. Is that an "overinterpretation" of your Either/Or position? :smile:


*1. Metaphysical : relating to "the essentially metaphysical question of the nature of the mind"
___ Oxford dictionary
Note --- Is Mind something that can be dissected by scientists with scalpels, or a holistic function of a material brain, that must be inferred by reason?

There is nothing arrogant about advancing clear arguments. And I ever said his approach was humble, I said his claim was humble. Meaning: trivial, uncontroversial. — goremand

If the philosophical approach of the OP is "trivial, uncontroversial", then why has it evoked polarized controversial arguments for over a year? Apparently, the relationship of material Reality to mental Mind touches a nerve for some posters on this forum.

The only thing unclear about the OP is that it is not a simplistic Either/Or argument, but as I see it, a sophisticated Both/And position of complementarity*1. Few philosophers would deny that the Real world includes both Matter and Mind. The debate is about how to reconcile that apparent Cartesian duality within a general worldview. Strawson has one solution, and another. What's yours? :smile:

*1. Complementarity is the realization that a single thing, when considered from different perspectives, can appear to have different, or even contradictory, properties. Complementarity alerts us that answering different kinds of questions can require radically different approaches.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mind-expanding-power-of-complementarity/

What a shame. I'd love to read an attack on physicalism, especially of the eliminativist variety. Though I wouldn't expect much from an article that quotes Galen Strawson, the lamest critic I've ever read. — goremand

Apparently, you like nice neat Either/Or dichotomies. Did you interpret Strawson's position as an attack on Physicalism? Ironically, he claims to be a proponent of Physicalism*2. But how, then, can he say that "physicalism entails panpsychism"? Maybe his position is complementary*2, which you interpret as "lame". :grin:

*2. Is Galen Strawson a physicalist?
As a real physicalist, then, I hold that the mental/experiential is physical, and I am happy to say, along with many other physicalists, that experience is 'really just neurons firing', at least in the case of biological organisms like ourselves.
https://www.sjsu.edu/people/anand.vaidya/courses/c2/s0/Realistic-Monism---Why-Physicalism-Entails-Panpsychism-Galen-Strawson.pdf
Note --- The subtitle of the linked article is : "Realistic Monism : Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism"

In other words, it is a claim that is compatible with some forms of realism. — goremand

Yes. I think Wayfarer's notion of Mind/World is "compatible" with Realism, in the sense that Mind & Matter are complementary, not oppositions : not one to the exclusion of the other. But it's difficult to articulate that subtle inter-relationship in terms of our matter-oriented language. For example, to say that mind is immaterial, could be interpreted to mean that "mind doesn't matter" : i.e. trivial. :nerd:

DEATH EATER : gluttonous gourmand or moderate-idea consumer?

I'm sure that's true, but it isn't obvious to me from the OP or from what I've read in your other posts. The proposition that "reality is created by the mind" at first seems like an attack on physicalism/realism (whichever term you like), but when I look at your explanation in detail the term "reality" instead seems to refer to "our particular conception of reality", which is amounts to a rather humble claim, not really an attack at all. — goremand

Please pardon my intrusion. Yes, is not the type to make arrogant or aggressive attacks on debatable philosophical positions. He's usually more subtly nuanced. And his "humble" approach may seem less impressive than the more arrogant assertions of Scientism.

For example, his stated position in the OP does not deny the physical "reality" (science) that we all sense, but his interpretation also includes some aspects of Idealism (philosophy). I can't speak for Wayfarer, but this thread has been going on for over a year. Yet, some posters still can't reconcile his "proposition", that harks back to the ancient origins of theoretical philosophy, with the Physicalism/Materialism/Realism of modern pragmatic science. Each has it's own purview, but Philosophy specializes in inferred generalizations, not observed details. For philosophers, the "mind-created world" is a Cosmos, not an aggregation of particles. Just keep that distinction in mind.

FWIW, Marc Wittmann Ph.D. --- research fellow at the Institute for Frontier Areas in Psychology and Mental Health in Freiburg, Germany --- recently wrote an article in Psychology Today magazine entitled Physicalism Is Dead*1. It's less an attack on Physicalism/Realism than a presentation of alternative views of the Mind/Body relationship. It's not about specific scientific facts, but about the philosophical interpretation of general principles. :smile:

*1. Wittman's key points are :
# The reductionist physicalist position entails that phenomenal consciousness does not exist.
# Scientists increasingly realize that phenomenal consciousness can't be explained by the workings of the brain.
# For idealism, subjectivity undeniably has primacy when it comes to knowledge about ourselves and the world.
# For dual-aspect monism, consciousness and the brain are two different aspects of a same underlying reality.

Note --- Phenomenal Consciousness is the Mind that we experience subjectively, not the Brain that scientists study objectively.
"Yes, phenomenal consciousness is the subjective aspect of experiencing the world. It's the rich, first-person experience of what it's like to be you, including your thoughts, memories, and internal biological processes." ___Google AI overview

Physicalism Is Dead :
Alternative views on the mind-body problem are becoming increasingly popular.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/sense-of-time/202411/physicalism-is-dead

Schopenhauer, more than Berkeley. Where I part company with Berkeley, is his dismissal of universals - his nominalism, in short. I think it leaves many gaps in his philosophy. But whenever I read his dialogues, I'm reminded of how ingenious a philosopher he was. — Wayfarer

Although I know very little about medieval philosophy, I get the impression that the debate between Realism and Nominalism would be pertinent to the topic of a Mind-Created World vs whatever the alternative might be : a Self-Existent Material World?

Contrary to the definition below, I naively assumed that Realism could be summarized as "what you see is all there is". Which would exclude Universals & Abstractions & Qualia, and Universal Mind, that are knowable only as ideas. Please comment on those alternative worldviews. Thanks. :smile:


Nominalism
The theory that only physical particulars in space and time are real, and that universals are only names or labels for groups of things or events. Nominalists believe that the mind cannot create concepts or images that correspond to universal terms.
Realism
The theory that universals exist in addition to particulars, and that all entities can be categorized as either particulars or universals. Realist philosophies include Platonic realism and the hylomorphic substance theory of Aristotle.
Nominalism and realism were two major theoretical positions in the later Middle Ages, and were particularly important to theological scholars. For example, Thomas Aquinas was a prominent realist philosopher who argued that essence and existence were distinct. William of Ockham was a prominent nominalist philosopher who argued that universals were psychological labels.
___Google AI overview

In other words, the improbability that 'an uncreated, transcendent creator of universes' exists (e.g. Plato, Aquinas) is, at minimum, equal to the improbability that 'an uncreated, autopoietic universe' exists — 180 Proof
So you're saying the probability God exists is extremely low? — RogueAI

In 's Immanentism worldview, the probability of a Creator outside of space-time is minimal-to-impossible, because he doesn't allow any inference from what-is to what-logically-must-be. Yet, cosmologist Max Tegmark constructed an extreme mathematical/logical hypothesis (modal reality) of an infinite array of simultaneously existing universes, of which ours is merely one of uncountable possibilities. Few physicists take his postulation seriously, but some mathematicians might accept it as reasonable. And some philosophers may view his hypothesis as an interesting Thought Experiment.

For me, the God-postulate is also not a provable fact, or even a belief to be taken on faith, but a logical conjecture about what must have caused the Big Bang beginning of the only universe we know anything about. Hence, the Platonic First Cause and the Aristotelian Prime Mover remain as examples of valid reasoning, even in the absence of material evidence. So, as Bayesian Probability exemplifies, your posterior statistical conclusions are dependent on your prior subjective beliefs. {generic you}

Quantum Gravity physicist Stephen Unwin wrote a book, The Probability of God, to present his "simple {Bayesian} calculation that proves the ultimate truth". Of course it's a mathematical proof, not a physical proof. Like Meyer in the OP, he concludes that the bible-god is highly probable. But he also admits that "the math probability does not transfer to the notion of belief".

is making a statement of personal belief, not a fact of science. So, I'm guessing that his Bayesian calculation assigned a low prior probability to anything outside of the physical world (transcendent), which makes the calculation of a low posterior probability almost a foregone conclusion. And that firm belief makes any postulation of a transcendent creator seem absurd. Which may be why he responds to such threads as this one with the sarcasm, derision, and mockery of a true believer, instead of modest & respectful philosophical dialog.

Ironically, until the Darwinian 19th century, most scientists & physicists*1 found the god concept to be both rational and believable, and in the absence of any better explanation : logically necessary. So, what has changed since then, to make a self-existent universe seem plausible? Perhaps, it's because cosmologists have traced the chain of causation back 14B years, which seems almost an eternity. But Quantum physicists have found that the foundation of material reality is grounded on probability, not certainty. Hence our scientific worldview is muddled, whereas religious --- and some philosophical --- worldviews are based on the certainty of Faith. :smile:


*1. Newton's God
Isaac Newton's view has been considered to be close to deism, and several biographers and scholars labelled him as a deist who is strongly influenced by Christianity. However, he differed from strict adherents of deism in that he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

PS__ says that his Immanentism worldview is "an application of Occam's Razor". But that pragmatic rule of thumb may not apply to the theoretical question of Cosmic Causation. Nevertheless, if you want the simplest causal entity, a single Mind seems to require fewer assumptions than a hypothetical infinite chain of Multiverses, or Many Worlds, or pre-bang vacuum fluctuations. All are conjectural, and unprovable. So, as I said, to insist on any of those ontological explanations requires either a leap of faith, or a conditional Bayesian belief. The latter is my preference, because it's the only one that addresses the Hard Question of how Mind emerged in a material world. :grin:

What I'm saying here is that Selection is an essential Design function. — Gnomon
To infer design depends on the premise that there exists a designer. As I've discussed (and you failed to respond to) the qualities a designer must have are exactly the sort of thing that are suggestive of design. So such design arguments are a special pleading, as I previously pointed out (and you ignored). — Relativist

I don't remember you pointing that out. But I have voluntarily mentioned several "qualities of a designer" in this thread. In the example mentioned in the book, Hawking et al, exemplified such qualities in their attempts to demonstrate how a universe could emerge randomly from quantum fluctuations. In their calculations of the UWF equation, they Selected specific values for the variables, based on the teleological goal of causing a world like our own to "collapse" (suddenly appear) from the Nowhere of supernatural superposition. Of course, their equation was lacking the creative power to actualize that statistical Potential, so no new worlds were forthcoming.

Besides the ability to Select from among variables (possibilities), as in Darwinian evolution, the ability to foresee something that does not yet exist is essential for a Designer : as in the Darwinian breeder of such not-yet-real future-things as long dogs with short legs, and plump corn kernels with more vitamin A (yellow corn), developed from the hard hardly-edible Indian corn. But the primary quality of a good designer is the creative ability to envision an unreal future state, and then work to make it a real now state. Unfortunately, the Designer of a universe has no material to work with. Only creative Power.

As a mundane designer myself, I once had an engineer marvel at an Architect's ability to start a project with nothing more than a vague idea and a blank sheet of paper. He said, "give me a plan or layout of a building and I can make it stand-up to all forces". A Designer is the one that creates the plan for others to follow. In the case of the only cosmos we have evidence for, it started with a plan similar to a seed, in the mathematical pin-point Singularity that contained all the information, including natural laws and causal power, necessary to construct a world from scratch. Was that designed, or did it just happen by 1-in-a-zillion accident?

Regarding "special pleading", you need to point out the "exception to a general principle" that I claimed in my "pleading". Which "general principle" did you have in mind? Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc.; Unconditional Existence ; the power to create something from nothing, as exemplified in the Big Bang theory. Is there some missing element (e.g. matter) that you think I am overlooking or ignoring? As defined by Einstein, all the Matter in the world was in the original Energy of the Big Bang. But where did that causal power come from? Formulators of the BB theory simply took it for granted. Is that a case of Special Pleading, by ignoring the principle of "ex nihilo nihil fit" : Nothing comes from Nothing. :smile:


Special pleading is an informal fallacy that occurs when someone claims an exception to a general principle without providing justification. It's a type of misleading argument that uses a double standard and ignores unfavorable evidence. ___Google AI overview
Note --- What "general principle" or "unfavorable evidence" have you presented, that I have ignored? Please be specific.

For example, a balanced ecosystem is consistent with design, however it's also consistent with natural selection. — Relativist

Darwin called his culling factor in evolution "natural selection", but the model upon which it was based was the artificial selection of human breeders. They were teleologically*1 "re-designing" plants & animals to be more suitable for their needs & purposes & intentions. Likewise, theists & deists assume that the "balanced ecosystem" itself was designed, not by Nature, but by the creator of Nature. For Theists, the Creator has communicated his intentions in scriptures. But for Deists --- and scientists, such as Newton --- the Designer has communicated his plans in the logic of Nature and nature's Laws.

Today, in view of the Big Bang theory, some scientists, such as Hawking, have imagined an a priori Cause of space-time Nature, who selected or defined the variables in the Universal Wave Function, by rolling the dice. Presumably, with no purpose in mind. The Genesis myth describes Paradise as a sort of zoo or botanical garden, which needed a gardener or caretaker to continue the divine design by weeding-out (de-selection) of un-fit species. Unfortunately, the gullible humans were weeded-out by a silver-tongue snake, and banished from the garden.

What I'm saying here is that Selection is an essential Design function. So, Theists can be forgiven for imagining a Cosmic "breeder", who created the zoo or garden in which we find ourselves today. Hence, Nature is just a continuation of the original design process. Can you imagine that? :wink:

*1. Teleologically means to explain something based on its end purpose, or to start from the end and reason back. ___Google AI overview

So it seems to me these arguments from design are a special pleading: select some facts, ignore others, and uncritically accept the existence of an omniscient mind existing by brute fact- an intact set of organized knowledge that just happens to exist without being designed or even developed over time. — Relativist

What facts are proponents of Teleology ignoring? It's basically an inference from the Watchmaker analogy. We find ourselves in a self-organized self-sustaining natural system that began ticking for no apparent reason 14B solar cycles ago. But, based on our experience with causation in the natural world, some thinkers simply imagine the WatchMaker as a "brute fact". Didn't you justify your worldview with a presumed Brute Fact? :chin:

For Spinoza, everything we are, and indeed the continued existence of all things, is a manifestation of God's power. — Gnomon
Sounds like a rationalization, not a argument.
It seems to suggest God exists necessarily, but everything else exists contingently. — Relativist

Yes. Isn't that what scientists and philosophers do when faced with a mystery : rationalize*2? When all the facts are obvious, we call it Reasoning. But when the most essential fact is a mystery, it's still Reasoning ; but if we don't like the conclusion, we call it Rationalizing.

For example, Materialism is a metaphysical concept that explains the mystery of the existence of evolving matter by extending the chain of causation backward toward infinity. Even Spinoza's Cosmological Argument is based on an unprovable presumption (brute fact) : that Substance (matter?) exists Necessarily. Do you disagree? :smile:

*2. Rationalize : attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate. ___Oxford dictionary

Do you read my posts? You just repeated something I have disputed at least twice before — Relativist

I'm sorry. What did I repeat? What did you dispute? Is your disputation supposed to settle the question, with no further discussion? Am I supposed to just bow to your superiority? You expressed your exasperation with my counter-arguments before. And yet we continue the dialog. The Cosmological question has been going around in circles for over 2500 years. But on this forum, we continue to disagree without being disagreeable. Yes? :cool:

Classical theists including D B Hart and Edward Feser are generally critical (sometimes extremely so) of ID theory on the basis that it is reductionist in its own way. Hart argues that the ID movement tends to depict God as a kind of cosmic engineer—a being within the system of causation who intervenes to design complex systems or solve problems that natural processes cannot — Wayfarer

I suspect the ID depiction of God as an engineer is a counter-response to the atheist technical criticism of the religious notion of God as a cosmic magician. Meyer doesn't describe his god-model in the book, except to make it clear that he's talking about the bible-god. Personally, due to my ignorance of transcendent things, I go along with Plato & Aristotle to simply call them Universal Principles, that are necessary to define or make-sense-of our world.

In your Harris cartoon, showing a complex equation on a blackboard, I suspect that the omitted information (unspecified miracle) may be the inexplicit intention/goal of the scientist manipulating the numbers & symbols. Meyer discusses, at length, the various interpretations of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (universal wave-function ; UWF) that allows the scientist to "construct" a possible universe, by "specifying boundary conditions, constraining paths through superspace, and choosing specific functions to define an applicable mathematical structure". Doesn't that sound like a "cosmic engineer" or Programmer to you?

Meyer noted that Hawking & Hartle, who used the W-D equation for their calculations of alternative universes : made "assumptions about the kind of universes they would consider in the construction of the universal wave function clearly appropriated knowledge of the properties of our universe in a question-begging way. They effectively smuggled information into their calculation." Hence, they were surreptitiously emulating an intentional creator.

Hugh Everett also constructed his Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) on the basis of the UWF, which "represents the most fundamental description of reality that we have and every possibility that it describes must exist in some universe". You have repeatedly warned me about the tendency to reify math and mental functions. And Meyer says, "by treating all of the merely mathematical possibilities described by the Universal Wave Function as a real universe, the MWI 'reifies the math' on a literally unimaginable scale. Yet it still does not answer [Hawking's] question of 'what breathes fire' into the relevant equation" {my bold}. Meyer continues : "yet this interpretation does not cite a physical cause of the origin of our universe . . . . It simply imputes a specific meaning to the UWF by positing the existence of these other universes". I suspect that he's implying that the Observer/Theorizer gives meaning ("breathes fire") into the numbers and symbols.

Speaking of symbols, the one chosen to represent UWF, Ψ , is called "psi". Ironically, that is also what psychics called the "unknown factor" (presumably Mind or Spirit) that "breathes fire" into their theories of extra-sensory perception. For my philosophical purposes, I call it Information or EnFormAction (the power to enform), or simply Energy . :smile:

Teleology pervades the Aristotelian paradigm (see this). We disagree on whether or not teleology exists, so I'm not going to concede a paradigm that assumes it exists. — Relativist

Teleology is not the kind of thing that exists in the material world. It's an interpretation from observation of trends in the world. Humans commonly infer intentions and purposes from things & processes that perform useful Functions instead of just random changes. For a traditional example, an acorn's purpose is to produce a tree, not by accident, but by programmed causation in the DNA. Can atoms observe, infer and interpret?

A philosophical argument for Teleology is the Watchmaker notion that a universe capable of creating creatures capable of inferring intentions from actions is evidence of an intentional designing Cosmic Mind. The problem with inferring intention in Nature is that we are not smart enough to predict the final ultimate end of the chain of causation, nor to imagine the mind that lit the fuse.

If you don't see any evidence of Teleology, maybe you believe that random accidents are capable of causing complex organizations to arise without any prior tendencies in that direction. Even Spinoza, who equated God with Nature, saw evidence of teleological power*2 in the natural world. So, acknowledging Teleology in the Cosmos does not entail accepting the Biblical account that the purpose of humanity is to serve as slaves of God*3. :smile:

*1. Teleology : the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise. ___Oxford dictionary

*2. For Spinoza, everything we are, and indeed the continued existence of all things, is a manifestation of God's power. Carlisle uses the term “being-in-God” to describe this aspect of Spinoza's thought: the way we are created by—and conceived through—God. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/37996/spinozas-god-einstein-believed-in-it-but-what-was-it

*3. Aristotle's Teleology : Although Aristotle would not be classified as a Theist, in the Abrahamic sense, he was not an Atheist. He may have been a Deist though, in that his notion of god was natural, instead of super-natural. But, his Nature was an intentional (self-organizing ; teleological) organism, not a passive purposeless mechanism. Implicit in that animated worldview was what Ari called “immanent causation”. Which entails the input, and on-going effects, of an outside agent. So the Cosmos, envisioned as a living organism, requires a higher level of complexity than an inorganic object.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page76.html

Sorry, Dr. Google, but this is not strictly correct. In his defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, William Lane Craig does not depend exclusively on the assumption the big bang is the beginning of material existence; he simply argues that the past is finite and that it is THIS that entails an uncaused first cause. — Relativist

I don't know about Craig. but the Kalam argument and Kant's critique were both ignorant of our modern notion of a specific origin of space-time (t=0), which has motivated Atheists to think of alternatives to that first tick of the clock. Most of those hypothetical options involve some concept of the eternal existence of something outside of the Cosmos (t = -1). Take your pick : random-accident turtles all the way down, or an imaginary eternal designing mind that works more-or-less like a human mind.

The inference from cosmology that the material world is finite, still leaves open the question of an immaterial mental form of existence. What kind of atoms are Ideas made of? If you believe that your Mind is your Brain, then the non-existence of matter would be total nothingness. In which case, could we expect to get material something from immaterial nothing? Which is more likely to exist eternally, perishable Matter, or enduring Ideas, such as those of Plato & Aristotle & Kant? :nerd:

PS___ Thanks for continuing the dialog. This is the kind of exercise my old brain needs in order to continue to process abstract information into ideas and inferences.

because an "uncaused first cause" didn't make sense to the practical scientists. — Gnomon
That's not correct. Physicists believe they have a good understanding of the state of the universe as far back as 10^-13 seconds after the mathematical singularity entailed by General Relativity. The inflationary period preceded that point, as far back as 10^-36 seconds, but little is known about that era - and nothing is known about times prior to this, including the question of whether or not there were times even before the point of this mathematical singularity. — Relativist

When something doesn't make physical sense to practical physicists, they may put on their philosopher hats and speculate into metaphysical conjectures : e.g. String Theory, Multiverse. But they typically postulate some hypothetical (non god) Potential state prior to the Bang. Do you know of any scientists for whom the notion of an "uncaused first cause" did makes scientific sense? As you said, and as the overview below*1 indicates, the reality or ideality before the Bang is unknowable by scientific methods. So the practical scientists left the exploration of that "unknown territory" to philosophical methods.

Potential vs Actual is a method*2 with a long useful history, in both philosophy and science. For example, when electric storage batteries are labeled with predicted voltage, that Potential voltage is not real (not-yet-actual) prior to connection of storage to circuit or ground. Likewise, when our understanding of the origin of the universe is described as a mathematical Singularity, the Cause of that calculated-but-unmeasured state is a "mystery"*3. Yet, in our real world experience, such improbable events don't happen by happenstance, but as a result of some prior Cause/Potential. Since we have no measurement access to that world-creating state, it's left to philosophers to infer its logically necessary properties. Collectively, those properties define its Potential for causation. :smile:


*1. In the context of the Big Bang theory, an "uncaused first cause" refers to the idea that the initial event which triggered the Big Bang itself had no preceding cause, meaning it came into existence without being brought about by anything else; this is a concept often discussed in philosophical terms, particularly when considering the relationship between science and religion, where the "uncaused first cause" is sometimes associated with a deity. . . . .
Current scientific understanding cannot explain what caused the Big Bang itself, leaving the question of a "first cause" beyond the scope of current physics. ___Google AI overview

*2. A "potential" method refers to a calculation or analysis that determines what could theoretically happen under ideal conditions, while an "actual" method looks at what is happening in reality, taking into account all constraints and limitations, meaning it reflects the true outcome based on existing circumstances. ___Google AI overview

*3. A "Big Bang singularity" refers to the theoretical point in time at the very beginning of the universe, according to the Big Bang theory, where all matter and energy were concentrated in an infinitely small, dense, and hot point, essentially a singularity with infinite density and temperature, which then rapidly expanded to create the universe we observe today; however, it's important to note that our current understanding of physics breaks down at this point, so the exact nature of the singularity remains a mystery and is a topic of ongoing research. ___Google AI overview

Why do you assume the Big Bang is the beginning of material existence? What's your basis for thinking this occurred "ex nihilo"? — Relativist

Since I have no better scientific explanation, I simply accept the expert consensus that the BB theory is the best current explanation for "the beginning of material existence"*4. Unlike some speculative cosmologists, I assume that the BB was ex nihilo*5, in the sense of no prior Actual material existence. But, as a philosophical interpretation, it was not ex nihilo in the sense of creative Potential. :wink:

*4. According to the Big Bang theory, yes, the Big Bang is considered the beginning of material existence, as it describes the moment when all matter and energy in the universe originated from a single, extremely dense point that rapidly expanded, creating space and time as we know them today; essentially marking the start of the universe and all its matter. ___Google AI overview

*5. While the Big Bang theory describes the universe originating from a single, incredibly dense point, which could be interpreted as "nothing," many argue that it does not definitively prove "creation ex nihilo" because the concept of "nothing" in physics is not the same as the philosophical concept of absolute nothingness; therefore, whether the Big Bang is considered "ex nihilo" is a matter of philosophical interpretation, not a definitive scientific conclusion. ___Google AI overview

Ah, a quote from that famous philosopher, Dr. Reddit! As I've discussed, an uncaused first cause does not entail an unembodied mind containing magical knowledge. — Relativist

Yes. But it also does not exclude that possibility. :cool:

The state of the universe today, was caused by past states of the universe - so there's a causal chain, that necessarily begins with an uncaused first-cause. Because it wasn't caused, it follows: 1) that it exists as brute fact; 2) that is is not contingent (for reasons I previously described). — Relativist

Yes. And astronomers have traced the chain of causation back to an event sarcastically labeled the Big Bang, because an "uncaused first cause" didn't make sense to the practical scientists. I guess it's an impractical philosophy quirk to cop-out with a Brute Fact that must be accepted (believed) with no supporting reasons. It's a hypothesis with no evidence, but only a place holder for future facts. :joke:

I'm not sure what you mean. But I do believe the truly fundamental laws of nature existed in the initial state. There may have been some contingency in the laws of nature that are observable today, but (consistent with quantum indeterminacy), any contingent outcomes were present as possibilities in the initial state. — Relativist

So your Brute Fact First Cause just popped into existence 14B years ago --- complete with laws to govern evolution --- with no prior cause? Did BFFC also include the Matter & Energy that eventually became the organized world we now see? Sounds like Omni-potential that popped.

Again, the notion of Something from Nothing didn't make sense to the scientists trying to make sense of the expanding universe, that when run in reverse vanished into a dimensionless point of infinity : the Singularity. Is that your BFFC? They also didn't like the alternative idea of infinite Potential (unlimited possibilities) that could --- for no apparent reason --- become the Actual Universe we know and love. :blush:

As described, the first cause is uncaused - but it's not an "accident", in the traditional sense as being synonymous with "contingent". — Relativist

An uncaused First Cause is traditionally identified with a God of some kind. The Deity's existence is not an "accident" because it is not a Chance event, but either Intentional or a Brute Fact (inexplicable by reference to precedence). Chance accidents only happen in space-time.

Your BFFC sounds a lot like my First Cause, except that I define it as eternal (timeless) and self-existent (un-caused), in order to fill the causal/existential gap prior to the Big Bang. The hypothetical gap-filler had no matter or energy, and consisted of nothing but infinite Potential, which was actualized in the otherwise ex nihilo Big Bang. You and I seem to be talking about the same thing, but using different words. :halo:

Accident : an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

Many say there needs to be an uncaused first cause, which is God. An alternative to this is an infinite causal chain, though few take this position. However, it makes no less sense to believe in an infinite causal chain than it does in God, because God is an infinite being himself, and thus his thought process is an infinite causal chain.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/smla5i/the_uncaused_first_cause_argument_for_god/

The cosmological argument states that there must be an uncaused first cause, or "God", because every event has a cause and the causal chain cannot go back infinitely.
___Google AI overview

In Aristotle's philosophy, potentiality is the capacity for something to be, while actuality is when that capacity is realized through motion, change, or activity:
___Google AI overview
Note --- Motion, Change, and Activity are characteristic of the space-time world. Pure Being is characteristic of infinity-eternity.

As I said previously, I believe the past is finite, and this entails an initial state (=first cause), which exists as brute fact. — Relativist

Is that "belief" based on reasoning from evidence, or just accepted for no particular reason, other than to allow "brute fact" to arbitrarily take the place of transcendental pre-time (eternity/infinity) and intentional causation? :chin:

"Brute fact physicalism" asserts that the fundamental laws of physics, which govern the universe, are "brute facts," meaning they exist as they are without any further explanation or justification; essentially, the way the world is at its most basic level is simply a given that cannot be explained by anything else. ___Google AI overview

I also believe that this initial state/first cause is not contingent, and this is because I believe contingency depends on a source of contingency — Relativist

If the First Cause is "not contingent", that means it is self-existent or self-caused, yes? So far, that sounds like an essential characteristic of a Creator God. In that case, the "source of contingency" could be the intentional act of creating a bubble of space-time within the ocean of eternity. :pray:

In evolutionary theory, sources of contingency include chance variation and genetic drift. However, these sources may not always be strong, as they can be non-chancy in some ways. Shannon's information entropy can be used to measure the strength of a source of contingency. ___Google AI overview

What that first cause/initial state IS, is unknown. Although it's logically possible, I see no reason to think it is a "mind" (i.e. an entity that acts with intent). — Relativist

Surely you can logically infer (reason) some necessary properties of your unknown First Cause. For example, if the Big Bang has produced intelligent and intentional creatures, then the Original Cause must have the Potential for those properties, yes? Or does "Brute Fact" simply mean Something From Nothing for no particular reason? :wink:

I see no objective basis for believing life, or intelligent life, to be objectively special. — Relativist

Is your own Life & Mind nothing (subjectively) special to you? Are you no more special than a rock? Are you lacking in purpose, goals, intentions. Does general Intelligence play no (objectively) special role in the evolving world? Is there no hierarchy of intelligence in your world? Did your Brute Fact (First Cause) have the Potential to produce intentional creatures? Or do you mean not specially selected by the First Cause, hence just a random accident or happenstance? Or do you mean not chosen for a special role in the divine plan? In that case, I'll have to agree with you. :cool:

Special :a thing, such as an event, product, or broadcast, that is designed or organized for a particular occasion or purpose. ___Oxford dictionary

If you require a hypothesis as to what the first cause was, I can simply state that it was probably some natural state of affairs that evolved (in whole or in part) deterministically (inclusive of probabilistic determination) due to laws of nature. — Relativist

Is your "natural state of affairs" the same natural laws that Hawking assumed existed eternally before space-time Nature even began with a Bang?
Are you saying that your deterministic First Cause possessed the power of Determination, including the laws of nature? Again, that sounds like a definition of a creator God. Or are you saying that the cause of this complex world is a Brute Accident? Fortuna was the Roman goddess of dumb Luck. If so, she has been on a statistically impossible streak of Gambler's Luck for 14B years. :smile:

Determination : to decide with the intention to achieve a desired end.
___Merriam-Webster dictionary

The scientific laws of nature are not imposed on nature, they are nature. — EnPassant

Actually, those natural laws are Nature as interpreted by law-abiding humans. As Bohr noted, "What we observe is never nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." So, as usual we humans see ourselves reflected in the mirror of the world. And we call that mirror by various names, but the most general is simply G*D. Spinoza hedged his bets by labeling his pantheistic deity as Deus sive Natura. :smile:

↪Gnomon
I disagree with almost everything you said, and you haven't really refuted anything I said, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing. — Relativist

Thanks for sharing your ideas, and for not responding to my ideas with political put-downs as some do, when faced with belief-challenging concepts of the world. I had no intention of "refuting" anything you said. Instead, this thread is intended to present some ideas from a book by a theist, whose arguments are also valid for Deism : a non-religious philosophical worldview.

Even though it differs from traditional Theism in denial of real-world miracles, Deism retains the necessity for an ideal Mind to create the Real world. Apparently, even the ancient philosophical notion of a First Cause or Prime Mover principle is contrary to your worldview. That's OK, we both have opinions about notions that are unprovable. But how we arrive at those beliefs may vary. :smile:

Your speculation referred to a "world-causing mind", and you also suggested it has intentionality. — Relativist

That is true, yet my "speculation" is based on Science & Philosophy instead of Religion. For example, I accept the Big Bang theory (BBT) --- which is the "most accepted" theory*1 of how the expanding universe began --- and not the Genesis account of creation. But BBT was a shock to some scientists, including Einstein, because their default worldview was that the physical universe was eternal and deterministic. Yet, the sudden ex nihilo appearance of something-from-nothing sounded too much like the Genesis account of Creation. And the Uncertainty of quantum physics undermined the deterministic Newtonian foundation of 19th century science. So, some 20th century scientists began to construct alternative explanations for the otherwise inexplicable existence of an evolving dynamic cosmos, but characterized by Randomness and Entropy instead of Intention and Creativity.

In Stephen Meyer's book, introduced in the OP, he discussed what he labeled as The Cosmological Information Problem. One example is the Hawking-Hartle "no boundary" proposal for how the universe could pop into existence randomly and without any god-like intention. They followed Alexander Vilenkin's suggestion of a quantum basis for the otherwise inexplicable Big Bang. But it assumed the a priori existence of a Universal Quantum Field, complete with god-like logical mathematics & limiting laws. Ironically, the quantum realm has been determined to be fundamentally indeterminate and uncertain.

Stephen Hawking and James Hartle manipulated the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, "based on the use of canonical quantization rules", to calculate the Universal Wave-Function in order to demonstrate how a new universe could be created from random fluctuations of a hypothetical eternal quantum field in a supernatural "superspace". In order to limit the calculation to a world like the one we actually experience though, they arbitrarily pre-set some initial conditions. Ironically, in doing so, they imposed human Intentions on the calculation. As Meyer put it, "the quantum cosmologists are thus like the bakers who allege they have baked a cake before they had the ingredients to do so". So, you could say that they were playing the role of a Designing god. Meyer summarizes, "Hawking and Hartle envision quantum tunneling as an event that converts a preexisting closed universe into a continually expanding universe".

Do you have a better idea --- sans intention --- to explain the existence of our spacetime universe, gradually being deconstructed by Entropy, yet populated by highly-evolved beings who question their origins? Do you take your worldview on faith, or have you done the math? :nerd:

PS___ In a previous post you said a First Cause is plausible, but not an intelligent or logical FC like Plato's Logos. Presumably just dumb matter. How then do you explain the existence of Living & Intelligent beings in the real world? Isn't "brute fact" just a cop-out on a philosophy forum? That's the crux of Chalmers' "hard problem". Material science typically stops at the "boundary" of the Big Bang. But some scientists, such as Hawking, feel philosophically compelled to postulate "no boundaries" in order to legitimize their forays into quantum "speculation" and conjecture.


*1. Yes, the Big Bang theory is widely considered the most accepted theory explaining the origin of the universe, with a vast majority of scientists supporting it based on substantial evidence like the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) and the observation of an expanding universe.
___Google AI overview

*2. Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning
A recent challenge to Stephen Hawking’s biggest idea — about how the universe might have come from nothing — has cosmologists choosing sides.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

You might be interested to know that this book got a savage review in the New York Times from David Albert, who is a professor of physics and expert in interpretations of quantum physics: — Wayfarer

Yes. Meyer's book discusses such alternative Something From Nothing theories in his chapter : The Cosmological Information Problem. He says Krauss' book "attempted to describe how material particles emerged from preexisting energy-rich fields in a preexisting space" : the hypothetical Quantum Foam*1. Meyer also notes that physicist Alexander Vilenkin "showed a keen sense of the paradoxical or even contrary aspects of invoking a mathematical equation developed in a human mind as the cause of an actual universe". Talk about violations of Parsimony! Which is simpler : a preternatural creative quantum Field (theoretical framework in a human mind) or an eternal creative Intellect (analogous to a human mind)? :wink:

PS___ Meyer goes on to ask "how can a mathematical equation create an actual physical universe?" Then, he quotes Stephen Hawking, who asked "what is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"


*1. "Nothing" turns out to be "Quantum Foam" with the laws of Quantum Mechanics already built in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/1esl10/can_someone_explain_lawrence_krauss_a_universe/

But whether the world is a product of intelligent design is precisely what is at issue. You can't just assume it and then make inferences from it. — Clearbury

I agree. In my thesis, I begin with the "assumption" that the world is as defined by Physics : a dynamic cosmos*1 of Matter, Energy, and Laws. But Einstein equated Matter with Energy. More recently, the Mass-Energy-Information equivalence principle of physicists Melvin Vopson and Rolf Landauer condensed three physical principles into one : Information --- the power to inform ; to give form to the formless ; to create meaning in a mind.

Moreover, the third factor of physics is Law : organizing & governing principles that are most often expressed in terms of abstract Mathematical relationships : Logic. Laws are also defined metaphorically as-if they are the intention of a powerful rule-maker. Yet in practice they are simply regularities that allow a society or a world to operate smoothly & efficiently, and in conformance to the Will of the ruling authority.

Combine that multi-purpose physical power with the psychological factor of meaningful/useful Information, and you can begin to see the influence of something like a human mind : intelligent and wilful. If you doubt that the human mind has causal powers, just look at something like the Birj Khalifa tower in Dubai. Can you imagine something that impressive occurring by accident, or by natural processes, or without confidence in the causal power of a human idea : tallest building in the world? Have you ever seen a mountain with elevators and air conditioning?

So physics has reduced three principles down to one : Information*2 --- Causation & Meaning & Logic. In my thesis I call it EnFormAction*3. In your experience, where can you find all three of those factors in one place? Hint : the human mind. If you don't see any signs of Causation, Meaning and Organization in the world, then Science and Intelligent Design are not for you. :smile:


*1. Cosmos :
Usage of the word cosmos implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity.
The cosmos is studied in cosmology – a broad discipline covering scientific, religious or philosophical aspects of the cosmos and its nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos

*2. What is Information?
what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
___Oxford Dictionary
Note --- The arrangement and sequence of things is what we call Order or Organization.

*3. EnFormAction :
# Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
# All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
# The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- Philosophically, causal-controlling-constructive EFA can be favorably compared to Schopenhauer's Will : "a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge". How does a blind, unconscious, aimless pig find an acorn? Seldom.

BURJ KHALIFA

Your speculation referred to a "world-causing mind", and you also suggested it has intentionality. Why think this unknown state of affairs is a mind and that it acts intentionally? Labelling it "mind" suggests it has some minimum set of properties common to all minds what are these? — Relativist

Yes. I have concluded that this material world had a mental origin. That inference is based primarily on the ubiquitous role of Information in the world. I won't attempt to justify that conditional (non-faith) belief in this thread. But it has been explained step by step in the Enformationism thesis. The bottom line is that Information is both mental and causal*1. It's found in human minds in the form of Ideas, and it operates in the material world in the form of Energy. So, I have deduced that the Source of every thing and every action in this world necessarily had properties in common with both Minds and Energy. So, depending on the context, I label that unidentified Source the Enformer, or the Programmer, or the First Cause.

At the beginning of Philosophy, Plato called the universal principle of the world Logos, to indicate that rational relationships are the structure of reality & mentality & mathematics. Aristotle called the origin of all change in the world Prime Mover, which we would today refer to as Energy. With the exception of those I have dialoged with, few posters on this forum are aware that physicists have equated Energy with Information*2. If you don't believe me, you can Google it.

The book in the OP does not make that kind of argument. But it does use beaucoup scientific "facts" to define the logically necessary properties of the Cause of the Big Bang. The author identifies that Cause with his biblical God, but for unstated scriptural reasons, not scientific theories. So, if you ignore the scriptures in the background, what you have left is what Blaise Pascal sarcastically labeled "the god of the philosophers" as opposed to the god of theologians. It's also not the god of pragmatic scientists. So the scientific evidence must be interpreted philosophically, in order to explain what existed before the beginning of the material world : metaphorically, what's north of the north pole. :smile:

*1. Here's an abbreviated sample from the thesis :

From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self :
One thing that all of these examples of leading-edge science have in common is a prominent role for Information. Not the mundane stuff you get on Google, but the essential stuff as defined by Claude Shannon. In his analysis of communication, he saw that data flows in a manner similar to electricity in wires. Meaningful information is equivalent to potent Energy as opposed to depleted Entropy. Yet in a larger context, Information also has the ability to give meaningful or useful or valuable form or shape to some raw, unformed material. Information is full of potential as opposed to the emptiness of Entropy.

Inspired by that potent metaphor, along with some insights from Quantum Theory, I have concluded that Energy actually consists of Elemental Information. On the most basic levels, such as laws of physics, that invisible “in-formation” is equivalent to the numerical relationships we call mathematics. According to my developing thesis of Enformationism , as we zoom our perspective from micro (smallest) to macro (human scale) to cosmic (largest), the information we find becomes more and more condensed, compressed, and solid, and then it begins to fade away back into the same ethereal stuff it began from.

This is an essential part of the cycle of evolution: the Ourobouros (snake biting tail) information cycle---what goes around, comes around. In other words, evolution begins and ends as information. In the process, this proto-energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes form–-like Proteus, the shape-shifting sea-god of the ancient Greeks.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page5.html

*2. Information is Energy :
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

The development of complexity over time is consistent with statistical thermodynamics. See this. — Relativist

I agree. But only if you include in the statistical analysis a complementary principle (law?) to counteract the destructive effects associated with Entropy. My name for that constructive principle is Enformy. :nerd:

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce Complexity & Progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preternatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

How do you account for your "world-causing mind" having the ability to design a complex universe that will produce life over the course of billions of years? Did it acquire knowledge by trial and error, and reasoning? — Relativist

The default religious answer is Omniscience. But I don't pontificate beyond the bare facts of an inexplicable beginning. Everything else is amateur speculation. And your guess is as good as mine. But, of course, I prefer mine.

The First Cause is a philosophical principle, not a religious deity. But, if you want to conjecture : perhaps an eternal Being passes the timelessness by creating model worlds and learning from failures how to make a world that lasts over 14B sol-cycles.

I don't post on this forum just to parrot scientific facts from "experts". The philosophical fun is in conjecturing beyond what meets the eye, by means of informed inference : reasoning. :smile:

Usually the design proponent likens the designer to an all-powerful, omnibenevolent god, who would prefer universes with life in it, but that has problems too when you think about all the suffering that goes on in the natural world.

Still, like I said earlier. Suppose all you know is that a universe designer exists and you're presented with a universe that lasts a trillionth of a second before it collapses in on itself. Out of all the designs it could have come up with, it settled on that one? I would be surprised. Wouldn't you? — RogueAI

The typical "omnibenevolent" designer proposal would be a Straw Man argument on this thread. The OP indicates that Stephen Meyer carefully avoids advocating the "omnibenevolent" bible-god, and focuses his attention on the scientific evidence for an intelligent First Cause.

Your second point is more to the point, except that it assumes the Designer created a Big Bang, which like fourth of July fireworks explodes into a puff of dust*1 full of suffering for sentient beings. Sounds like the human rocket scientists whose trial runs self-destruct after a few seconds.

Yet, that's not what the science says happened. Instead, the ongoing creation event was a sudden expansion of cosmic Potential from a mathematical Singularity seed (computer operating system) into a self-sustaining (14B years) Evolution of novel Variations (mutations ; options) to be naturally Selected based on criteria in the Initial Conditions (preset values for a computer program). De-selection might involve suffering for variables that don't pass the fitness filter. Would you be surprised if you observed such an unlikely event from your privileged position as a philosopher in the nothingness of pre-space? :nerd:

PS___ If you were raised to believe in an omni-benevolent God, as I was, you might be disappointed to go out into the real world, and discover that it's not all benevolence & blessings. My philosophical First Cause is intelligent & creative, and pragmatic, but not loving. Something like the Vulcans of Star Trek.

*1. God's Debris : A Thought Experiment - Scott Adams
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Debris-Experiment-Scott-Adams/dp/0740747878

ROCKET SCIENCE


COSMIC DESIGNER


COSMIC EVOLUTION

Are you suggesting the world came from nothing? This would entail a temporally prior state of nothingness, which is metaphysically impossible. — Relativist

No. Just the opposite. I agree that such a notion is "metaphysically impossible". Lawrence Krauss wrote a book named A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. But, his "nothing" turned out to be a strange sort of something : a fluctuating quantum field, complete with governing laws and empowering energy. So, his "nothing" simply meant "no gods".

And yet, his powerful & lawful mathematical field has most of the characteristics of a First Cause, including Reason in the form of mathematical logic, but excepting Intention in the form of an idea to be implemented. Do you act with Intention? If so, how do you think that ability to foresee the future emerged from nothing but random fluctuations? :nerd:

You're assuming the Big Bang was the beginning of material reality. I don't think many cosmologists would agree with you on that. We simply don't know what preceded it. I believe the past is finite for philosophical reasons: it would imply a completed process of infinitely many, temporally sequenced steps — Relativist

Apparently, since you "don't know" the cause of the beginning, the "speculative" Multiverse hypothesis --- "infinitely many, temporally sequenced steps" --- must be just an article of faith for you. I agree that "we don't know what preceded" the Big Bang. So, any preternatural Cause we might postulate is a shot in the dark. That's why I am not a Theist or a Multiversist, but an Agnostic speculating philosopher.

Yet, lack of hard evidence has never deterred philosophers from reasoning about the unknowable. Therefore, just as astronomers reasoned backwards from current conditions to guess at the original state of the cosmos, I observe the world 14B years after the Big Pop, and reason back to the logically necessary conditions required to explode a near-infinite universe into being. One of those conditions is the Potential for Life & Mind must have preceded the Bang. :wink:

The multiverse is a speculative idea that's not considered proven, and there's no direct evidence that it exists. ___Google AI overview

Although some scientists have analyzed data in search of evidence for other universes, no statistically significant evidence has been found. Critics argue that the multiverse concept lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential for scientific inquiry, and that it raises unresolved metaphysical issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

So...you think it MORE probable that a intentional being (with enormous power and an enormously complex mind) that happens to exist uncaused is MORE probable than the gradual development of beings with small power and limited intellect over the course of billions of years in an enormous universe! (fully consistent with entropy, as described in statistical thermodynamics)? — Relativist

Yes. We no longer debate the evidence for "gradual development", just take it for granted. What we do debate is how that process began : by accident or by design? If you don't see evidence of Design in the world, then your definition of "design" may be different from mine. In college, I participated in a Design by Accident exercise, and the lesson learned was that the result of accidents is Chaos instead of Cosmos.

Please note that I make no assertions about a "complex mind". Instead, the world-causing mind is assumed to be Simple in the sense of unitary, yet with enormous Potential. The complexity of our universe came into existence when infinite Potential transformed into finite Actual in an "enormous" act of Creation. Prior to the Bang, Infinity/Eternity is a simple all-inclusive concept implying "all things possible".

Moreover, it is obvious that the Cause of the Big Bang possessed "enormous power". Regarding the notion of "uncaused first cause", perhaps we should just say "eternal Cause". Which would apply to a God or a Multiverse. If you prefer to think that random rolling of dice produced our lawful and orderly world, I can't prove otherwise. But you can't prove that the initial conditions (like computer settings) just happened without intention. That's a belief, not a fact. :smile:

The point is, the mere fact that something improbable has occurred is not at all remarkable. It would be worth investigating only if it were a statistical anomaly. — Relativist

I'm not competent to judge the statistical improbability of a universe popping into existence, from who knows where or when or how. But if anyone is qualified, perhaps Nobel laureate Roger Penrose is the guy. In a previous reply to Relativist, I noted :
Obviously, Roger Penrose's interest has been piqued by the improbability of our existence. So, he has taken the time to put a number on that near impossibility. If the calculated odds of 10^10^100 to 1 do not sound like a miracle to you, then you may be impervious to philosophical curiosity. :cool:

I think they would argue that the personality of the designer is an extrapolation of the designers we know and there is some basis for assuming a universe designer would prefer non-boring universes. If all you knew was that there was a universe designer, and you were shown this universe, would you be surprised by it? Not surprised at the particulars (e.g., the moon is that exact size and Saturn is exactly X amount of miles from the sun), but rather surprised the universe the designer designed is full of complexity and life? — RogueAI

That is exactly why I don't claim to know anything about the hypothetical designer of the universe. As an agnostic, and Bible unbeliever, I have no direct revelation from God, and no personal relationship. But I do have professional training and experience as a designer (architect). So I feel that I know something about how design works : from immaterial idea (concept) to material instantiation (something that did not exist before).

For example, if the product of design is "full of complexity and life", I must assume that the designer intended to create that kind of product/result/embodiment. Also, the designer must have the potential (creative & constructive power) for such characteristics. A human designer can have one of many personality types. But the Cause of a whole universe must have the potential for all possible types. Not just the tyrannical ruler or loving father personalities. :nerd:

Quantum indeterminacy fits this, but it seems applicable to any conceivable form of contingency.

I'm inclined to believe there is a "first cause" (F) - something that exists uncaused (i.e. its existence is brute fact). F is not contingent, because there is no prior cause to account for (F or ~F). Therefore F exists necessarily. This (assumed) fact of a first cause does not entail a being that acts with intentionality. As I said in my above post to RougeAI: It seems less probable that a designer just happens to exist (uncaused) than that a universe such as ours just happens to exist (uncaused/undesigned). — Relativist

I agree that Quantum Indeterminacy (randomness) is a factor in physical contingency : this before that. But the Ontological contingency of the whole world --- something from nothing --- would be a priori instead of a posteriori. Hence, the fundamental randomness of the physical world must be either an improbable accident*1, or something like an intentional act of a cosmic Designer, in order to allow free choice in both physics and in psychology. In other words, the existential path into the future is not pre-determined, but is post-determined by acts and choices within the world system.

Your probability estimate*2 would be plausible if the universe was eternal and exists (just happens to be) without any reason or cause. But the Big Bang beginning of space-time raises the question of what came before (e.g. timelessness, changelessness). And the odds of accidental creation of a dynamic universe*3, and questioning sentient creatures, would seem to be astronomically unlikely.

You said "first cause does not entail a being that acts with intentionality". That's true, the Big Bang could have been a cosmically destructive explosion, instead of the creative beginning of a world of living and thinking creatures. But the improbability of accidental existence of a 14billion-year-train-wreck, which produces sentient beings who act with intention, does imply an intentional act of creation. :smile:


*1. Improbable Accidental Existence : with no criteria for judging (posterior probability), such a conclusion would not qualify for probability or credibility.

*2. Bayesian probability criteria include:
Posterior probability: The updated probability after considering evidence
Prior probability: The probability before considering evidence
Likelihood: The probability of the evidence given the belief is true
___ Google AI overview

*3. The Accidental Universe :
Physicist Paul Davies gives a survey of the range of apparently miraculous accidents of nature that have enabled the universe to evolve its familiar structure of atoms, ...
https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Universe-P-C-Davies/dp/0521286921

The Accidental Universe :
Physicist Alan Lightman speculates, without evidence, on the prior eternal existence of an infinite Multiverse that blindly & accidentally spawned the living and thinking universe that we know and love. Mverse is a god-model without any redeeming features, other than winning the lottery once in a zillion years. A blind pig sometimes finds an acorn.
https://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Universe-World-Thought-Knew/dp/034580595X

"Extremely" contingent? Doesn't that just mean extremely improbable? How is that different from what I said? There are many different ways the universe could have evolved, and each of them is improbable. When all possibilities are equally improbable, it's a certainty that the outcome will be improbable, so it's not anomolous (and not "miraculous"). — Relativist

No. Actually, "contingent" means dependent on some outside force*1. The contingent state, absent some causal input, is indeed "improbable", in the sense that nothing changes. A static state has indeterminate possibilities, and no probabilities. This unchanging state is "anomalous" in the sense that it has no properties, no probabilities, and nothing to relate to.

Imagine a hypothetical pre-big-bang state, whose only property is an arbitrary definition (like Zero or Infinity), and in which all alternative states (patterns of properties) are equally possible --- and "equally improbable" --- because none are actual. Then input some outside force to upset the balance of non-existent internal forces. The effect of that input is to cause a new state, a pattern change. And the new state is contingent upon the causal force*2. Therefore, the new state --- in this case a new world --- is contingent upon some Aristotelian First Cause*3.

The Contingent Cause is "miraculous" in that it comes from outside the natural system that we have evidence for. It's "anomalous" in that it's unpredictable or unexpected : a bolt from the blue. It's "improbable" in that nothing changes without some input of Energy, Force, Causation.

Prior to the Big Bang theory, scientists could confidently assume that the universe itself was self-existent. But the undeniable evidence from Cosmology*4 is that our temporary world is contingent upon some external causation. Which philosophers for millennia have labeled as First Cause, Logos, or God. What would you call the Contingent Cause that precipitated the Big Bang and the emergence of space-time*4 from a background of who-knows-what?*5 The only alternative to space-time is Infinity-Eternity. :smile:


*1. The meaning of CONTINGENT is dependent on or conditioned by something else.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contingent

*2. A contingent cause is a cause that explains the existence of a contingent being, which is a being that could not have existed. The cosmological argument is a line of reasoning that uses the idea of contingent beings to argue for the existence of a necessary being. ___Google AI overview

*3. First Cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-cause

*4. According to the widely accepted Big Bang theory, spacetime began approximately 13.8 billion years ago when the universe rapidly expanded from a tiny, dense point known as a singularity, marking the start of both space and time as we understand them. ___Google AI overview

*5. The cause of the Big Bang is still a mystery, but scientists have many ideas:
Quantum physics shows that some events happen randomly and without a cause. This means that the Big Bang might not have had a cause, or that we might not be aware of it. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Those random events occur only within the context of space-time-matter-energy. Hence the mystery (miracle?) of an unexplained beginning to space-time. Your guess is as good as mine, and that's why Ontology is a perennial topic of debate for philosophers.

Interesting point of view. Personally, I see no signs of intentionality or teleology. My impression is that those who believe they see it, are basing it on a retrospective analysis of the chain of events that resulted in our existence. Such an analysis shows that our existence is grossly improbable.
Why should that matter? Improbable things are bound to occur in a vast, old universe.

What do you mean by "the contingency of ontology"? It seems to me that the fundamental ground of existence is metaphysically necessary (whatever it is), and the only contingency in the world is quantum indeterminacy. — Relativist

Ontology is the philosophical & metaphysical science of Being, the Why of Existence. If that question does not interest you, then you do you, and I'll do me. Obviously, Roger Penrose's interest has been piqued by the improbability of our existence. So, he has taken the time to put a number on that near impossibility. If the calculated odds of 10^10^100 to 1 do not sound like a miracle to you, then you may be impervious to philosophical curiosity.

When Richard Feynman became frustrated with quantum physicists dabbling in philosophy, he quoted Mermin : "shut up and calculate". Unsurprisingly, Penrose, a mathematical physicist, did just that. And he concluded, not from a "retrospective analysis", but from analysis of gravitational singularities --- such as the Big Bang --- that our actually existing Cosmos is extremely contingent : an unpredictable Chance event, or a miracle?.

Then he, perhaps jokingly, referred to the Cause of that "grossly improbable" existence as the work of a Cosmic Censor. That reminds me of Darwin's hypothetical Selector who censored (to weed out) the unfit random possibilities put forth by the Evolutionary mechanism, allowing only the fittest to go on to the next stage. You can choose your own analogy for an ontological censor. Most people call it "God". I call it Primordial Cause.

Yes, improbable things do happen in our ancient world. Yesterday, my alma mater's pitiful football team beat the odds to defeat a team supposedly bound for the national playoffs. Yet Penrose's odds do not apply to our space-time world, but to a hypothetical time before time. If such fortuitous events don't matter to you, that's OK with me. Just don't tell me that I shouldn't speculate or conjecture about the original ontological event on a Philosophy Forum. :smile:

PS___ I may address the Intentionality question in another post.

Cosmic censorship hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_censorship_hypothesis

Thus, no explanatory advantage comes from positing a designer. The odds that there would be a designer who wanted the universe to turn out that way is the same as the odds that chance would produce it. — Clearbury

Actually, that is a key difference between my notion of a cosmic designer and Stephen Meyer's. His creator is the God of Genesis. Mine is not. I have no revelation about what the designer wanted, but I do see signs of intention in such features of the world as Fine Tuning of the original Singularity state. So, lacking any specific information about the designing/programming entity, I simply call it the Cause of our Cosmos.

"Design" is a philosophical inference from data (such as fine tuning) not an observed fact of Physics. Even "Fine-Tuning" is an inference, and "fine" relative to what? So you can feel free to draw your own conclusions from the sparse available evidence. My inference from the contingency of Ontology is that the finite world is not self-existent. Hence, some pre-existing Cause is a logical deduction.

Which is why cosmologists have imagined a variety of non-God alternative Cosmic Causes (e.g. Multiverse ; Many Worlds) for which there is no physical evidence, but only metaphysical inferences. Long story short : I don't think the Cause of the Big Bang "wanted the universe to turn out that way". Instead, the initial conditions of the universe --- like the computer settings of Evolutionary Algorithms*1 --- were intended to be loosely bound and open to a variety of outcomes.

In other words : Free Will (maybe Schopenhauer's Will). So, the intention of the Programmer was to allow the universe to find its own state path through a limited set of possibilities. Hence, homo sapiens was just one instance of a googleplex of possibilities, not the apple of god's eye. :nerd:

*1. An evolutionary algorithm is an evolutionary AI-based computer application that solves problems by employing processes that mimic the behaviors of living things. As such, it uses mechanisms that are typically associated with biological evolution, such as reproduction, mutation and recombination.
https://www.cognizant.com/us/en/glossary/evolutionary-algorithm

Well, now the odds that there would be a designer who wanted the universe to turn out the way it actually did, is 1 in 10 trillion. And that is the same probability that it would just turn out that way by chance. (And again, it does not matter what the odds are, the odds are the same either way). — Clearbury

You seem to interpret the probabilities to be in favor of random chance. But Roger Penrose --- Nobel laureate and certified mathematical genius --- reached a different conclusion. His Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis*2 used the notion of a negative "Censor" (a suppressor of something) instead of a positive "Designer" (creator of something) to characterize the "unimaginably precise fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe". He showed that there were 10^10^101 possible configurations of mass-energy, but only one actual arrangement (the singularity/seed) that cosmologists have inferred to be the origin of space-time and everything we now experience.

So, "the number that Penrose calculated -- 1 in 10^10^123 -- provided a quantitative measure of the unimaginably precise fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe". Does that sound like a dumb accident to you, or an intelligent intentional censorship of zillions of possibilities to allow the design of a cosmic system with only a single pattern of 26 cosmic & physical constants? :smile:


*2. According to Roger Penrose's theories, the possible entropy values for the universe at its initial state are considered to be extremely low, bordering on a state of near-perfect order, which is a key component of his "Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis" and the idea of a "low-entropy initial condition" for the universe. ___Google AI overview

You're inviting scorn quoting Discovery Institute entries on this site, most people won't even look at them. I'm wary of them also, even though I agree with ID proponents about the philosophical shortcomings of naturalism and I do look at that site from time to time. I've read the reviews of Signature in the Cell and I don't think it's all bullshit. It's more that I find their reading of the Bible more problematic than the science. — Wayfarer

Oh, yes, scathing scorn is the default philosophical argument for faithful Naturalist/Materialists. And they don't seem to be aware of the deficiencies of their own alternative explanations. You seem to be unafraid to go against the grain of this forum. Why do you even bother? As long as their slings & arrows are made of information & ideas instead of mass & matter, I will survive.

I knew going in that I would get knee-jerk responses to Intelligent Design arguments. But the Discovery Institute is careful to present arguments that could make sense, not just to true-believers, but also to those with some extensive knowledge of modern science. And Meyer's book is exemplary in its appeal to reason instead of faith. There is no "reading of the Bible" in the book. And there is no "come to Jesus" chapter. It's just a thorough presentation of atheist arguments in favor of a random Chance world, along with counter-arguments to refute them.

Atheist Physicist Leonard Susskind --- A Chorus of Big Bangs ---is quoted saying "without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the the ID (intelligent design) critics." So, Stephen Meyer has provided a comprehensive summary of the questions to be answered. He also gives several scientists an opportunity to respond, so you can see both sides of the design controversy, presented rationally and without rancor.

I have never bothered to read the various Intelligent Design books, in part because I was raised to believe in the designer they are defending. Now I'm looking for evidence of a different kind of designer : one who designs with intelligent Information instead of thus-saith-the-lord. Causal Information (e.g. physical energy) is the kind of creative Intelligence that my non-religious science-based worldview is grounded upon. So, on that point, I am in agreement with Susskind*1. :smile:



*1. Leonard Susskind said Information is indestructible. What kind of information does he mean?
Information is key in the universe. The universe needs to constantly "compute what the present must be like".
https://www.quora.com/Leonard-Susskind-said-Information-is-indestructible-What-kind-of-information-does-he-mean

I think there is another, quite independent, way of undermining the argument from fine-tuning. — Clearbury

We only have evidence for one Big Bang and a single Singularity. So, are you placing your Faith in an imaginary chance-driven infinite series of bangs (Multiverse) to try-out all those alternative settings? Sounds like a new twist on a medieval Scholastic theory for the same old eternal creator deity, except presumed to be blind, deaf & dumb (e.g. Tychism) instead of cosmically intelligent.

Another enthusiastically postulated alternative explanation to avoid the implications of deliberate (non-chance) tuning of Big Bang settings was the 26 dimensional String Theory, which blossomed into dozens of weird variations, none with any supporting physical evidence. Would you believe that String Theory was motivated, not by scientific inquiry, but by the discomfort of scientists with the design implications of Big Bang fine-tuning? ST was supposed to fix the "flatness problem". Yet, as Meyer said in the book : "both the homogeneity and the flatness problems are only considered problems by those who regarded the existence of fine tuning a problem".

Today, String Theory has been abandoned by most physicists because it was leading them down the rabbit hole. Beside, some of its essential predictions (supersymmetry) have failed to materialize over 20 years. So, the fine-tuning evidence remains a problem for those who prefer an accidental universe. Has your alternative produced any plausible evidence, besides elaborate estimates of cosmic odds? :smile:

The Greek goddess Tyche is the goddess of chance, fortune, and fate. ___Google AI overview

The "flatness problem" in the Big Bang theory refers to the observation that our universe appears to be very close to perfectly flat, which would require incredibly precise initial conditions in the early universe, making it seem like a strange coincidence that the density of matter was just right to achieve this flatness; essentially, if the density had been slightly higher or lower, the universe would be significantly curved instead of flat today. ___Google AI overview

String theory is a complex theory that has been the subject of much debate and skepticism. While it has passed many mathematical and theoretical tests, it has not yet been proven to be the fundamental theory of nature. Some say that string theory has been superseded by other theories, while others say that the theory has been extended but not progressed much in understanding the physical world. ___Google AI overview

It's a pretty carefully put-together OP, but on an unpopular topic. — Wayfarer

The OP was intended to be a book review blog post, for an almost non-existent audience. But at the last minute, I thought, hey why not stir-up some controversy on the Philosophy Forum? At least I get more feedback that way. Unfortunately, most of the feedback is of the Ad Hominem and Straw Man type, as I expected. Consequently, I haven't learned much so far. :smile:

PS___Although I don't agree with Meyer's religion, I find his scientific summaries to be very well done.

Frankly, I can't help what I beleive. I have read enough to know something of what's out there and I was for many years connected to the Theosophical Society in Melbourne, so it's not like I sit with Dawkins.

For me, philosophy is not so much a search for truth or reality but a search for models and ideas that I can justify. Sure it's fraught. But so are most other approaches. — Tom Storm

Sure you can. Adjusting your own beliefs is a primary goal of philosophy. The alternative is Blind Faith in an adopted model devised by others. My goal is to construct a belief model of my own. It's similar to some others, but also different.

In college I looked into Theosophy. Like Masonic philosophy, I can see the appeal of the general worldview. But I don't have any experience of Mysticism, so I can't relate to the ecstatic communion with God.

Dawkins has been described as an "angry atheist", but I found him open-minded enough to admit that Deism was not contrary to Science. :smile:

This sounds defensive. — Tom Storm

My mashup of 180 and T.Storm comments was indeed defensive. He aggressively and dismissivley attacks my posts with implications that my personal ideas are merely parroted religious doctrines. Since I no longer dialog with him, I sometimes get in a Parthian shot in a post to someone else. I apologize if the arrow came too close for comfort. :yikes:

PARTHIAN SHOT

Hmm, the borrowed quote is not quite right. Slumber is fine - do you know how difficult it is to get a good sleep? Dogmatic - no. I have no inflexible commitments to any particular account of reality as explained. — Tom Storm

Sorry! I was not calling you "dogmatic", only hinting that your chosen philosophical perspective might be missing something that is right under your naturalist nose, so to speak. I appreciate the moderation of your posts. Some other methodological Naturalists are so dogmatic that I don't waste my time dialoging with them. :smile:

I don't think I know any materialists. I would avoid the word materialists and swap it with naturalists, as most would now describe themselves - materialism being understood as too reductive. I would probably consider myself a methodological naturalist but not a metaphysical naturalist. I have not ruled out idealism, for instance. — Tom Storm

Sure you do. You just don't like to rudely call a spade a spade. Do you see the deficiencies of metaphysical Materialism (Energy is physical but immaterial), that are glossed-over in sensable
Naturalism?

From a biased perspective of Methodological Naturalism, any super-naturalism would be invisible and unthinkable. Does the supernatural Multiverse hypothesis make any sense from your perspective? Does Plato's Idealism expand your perspective to include General Principles that are known only via rational inference instead of sensory perception? :smile:


Energy is considered a physical quantity that describes the ability to do work, but it is not a material substance; meaning it cannot be physically touched or seen, unlike matter, and is only observed through its effects on objects or systems. ___Google AI overview

As I’ve often said, belief in gods—or in any supernatural guiding principle—is more like a preference, akin to sexuality. — Tom Storm

For philosophers, such as Plato & Kant, General Principles are inferences, not preferences. Whether they are "guiding" may be more like a gender preference. For Gnomon, they are like Laws of Nature : known only by inference from observing the behavior of the dynamic world. :smile:

However, do you agree 'there is a naturalist (or anti/non-supernaruralist) worldview' of the few in contrast to 'the supernaturalist (or anti/non-naturalist) worldview of the many'? — 180 Proof
Yes, I think that's fair. I dislike The Atheist Worldview because it belongs to those ignorant talking points of Muslim and Christian apologists who have to turn the discourse into a team sport. — Tom Storm

Do you agree with 180's slur that anyone who discusses the nature of Nature on a philosophy forum is a "New Age nut", or perhaps a "Muslim and Christian apologist". Is that an Ad Hominem or a Red Herring or some other fallacy, used to avoid grappling with difficult questions? Are Ontology & Cosmology disallowed in your philosophy? Both attempt to view Nature from the outside. :smile:


Cosmology is the study of the universe's nature, including its origin, development, structure, history, and future.. Google AI overview

In philosophy, a "privileged viewpoint" refers to a perspective or standpoint that is considered to provide a more accurate or complete understanding of a situation due to the unique position or experience of the person holding that view, often implying that this perspective is superior to others due to their specific access to knowledge or insights not readily available to others; this concept is closely tied to "epistemic privilege" where someone has privileged access to certain knowledge, like their own thoughts, through introspection. Google AI overview
Note --- Both Muslims and Christians claim to have access to a "privileged viewpoint" on questions of Epistemology and Ontology. Gnomon does not make such a claim.

But for me as a non-scientist, non-philosopher, I do not have the luxury to speculate about the nature of reality. I leave that to the people with qualifications and stratospheric IQ's. My own preference is that the nature of reality is mostly unimportant and has no bearing on how I conduct my life. — Tom Storm

OK. I apologize for disturbing your "dogmatic slumber". :smile:

“I freely confess: it was the objection of David Hume that first, many years ago, interrupted my dogmatic slumber,” says Kant in the Preface to the Prolegomena

A monkey randomly hitting the keys of a typewriter will eventually produce something resembling all the works of Shakespeare.
These points were made by Hume, but I don't see that anything in the opening post challenges them. — Clearbury

The imaginary random monkey Bard seems to be an article of faith for some believers in providential Chance. Meyer's book does address the mathematical implausibility of the typing monkey myth. The OP does address Hume's argument, by noting the modern scientific facts that he was ignorant of. :smile:


Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-monkey-unable-hamlet-lifetime-universe.html

Richard Dawkins’s Weasel Program Is Bad in Ways You Never Dreamed
The program “evolves” a string of gibberish letters into a line from Hamlet: “Methinks it is like a weasel.”
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss_weasel/

Just as you insist on putting atheists into fanatic scientism boxes? ( :wink: that's just a quip) — Tom Storm

A quip from the hip! :joke:
No, I don't put Atheists into "fanatic scientism boxes". That would be Materialists, who imagine that they have a special relationship with Science. I have another empty box, with no label, for Atheists. My box is also empty, and labeled "Agnostic but Inquisitive". :smile:

PS___ Do you know any Atheists or Materialists, who would like to discuss the philosophical ideas in the OP, instead of just putting them in a pigeonhole that can be easily dismissed as bird-sh*t?