September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« The Birth of Transableism: Why Our Culture Bites Absurd Bullets | Main | Natural Selection Can’t Select a Future Function »

June 04, 2015

Comments

Certainly interesting and bit unexpected to see one of my old comments to get a full-blown video answer, especially for the sheer coincidence, since I haven't checked Stand to Reason very frequently lately and might have missed this. Thank you for the effort of well-thought answer anyway.

So watching this video, and reading the comments in the earlier challenge thread, the answer to my objection seems to boil down to this: that something can indeed come from nothing, but only through "supernatural" means. Or perhaps even more substantially, I would guess that the idea is that it can only happen through conscious creative agency (Aristotle's metaphysics, prime-mover, etc). Now this is of course one answer, but seems to me to be substantially different then the usual soundbite "something cannot come from nothing, ergo creation."

Now, on the rebuttal in the video about my dismissal of supernatural explanations. Is it fundamentally illegitimate to dismiss supernatural and metaphysical explanations? Obviously one can pretty much "prove" anything by taking any sort of theoretical limits of nature off the table. But, if there are no good naturalist answers or explanations available, is it not logical to assume there might be a supernatural explanation?

The analogy raised here is if I happen to be investigating murder, and rule out white men as a possible culprit without any prior knowledge and reason, that would obviously severely cripple my quest for an truthful answer. Of course, this is completely true. Should I rule out white men or people as possible suspects, I would be at very least a poor investigator, or even more so a very dishonest investigator.

However, let's tweak the analogy a little. Let's say instead of dismissing white men, I would instead rule out all vampires as the possible suspects. Now, does this sound as unreasonable? After all, if I don't know who the culprit is, there is no reason to assume a vampire could not have murdered a person. That's what a lot of vampires do anyway. So strictly speaking there is no reason why I should dismiss vampires as killers anymore then white men.

So why does ruling out vampires as extremely unlikely answer to a killing sound much more reasonable then ruling out white people, black people, Chinese, South Americans, etc. Well, the answer is obvious: We have no recorded knowledge of vampires killing anyone, there is no reason to assume that vampires exist outside fiction, and by moving the investigation outside normal context and on such unlikely phenomena, I would probably damage whatever method my investigation has a lot more the ruling out white people or let's say South Americans. So unless I am Van Helsing in the 19th century London, I can probably pretty much safely say that if I investigate a homicide, there will never be a vampire involved.

Now what does this have to supernatural in general? Well, basically just pointing out the inherent problem in this answer: what exactly is this supernatural phenomena that can let you have something out of nothing? And how would that work? The answer has to something more complicated then "it does". Or if you have a problem with atheist saying that the universe exists cause it exists, I would then ask what exactly more complicated "cause" have you thought out that doesn't boil down to the same "thing exists".

Obviously, if you believe in God who can create matter out of nothing, then there is no dilemma. Maybe such God actually exists. Maybe the laws of causality only apply to physical matter. Maybe mere potential can create and alter matter. And maybe there are vampires who kill people. It's all possible, strictly speaking.

But unless I see someone making something out of nothing with his creative uncaused potency alone, I'm gonna go with modern physics and say matter can not be created from nothing. No matter (pun unintentional) how much of an elegant solution creation ex nihilo is.

Erkki,

Obviously one can pretty much "prove" anything by taking any sort of theoretical limits of nature off the table.

What do you think Christians are trying to prove by taking theoretical limits of nature off the table? And when the atheist says the universe popped into existence out of nothing, aren't they taking the theoretical limits of nature off the table since those aren't a part of "nothing"?

But, if there are no good naturalist answers or explanations available, is it not logical to assume there might be a supernatural explanation?

That would depend on what sort of supernatural explanation being offered. Not all supernatural explanations are equal, though that's the move you're trying to make in order to knock down a weak position that Christians aren't promoting in the first place.

For instance, let's suppose that both vampires and God (as classically defined) are supernatural. Would vampires and God be equally good at explaining the cause of the universe? Obviously not.

However, let's tweak the analogy a little. [...]

What your analogy shows is that whether it's reasonable to rule out a certain kind of explanation will depend upon background evidence and beliefs as well as the specific evidence in question. So instead of just speaking broadly of "murder" let's say the victim was shot. You say that lots of vampires murder, but do lots of vampires shoot people? The vampire explanation has very low plausibility on this scenario. Or instead of the victim being shot, lets say he was found with all his blood drained and two puncture wounds in his neck. The vampire explanation has more plausibility in this scenario than the former.

Clearly its not hard to imagine finding enough of the right kinds of evidence that would lead us to believe vampires are in fact real. If you don't think so then maybe you are, again, just illegitimately dismissing some kinds of explanations. Thus, the relevant question is whether we have reasons for dismissing the 'God' explanation in the same way that you think we have reason for dismissing the vampire explanation.

what exactly is this supernatural phenomena that can let you have something out of nothing?

Haven't we already been clear on that point? With your "supernatural" language and vampire analogy your just pretending we haven't said what we already have: the supernatural phenomena is an omnipotent personal being.

And how would that work?

Not having an answer to that question (and I don't) doesn't make it a bad explanation. For instance, we don't have an answer for how gravity works, but no one uses that as a basis for dismissing gravity or the inverse square law. We don't have an explanation for how the Egyptians built the pyramids, but you probably don't dismiss the theory that Egyptians built the pyramids. Granted, some think it was aliens.

Or if you have a problem with atheist saying that the universe exists cause it exists, I would then ask what exactly more complicated "cause" have you thought out that doesn't boil down to the same "thing exists".

It's not clear to me why you're talking about an explanation being complicated. How exactly is that factoring into this discussion? At any rate, Christians object to the idea that the universe "just exists" (which I assume is what you mean by "because it exists") because the universe is contingent, so it's explanation cannot be found within itself.

Maybe mere potential can create and alter matter. [...] It's all possible, strictly speaking.

Actually that doesn't seem possible. Nothing is not potential. Potentiality is a property belonging to some thing.

But unless I see someone making something out of nothing with his creative uncaused potency alone

In other words, you're intellectually impervious to the idea that God created the universe. Nothing will ever lead you to believe that God created the universe, since you could never know you're seeing nothing instead of some invisible quarks or strings.

Well, okay. But dialing up your skepticism notch that high isn't an intellectual virtue. I could play that game too and say that "unless I see all the physics experiments with my own two eyes I'll never believe what modern physicists say." I doubt you'd be impressed with that.

Erkki, I can't speak for other Christians, but my position is not that, "something can indeed come from nothing, but only through 'supernatural' means." Rather, my position is that something can come from nothing as long as it is caused to do so. Or, in other words, something cannot come from nothing spontaneously without any cause or reason.

The reason I eventually conclude that the cause of the universe coming into existence is a supernatural being isn't because I think a supernatural being is the only kind of being that could bring something into existence out of nothing, but because we're talking about the coming into being of everything natural, and the cause of everything natural has to be something outside of nature.

Alan's remarks on a strict refusal to allow for a supernatural explanation to origins (the divine foot in the door) reminded me of this posting:

THE ANALOGY OF THE VANISHING PHENOMENA

You have come to this town for reasons of business. Having registered at your hotel, you have spent a restful night and have wakened at 7:00 and taken it into your head to take a morning stroll through the mostly deserted downtown district in search of a restaurant to take in breakfast. The blocks you pass through are for the most part pedestrian-less, and the first light of morning is well there. You can see clearly enough, with only a few shadows, and that suddenly disappearing as you turn onto a well lit, sunny avenue, with good chances of dining establishments down the street.

It is here that you see about a block from you a walker heading in your direction. Nothing noteworthy is made of this person, other than he appears to be or typical size and slenderness. In your walk, you clearly view him a good minute. As you near each other, with only ten yards separating, suddenly his form disappears. Nothing. You move to where he had been moving. Again, no evidence of him actually having been there. But you have seen him. His disappearance is jarring, alarming, but you ponder the possibilities, coolly, calmly, reflecting all you've seen and noted. You immediately offer yourself a line of possible explanations.

1) This has been somewhat of a mirage.
2) This has been some sort of hallucination.
3) This is some sort of prank, a projection or holographic image placed in your path by some ingenious member of MIT, Cal Poly, or some special effects group trying out some new technique.

Oh, and you can't help thinking, and quickly discounting:

4) This must have been a ghost. Tee hee. A silly thought. Not worth any account.

As you find your breakfast spot, you think over the three "scientific" or "reasonable" explanations. While all three of them have the advantage of natural explanation (and you are sure you could think of more on further reflection), you admit they have equal merit, and equal deficits. You consider the morning's suns angles too high to acknowledge a chance of this phenomenon to be comparable to that of "witch water." You had taken nothing that morning that would bring on any sensation closely resembling an hallucination. You have great respect for the field of special effects technology, but the municipality you have visited doesn't have any demographics that would suggest that such a technologically trained individual would reside in the town. Still, you are intriqued enough to ask the patrons and staff at the restaurant you've entered. They know a large segment of people that live in and frequent the general area. They know of many an intelligent individual that works in the offices of the area, but none are technically trained in the field that would have projected an apparent morning walker.

And that's when you stumble across the truth.

**************

ANSWER: The phenomenon you've encountered was a ghost.

**************

And yes, you have a reason to complain at the definiteness of the answer. It is the only non-scientific, non-natural explanation that had been offered. But many of the patrons and restauranteers, on inquiring why you are asking about projections and holographs, learn of your encounter. And they tell you the story of an unfortunate fellow whose death was a shock, yet many have too seen this individual, could tell you the background story, and beg that you take them seriously.

The issue of scientism is, of course, that you cannot take this explanation seriously. More possible natural explanations could be raised, while objections can be made to the proposed supernatural explanation. This is the nature of science in its raw philosophical base of materialistic naturalism. Scientism has reduced at whole of what is factual and true within the confines of the scientific "box." It acknowledges nothing beyond this box.

This leads to two weaknesses: 1) only one manifestation beyond the box needs be demonstrated to disallow the "box." And 2) science has no apparatus that could look beyond the confines to verify whether such be true/false. It can only assume on metaphysical grounds the validity of its closed system box, but never capable of proving it. It can only question, denounce, eliminate, discredit, any evidence of the "beyond." This is the scientific foundation that scientism is locked into, a blind man's glance into the darkness. I as scientist wish nothing to be there, but am incapable of the justifying glance.

Sam,

my position is that something can come from nothing as long as it is caused to do so

Why is that your position?


I think it might make more sense to say that nothing cannot give rise to something, rather than saying something cannot come from nothing.

The issue here is that nothingness is causally impotent.

To say that God creates something ex nihilo is not to assert some causal power to nothingness.

To say that first there was nothing, then it exploded, is to assert a causal power to nothingness.

my position is that something can come from nothing as long as it is caused to do so
Why is that your position?

Because the impossibility of something spontaneously coming into existence out of nothing without a cause is obvious to me, but it's not obvious to me that something could be caused to come into existence.

Tell me about this obviousness to you.


To say that first there was nothing, then it exploded
would be to say something for which there is no evidence.

So what?

Oh. I do agree Ron.

It's too bad that that's your view.

No, it is not my view that (metaphysical) nothing exploded.

Perhaps someone really has that view.

I haven't heard from them (though I have heard some carelessly worded statements coming from people who I'm sure know better).

Myths spread carelessly and greedily on TV notwithstanding, physics is silent on (metaphysical) nothing and whether anything comes from it.

So, Ron, if that's not your view, what is the Big Bang without God?

I don't know.

How could I?

You can observe the universe expanding only so far back in time.

Beyond that you can't see because it was so hot that everything was plasma and electromagnetic waves don't travel in plasma.

Nothing to look at.

Still, you can apply theory and work out what the universe was probably like before that.

But, once you go back far enough the temperature passes anything that has been observed.

Does physics change beyond that point?

Be optimistic: assume not and continue.

Eventually, you reach a point where such optimism is unjustified.

How small the universe is at that point I don't know - bigger than zero, from what I hear.

Wherever that point is - whatever finite size the universe had at that point - beyond it you are truly just making stuff up.

Did this pre-physics universe have any energy in it?

Did it have any observable properties at all?

Pre-physics?
not knowing the physics is not the same as there not being any physics

Whatever Ron. Physics changes before a certain point in time. That is, there are different laws of physics, or no laws at all. Why you'd want to call that physics is unclear. But fine.

Was there any energy in the universe before that time?

Did anything have any observable properties at all?

there are different laws of physics, or no laws at all

Not what I'm saying.

It's useful to keep distinct our physical theories and physical reality.

Our present physical theories don't work when things get that hot and dense - even if they work all the way back to that point (which we can't verify).

We need new theories to talk consistently about times before a certain point.

That's different from saying that physical truths changed at that point.

Was there any energy in the universe before that time?

I am agnostic about whether energy is real even now. Maybe someday our most useful theories will not have a concept of energy.

Did anything have any observable properties at all?

Observable in principle or observable practically, I wonder.

I think physical theories will always include observable, measurable properties. That's what physics is about. Getting numbers from the theory. Getting numbers from nature. Comparing them.

But even if we find a theory that is interpretable farther in time, confirming such interpretations through observation might not be possible.

All theories include a latest lower bound of time. Perhaps not a first moment. At every moment later, there is a universe. Where did it come from?

Try this.

What I see in the article you link, Ron, is what I had already expected. The best current theories lead us to the universe beginning as a mathematical singularity.

Physicists having experience with these things and being optimistic fellows, know that it could be that further investigation may lead to a small, but non-infinitessimal universe.

That may well be.

Or it could be that the optimism is unwarranted and the universe really did begin with a singularity.

But either way, where did it come from?

Where did [the universe] come from?

No matter how many times you repeat it, this is a complex question: you're presupposing the universe came out of (metaphysical) nothing.

I have already said I don't hold this view.

I already said there's no evidence of this view from physics.

And I gave you reason to believe that 'my' view is standard among physicists.

Matt Strassler explains why my view is the standard view: to avoid over-extrapolating into the past.

Avoiding over-extrapolation is not something physicists did just in this case out of 'optimism' that they can avoid Creation. (That's what you mean by 'optimism', right? A kind of optimistic conspiracy?)

Avoiding over-extrapolation is preached throughout the sciences.

Over-extrapolating is the stuff of jokes and cartoons.

The over- is amply justified in this case.

For example...

We don't have data for such early times.
We haven't merged quantum mechanics and general relativity nor have we replaced those theories.

That's why Strassler made the effort to write a whole post about this in the first place.

So your view, then Ron is...

  1. You don't know where the universe came from.
  2. Science can't say right now where the universe came from, all the current theories suggest a mathematical singularity.
  3. It may be that scientists will never be able to construct a single observationally confirmable theory that can extrapolate into the past to say where it came from.
  4. It didn't come from nothing.

You use 4 more times the expression 'came from' which carries the same presumption you used in your complex question above.

I have told you more than once that I reject the presumption.

So how can you ask if this is my view?

1. Or if it 'came from' anywhere.
2. No theory suggests that without over-extrapolation.
3. Scientific progress is not guaranteed in any area.
4. I said there is no evidence that it 'came from' nothing.

Well, it came from somewhere, because it's here. Right?

What do you think "came from" means, and how would you express your view without employing the contentious bits of the meaning you give to that phrase.

Well, it came from somewhere, because it's here. Right?
I don't know. What if I said Something has to be eternal, right?'

There is no physics saying the universe is not eternal.

That there is such physics is the myth I mentioned being carelessly spread.

RE: contentious:

I misspoke above. The presumption I reject is 'that (metaphysical) nothing exploded' or that the (metaphysical) universe 'came from metaphysical nothing'.

I reject it in the sense that I don't hold it - not in the sense that I hold that it is false. I have nothing to base either conclusion on. Sorry, it was careless.

It might be that the our spacetime we're in didn't exist 'prior' to the Big Bang.

Physics is silent on this and this is very very very clearly not the same as saying that nothing existed.

WL: Well, it came from somewhere, because it's here. Right?

RH: I don't know. What if I said Something has to be eternal, right?'

These don't look parallel to me. In the one case, you've got the fact of something existent, and you're inferring that it came from something.

In the other case, it looks like you're just asserting that something is eternal.

Maybe there's an ellipsis there?

When you say "something has to be eternal" do you mean that there's either a brute fact of an eternal physical universe or a brute fact of an eternal creator? (I don't mean "Do you actually claim that's so?" I just mean "Is that the meaning you intend for that phrase?")

There is no physics saying the universe is not eternal.

That there is such physics is the myth I mentioned being carelessly spread.

If the universe extends indefinitely into the past, then something is happening early on that is completely off-theory. For every theory with any currency, the equations blow up when extended to a given moment in the past or earlier. This is contrasted to a static or steady-state theory of the universe...which had it as part of the theory that a universe that extends indefinitely into the past.

It might be that the our spacetime we're in didn't exist 'prior' to the Big Bang.
I don't think there's any might-be about this. Something might have existed, for all we know, but it was not our space-time.
Physics is silent on this and this is very very very clearly not the same as saying that nothing existed.
It is true that if physics is silent on whether the universe has a beginning, then that's not the same as saying that the universe has a beginning.

I'm not convinced that physics is entirely silent though. The equations do blow-up when you extrapolate past a certain moment. That says something. Let's grant that it might just be that the theory we have is incomplete and the equations we come up with as our cosmology improves might not blow-up. But if there is a beginning, you kind of expect the equations to blow-up or become unstable in some way if you try to extrapolate past the beginning.

I leave you to it.

RonH "What if I said Something has to be eternal"

So what changed to have that eternal 'Something' begin expanding to the universe that now exists.
What happened for that Something to depart from the eternal state it was in?

The equations do blow-up when you extrapolate past a certain moment.
Hook's law tells you a compression spring provides an infinite force when you compress it to zero length.

This tells you nothing because you already knew Hook's Law was an approximation good for small compressions. You don't need to worry about what it says at zero length because it is already invalid.

Likewise both general relativity and quantum mechanics are invalid before you get to zero size.

Also worse we haven't combined them: we can only use gravity when the dimensions of the problem allow us to ignore quantum mechanics.

Both qm and gr are past their expiration date by the time you get to zero size.

RobertNotBob,

I have no info on that.

So I say the conservative thing: I don't know.

Try it. It doesn't hurt.

Hook's law tells you a compression spring provides an infinite force when you compress it to zero length. This tells you nothing because you already knew Hook's Law was an approximation good for small compressions. You don't need to worry about what it says at zero length because it is already invalid.

Likewise both general relativity and quantum mechanics are invalid before you get to zero size.

Also worse we haven't combined them: we can only use gravity when the dimensions of the problem allow us to ignore quantum mechanics.

Both qm and gr are past their expiration date by the time you get to zero size.

OK that's a fair analogy. QM and GR are in trouble there (which is fair evidence that they are incomplete). They aren't silent...but there's good reason to think that they might be babbling.

     ,/   ,..:::=ー,..:-=-::、
     (( 、、_/ i'´ / _....,_ `ヽ
  、ヽ ミゞ ゝ ヽ/ ; r','"⌒~^'ー::、
  ''=,ミ -- ' ^ ~ ^ ニ _ ^ヾー-:、 ミ:、
  ∠./,:=ニニ - 二 =ー::、 ^ ミ 、 ー
,.::-=ニ'レ,.:--‐   ー--:: 、ヽ ヽ ミ ヾヽ
/,,.-‐i ;::::::-、  !  .;:::::;;;::;、 ; ヽ  ミ  、ヽ、
〃./'i ,,:=:, 、   _ ,:=::.、  .;   ニ  ヾミ、_
,! i l,γ @> ゙:.  .: k @ ミ:、 .i ,:-'   、^ミ=-
ノ. !,tゞニ彡'ノ : . ^ミ=ニイ、、  彡ソヘ ヾヽヽ、
/. レ   /  :. '-、     :,  / ,ソミ:、 〉 )
  | / /ゝ、_ノ..,)ヽ   、 l  i /ヽヾ j λ
  ! ヘノ/ノ川 !.ヘヾ、ミ、 i  :l  ハノ .)ノ人 ヽ、
   !.i^'=ァ~'T''⌒ナヾヘ !  i /`´
   ヽ、`l  ;  /,/ / ./ノ
    ヾ、i. ;  〃゙  / ,.ノ'´
      ヾゝi_,ノ   ノ/
      ヽ、_,,../゙

That is to say: Thank you for the acknowledging - "OK that's a fair analogy."

The fact that it DID depart from its eternal state does give us info.
It doesn't hurt to think about that either...

The principle of proportionate causality and the reality of becoming vis-à-vis change both satisfy observational reality, reason, and logic’s relentless inquiry demanding lucidity through and through. As noted from the various links in this post:


The idea is perhaps best stated in Platonic terms of the sort Aquinas uses (in an Aristotelianized form) in the Fourth Way. To be a tree or to be a stone is merely to participate in “treeness” or “stoneness.” But to be at all – which is the characteristic *effect* of an act of creation out of nothing – is to participate in Being Itself. Now the principle of proportionate causality tells us that whatever is in an effect must be in some way in its cause. And only that which just is Being Itself can, in this case, be a cause proportionate to the effect, since the effect is not merely to be a tree or to be a stone, but to be at all. So only God – who just is pure actuality or Being Itself rather than a being among others – can cause a thing to exist ex nihilo.


Question:


“Does the distinction between causal series per se and per accidens hold on a B-theory of time? If the flow of time is an illusion and every moment is ontologically on par, then the notion of instrumental causes becomes problematic. Or does it?”


Answer:


“The notion of instrumental causes per se does not become problematic, because even a static four-dimensional block universe would be a compound of essence and existence which would depend for its being on that in which essence and existence are identical. Now such a conception of the world -- which is really just a return to Parmenides – is incompatible with an Aristotelian account of change, precisely because it amounts to the denial of real change. Though I would say that, rather than getting rid of real becoming altogether, it really just relocates it from the world to the mind – on pain of an incoherent eliminativism – and thus gives us a Cartesian-style dualistic view of the world, with all the problems of the other kind. But in that case it is like the moderns' attempted elimination of final causes by relocating all "directedness" into the mind – it doesn't really get rid of the phenomenon the Aristotelian is talking about, but just moves it around.”


The problem for the philosophical naturalist is not solved for him by discovering “whether or not” the universe has a beginning in time – as neither outcomes helps him. The infinite regress is not that kind of problem. And besides, Scripture affirms the Timelessness of God – such awaiting us in the regress at some ontic-seam somewhere as science is catching up, even if slowly. Rather, the problem of becoming vis-à-vis change echoes a hint which carries us to Potential in-play here and now and this troubles the naturalist’s paradigm with essentially ordered causes in-play here and now. If the philosophical naturalist handles these problems by either A: avoiding pure actuality void of potentiality (the unmoved mover, and so on), and/or by B: diving into an infinite regress of essentially ordered causes of the sort that trace ultimately to simultaneously operating instrumental causes here and now – in which case such a regress is, not merely “problematic” or mysterious (as if such a regress could exist in some as-yet unknown fashion), but flatly impossible in principle – well then – either way – option A or option B – one or both, the Naturalist commits himself irrecoverably to his (typical) landing zone: final elimination – unintelligibility – vis-à-vis any material anything.


The very order he clings to, the material order, is lost in an abyss which he cannot name as he is left standing he knows not where.


Very often (not always) we find Atheists making two particular moves over and over here:

1) Not understanding the *actual* nature of the problems they face in their own paradigm

2) Choosing unintelligibility when the only alternative lands in semantics too close to Theism


As the various links in this post briefly describe, the “problem of infinite regress” is not a matter of accepting a mystery which might have a solution – just one we do not and perhaps cannot discover – but rather the fatal (to naturalism) problem that without acknowledging that the regress of essentially ordered causes operating here and now terminates in Pure Being, void of Potentiality, the Unmoved Mover, and so on, then the material world becomes unintelligible even in principle.


The Naturalist is faced with the past eternal mechanistically necessary and sufficient cause of all effects suffering the fatal blow of *change* within said effects. That’s troubling given our entire universe. Indeed QM and GR just may be babbling after all – that is if we assume the Naturalist’s hope for his infinite causal series there in that past eternal mechanistically necessary and sufficient cause of all effects.


As touched on by others:


Theist: “I'm not convinced that physics is entirely silent though. The equations do blow-up when you extrapolate past a certain moment. That says something. Let's grant that it might just be that the theory we have is incomplete and the equations we come up with as our cosmology improves might not blow-up. But if there is a beginning, you kind of expect the equations to blow-up or become unstable in some way if you try to extrapolate past the beginning.”


Skeptic: “Likewise both general relativity and quantum mechanics are invalid before you get to zero size. Also worse – we haven't combined them: we can only use gravity when the dimensions of the problem allow us to ignore quantum mechanics. Both QM and GR are past their expiration date by the time you get to zero size."


Theist: “OK that's a fair analogy. QM and GR are in trouble there (which is fair evidence that they are incomplete). They aren't silent...but there's good reason to think that they might be babbling.”


What are we to make of all of this? Clearly the Naturalist’s only hope here is the escape hatch of some sort of elimination in the arena of cosmology / causation even as he is doing of late in the arena of the mind. The alternative to elimination is, well, unthinkable to the Skeptic.


It’s called a safe-house.


As in:


Illusion, or Delusion, or Imaginary contours – and so on – the illusion of Cause/Effect, the illusion of Temporal Becoming, the illusion of Change, the illusion of Potentiality, and – yes – the illusion of all that can be called the mind is the last – and the only – safe-house for the Skeptic. All the previously mentioned arrows – including the arrow of time – aim at the semantics of God and therein all such arrows just must be – the Skeptic tells us – ultimately fraudulent. It is ironic that the phrase “Contingent Upon X” is so troubling of late to the philosophical naturalists who for so long have clung to that phrase – unable to break free of the fundamental shape of all that the physical sciences can reach. It is ironic because now we see the Skeptic’s trepidation at the futility of such means and ends – and hence of their scient-ism – to actually explain anything at all in the end. As all the evidence points to the Meta-Uncasued-Cause – known all long from eons past in a peculiar oddity known as the Hebrew – to what is in no way contingent but is Pure Actuality, utterly necessary…… only that…… can in principle be the ultimate terminus of explanation – and that such just may be the case after all is just too close to everything which sums to the Theist’s truth predicates. It will be God or it will be Illusion – and the former is unthinkable to the Skeptic and that is why we find Skeptics of late diving into the last – and only – safe-house of Illusion awash in an unintelligible solipsism and self-negating presuppositionalism – immersed in an ocean of imaginary contours as they boldly boycott any need to cohere with reality – else God. And so too it is with perception, and so too it is with brutally repeatable experience, and so too – finally – with all that is the mind in the absurdities of eliminative materialism as the Skeptic gives all of us what can only be an unintelligible “assurance” that he has – he insists – in his metaphysics “somewhere” what can only be an unintelligible proof of said illusion. We wait endlessly for him to present said proof of said illusion though it never does surface – instead we only see the Skeptic’s dive into said illusion – never the illusion itself – as said dive brings us to his last and only safe-house. It is there in his safe-house that we find the Skeptic franticly trying to free himself from his own mind – lost somewhere in his Cavern of illusion immersed in his muddled maze of an unintelligible solipsism annihilating his own “I-Exist” as he himself is forever intoxicated with a self-negating presuppositionalism. Yes it is there – and there alone – where we will find the Skeptic anxiously rummaging through his pile of absurdities seeking his last – and his only – refreshing reprieve from logic’s relentless inquiries.


A little more of late on causal series, a first cause, and an infinite regress.

The comments to this entry are closed.