Evidence of the Non-Physical

[Sheldon]

Maybe you don't understand the arguments?

Well we can only tell you that we have encountered them and they are deeply flawed and irrational. However if you think you have a version that isn't then please present them and we will keep an open mind. So far all you have done is use the title of three arguments we have seen used before, and seen properly debunked time and again.

 

[Sheldon]

What's so hard to understand or accept about either the teleological or cosmological arguments? They're based on elementary reasoning, which science substantiates.

Present them then, only every time I've seen them they invoke known logical fallacies, offer flawed premises, make bare assumptions etc etc.

 

[Sheldon]

Just to name one counter-example that renders such an absurd and extreme claim as the one you make above (my goodness, I'm not a believer or an historian but a scientist and even I know the the debt we physicists owe to the "theological physics" of the early modern founders from Galileo and Descartes through Newton and beyond), we can point to e.g., the action principle.
The action principle was initially introduced via theological justifications for theological reasons on a theological basis about the perfect nature of god, first by Maupertuis and then in a more modern form by Euler. It is at the core of modern theoretical physics, particularly those that form our most fundamental theories (e.g., the standard model) but also classical mechanics, optics, non-relativistic quantum mechanics (especially the path integral formalism), relativistic quantum mechanics, many-body physics, etc.
To take just one example of a modern, purely theoretical physics monograph for graduate students, post-docs, and researchers in axiomatic quantum theory and algebraic quantum theory (and QFT more generally), and a standard reference in this and related fields, we have the following:
"The belief that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds, or that God gave laws of nature optimally designed to achieve an end, has provided through centuries an inspiration to fundamental physics. It brought a teleological element which has been extremely fruitful but which, in spirit, appears to be quite opposed to the principle of locality."
p. 39
from Haag, R. (1996). Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras (2nd Ed.) (Theoretical and Mathematical Physics). Springer.
Note that this teleological nature remains and remains in particular problematic because we no longer accept the theological principles upon which it was based when it was introduced (well, I don't, and even for physicists who are believers I've yet to meet one talk about the action principle in theological terms other than when referring to its historical development). The influence of this theological argument, especially in the form Euler presented it, is a clear counter-example of your claim. This is true despite the fact that I don't know of any physicists who accept that the principle should be understood theologically (although its teleological nature bothers many), as is born out in the text by Cushing:
"Euler maintained the theological view of Maupertuis and held that phenomena could be explained not only in terms of causes but also in terms of purpose. He believed that, since the universe was the creation of a perfect God, nothing could happen in nature that did not exhibit this maximum or minimum property. In Euler's program all the laws of nature should be derivable from this principle of maximum or minimum. The fact that Newton's second law of motion was deduced from such a principle lent great support to this claim. This was the beginning of the use of variational principles that are common in physics today (but without the theological trappings)."
p. 167
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics: The Historical Relation between Philosophy and Scientific Theories. Cambridge University Press.

Perhaps I've misunderstood here, but those seem to be debts we owe to science, and people who pursued that method, who also just happened to be theists, since nearly everyone was of course a theist of some stripe in that epoch. If you were an atheist, it was a very bad idea to say so publicly throughout much of human history.

I don't see anything they discovered that couldn't have equally been gleaned from the scientific method by an atheist? Unless as I say I've misunderstood, in which case my apologies.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Just to name one counter-example that renders such an absurd and extreme claim as the one you make above (my goodness, I'm not a believer or an historian but a scientist and even I know the the debt we physicists owe to the "theological physics" of the early modern founders from Galileo and Descartes through Newton and beyond), we can point to e.g., the action principle.
The action principle was initially introduced via theological justifications for theological reasons on a theological basis about the perfect nature of god, first by Maupertuis and then in a more modern form by Euler. It is at the core of modern theoretical physics, particularly those that form our most fundamental theories (e.g., the standard model) but also classical mechanics, optics, non-relativistic quantum mechanics (especially the path integral formalism), relativistic quantum mechanics, many-body physics, etc.
To take just one example of a modern, purely theoretical physics monograph for graduate students, post-docs, and researchers in axiomatic quantum theory and algebraic quantum theory (and QFT more generally), and a standard reference in this and related fields, we have the following:
"The belief that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds, or that God gave laws of nature optimally designed to achieve an end, has provided through centuries an inspiration to fundamental physics. It brought a teleological element which has been extremely fruitful but which, in spirit, appears to be quite opposed to the principle of locality."
p. 39
from Haag, R. (1996). Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras (2nd Ed.) (Theoretical and Mathematical Physics). Springer.
Note that this teleological nature remains and remains in particular problematic because we no longer accept the theological principles upon which it was based when it was introduced (well, I don't, and even for physicists who are believers I've yet to meet one talk about the action principle in theological terms other than when referring to its historical development). The influence of this theological argument, especially in the form Euler presented it, is a clear counter-example of your claim. This is true despite the fact that I don't know of any physicists who accept that the principle should be understood theologically (although its teleological nature bothers many), as is born out in the text by Cushing:
"Euler maintained the theological view of Maupertuis and held that phenomena could be explained not only in terms of causes but also in terms of purpose. He believed that, since the universe was the creation of a perfect God, nothing could happen in nature that did not exhibit this maximum or minimum property. In Euler's program all the laws of nature should be derivable from this principle of maximum or minimum. The fact that Newton's second law of motion was deduced from such a principle lent great support to this claim. This was the beginning of the use of variational principles that are common in physics today (but without the theological trappings)."
p. 167
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics: The Historical Relation between Philosophy and Scientific Theories. Cambridge University Press.

Wow. What utter nonsense. Your claim is that some theologian wrote that "the actual world is the best of all possible worlds" and that somehow created modern physics?

Nope. You're living in a fantasy.

That claim did nothing to produce contemporary physics. The very best you can claim is that it inspired physicists to undertake their activities. The claim itself is totally worthless. It might as well read "the sun is long lived," or "Jupiter is big."

As I wrote, theology is dead. It's long dead. It has nothing to offer our sciences now. It had little to offer our sciences 400 years ago - but, sure, if you want to claim that theology was useful in the past, fine. I'll concede that.

Theology is 100% useless now. It's entirely useless. Without merit. Fully fiction. It can add nothing and no new knowledge in our present day.

Theology didn't add to previous scientists' knowledge. At best, it motivated them. You can see this because no god or divinity exists in scientific explanatory models. Newton's laws contain no deity. Yeah, he believed in the Christian deity, but no, theology did not create his science.

Seriously, name a single theological claim or model that creates new knowledge.

You can't. Scientists like Newton overcame the worthlessness of theology. They pushed theology to be better - and it never improved beyond metaphor.

 

[lukethethird]

Just to name one counter-example that renders such an absurd and extreme claim as the one you make above (my goodness, I'm not a believer or an historian but a scientist and even I know the the debt we physicists owe to the "theological physics" of the early modern founders from Galileo and Descartes through Newton and beyond), we can point to e.g., the action principle.
The action principle was initially introduced via theological justifications for theological reasons on a theological basis about the perfect nature of god, first by Maupertuis and then in a more modern form by Euler. It is at the core of modern theoretical physics, particularly those that form our most fundamental theories (e.g., the standard model) but also classical mechanics, optics, non-relativistic quantum mechanics (especially the path integral formalism), relativistic quantum mechanics, many-body physics, etc.
To take just one example of a modern, purely theoretical physics monograph for graduate students, post-docs, and researchers in axiomatic quantum theory and algebraic quantum theory (and QFT more generally), and a standard reference in this and related fields, we have the following:
"The belief that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds, or that God gave laws of nature optimally designed to achieve an end, has provided through centuries an inspiration to fundamental physics. It brought a teleological element which has been extremely fruitful but which, in spirit, appears to be quite opposed to the principle of locality."
p. 39
from Haag, R. (1996). Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras (2nd Ed.) (Theoretical and Mathematical Physics). Springer.
Note that this teleological nature remains and remains in particular problematic because we no longer accept the theological principles upon which it was based when it was introduced (well, I don't, and even for physicists who are believers I've yet to meet one talk about the action principle in theological terms other than when referring to its historical development). The influence of this theological argument, especially in the form Euler presented it, is a clear counter-example of your claim. This is true despite the fact that I don't know of any physicists who accept that the principle should be understood theologically (although its teleological nature bothers many), as is born out in the text by Cushing:
"Euler maintained the theological view of Maupertuis and held that phenomena could be explained not only in terms of causes but also in terms of purpose. He believed that, since the universe was the creation of a perfect God, nothing could happen in nature that did not exhibit this maximum or minimum property. In Euler's program all the laws of nature should be derivable from this principle of maximum or minimum. The fact that Newton's second law of motion was deduced from such a principle lent great support to this claim. This was the beginning of the use of variational principles that are common in physics today (but without the theological trappings)."
p. 167
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics: The Historical Relation between Philosophy and Scientific Theories. Cambridge University Press.

Theoretical physics developed in spite of theological beliefs held by it's practitioners, not because of.

 

[DNB]

Right. So, we're back at the beginning. I'll start: theology provides nothing useful in terms of evidence or new knowledge.

Open your eyes.

 

[DNB]

This isn't complicated. A baseless assertion is one that is made without any basis. You made the claim that "Man has a spirit..." without the slightest attempt to justify it.

Man has a spirit, ...why do you think this forum was created?

 

[DNB]

Another baseless assertion, followed by an argument from ignorance fallacy, or possibly just a plain non sequitur depending on how you possibly imagine the first statement justifies the second.

Both evil and good exists, and all actions have been defined as such, therefore man has a spirit.

 

[DNB]

They're not hard to understand, just obviously unsound (at least all the version I've seen are).


Again, (in my experience) this is simply wrong. Every single version of either I've seen, either makes basic logical mistakes or rests on highly questionable premises.

By all means, do feel free to post some version of an argument that you think is valid (either here or in another thread) and I'll tell you why it fails, or be surprised.

Something did not come from nothing. What more is there to discuss?

 

[DNB]

Evil doesn't defy rationale, it is just a subjective concept. Your claim is still bare assertion, and therefore meaningless. If you could perceive what your unevidenced claims, and endlessly use of logical fallacies mean, we might make some headway.

Racism or alcoholism does not defy rationale? Who thought that those two dispositions were a good, pragmatic idea? Theft or bullying someone is not hypocritical, where's the rationale there?
Sheldon, you're incorrigible, like seriously. Just concede a flippin' viable point when you hear one, quite being so obstinate.

 

[DNB]

It doesn't eat, it's omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. It also transcends time and space.

You do have some witty come-backs, ....but you're as stubborn as a mule.

 

[Sheldon]

Open your eyes.

Another vapid no true Scotsman fallacy.

Man has a spirit, ...why do you think this forum was created?

Endlessly repeating your unevidenced claim does not validate it.

Both evil and good exists, and all actions have been defined as such, there man has a spirit.

No, evil and good are subjective terms. Again your claim for a spirit is unevidenced woo woo.

Something did not come from nothing. What more is there to discuss?

Well for a start we could discuss how you think your sweeping ignorant unevidenced claim has trumped the entire scientific world in the field of physics.

 

[DNB]

Well we can only tell you that we have encountered them and they are deeply flawed and irrational. However if you think you have a version that isn't then please present them and we will keep an open mind. So far all you have done is use the title of three arguments we have seen used before, and seen properly debunked time and again.

The universe is designed, even a child recognizes that. But, you and your cohorts prefer to use esoteric arguments in order to dispel any logical and empirically proven evidence. Just admit it, all creatures follow countless patterns of existence, birth, growth, death. The seasons have cycles, medicine is predictable, the food chain has a static hierarchy. Multiple creatures of such a disparity in their genus and species, share a contingency upon each other - each needs another for survival, and yet, some still don't. The planets, their satellites, the constellations, the orbits, revolutions and rotations, all working in an integrated and symbiotic manner. Life propagates life - the miracle of birth.

But, of course, all this is nothing but haphazard chance, no design, no purpose, no formula or structure, just an explosion....

 

[DNB]

Present them then, only every time I've seen them they invoke known logical fallacies, offer flawed premises, make bare assumptions etc etc.

well, there you have it then, you came from the apes.

 

[Sheldon]

Evil doesn't defy rationale, it is just a subjective concept. Your claim is still bare assertion, and therefore meaningless. If you could perceive what your unevidenced claims, and endlessly use of logical fallacies mean, we might make some headway.

Racism or alcoholism does not defy rationale?

A rather bizarre non sequitur, posed as a question?

Who thought that those two dispositions were a good, pragmatic idea?

I give up who?

Theft or bullying someone is not hypocritical, where's the rationale there?

Again I give up, where? You seem to be going for some sort of record for the most straw men non sequiturs in a single post.

Sheldon, you're incorrigible, like seriously.

Ad hominem fallacy, it seems you cannot learn to play the ball, and not the man.

Just concede a flippin' viable point when you hear one, quite being so obstinate.

If you ever make a cogent viable point, and I have made a prior objection I see is invalid, then I will. You're shooting the messenger I'm afraid.

 

[DNB]

Another vapid no true Scotsman fallacy.



Endlessly repeating your unevidenced claim does not validate it.



No, evil and good are subjective terms. Again your claim for a spirit is unevidenced woo woo.



Well for a start we could discuss how you think your sweeping ignorant unevidenced claim has trumped the entire scientific world in the field of physics.

So something did come from nothing?

 

[DNB]

A rather bizarre non sequitur, posed as a question?



I give up who?



Again I give up, where? You seem to be going for some sort of record for the most straw men non sequiturs in a single post.



Ad hominem fallacy, it seems you cannot learn to play the ball, and not the man.



If you ever make a cogent viable point, and I have made a prior objection I see is invalid, then I will. You're shooting the messenger I'm afraid.

You're not the messenger Sheldon, you're the source. Quite blaming someone else for what you espouse as fact and truth.

 

[Sheldon]

The universe is designed, even a child recognizes that.

I don't believe either of your bare claims there.

But, you and your cohorts prefer to use esoteric arguments in order to dispel any logical and empirically proven evidence.

That is errant nonsense.

Just admit it, all creatures follow countless patterns of existence, birth, growth, death. The seasons have cycles, medicine is predictable, the food chain has a static hierarchy. Multiple creatures of such a disparity in their genus and species, share a contingency upon each other - each needs another for survival, and yet, some still don't.

Ok, none of that infers design in nature though, and science has evidenced species evolution beyond any reasonable or rational doubt.

The planets, their satellites, the constellations, the orbits, revolutions and rotations, all working in an integrated and symbiotic manner. Life propagates life - the miracle of birth.

I have no idea what you're trying to assert here, beyond vapid platitudes?

But, of course, all this is nothing but haphazard chance,

Ah the creationist straw man of chance, species evolution involves random events, it is not however based on chance. This just shows you don't understand evolution at all.

no design, no purpose, no formula or structure, just an explosion....

Well please evidence purpose. The big bang has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution, and it was not an explosion.

 

[Sheldon]

What's so hard to understand or accept about either the teleological or cosmological arguments? They're based on elementary reasoning, which science substantiates.

Present them then, only every time I've seen them they invoke known logical fallacies, offer flawed premises, make bare assumptions etc etc.

well, there you have it then, you came from the apes.

Don't be a clown, that petulant non sequitur has nothing to do with your claim about those arguments, and even you must know at least that much. If you've parroted those arguments and can't justify your grandiose claims they are valid then have the decency not to produce irrelevant straw men. If you think they are valid, then offer them for scrutiny, it is that simple. That is how debate works.

The taxonomy of humans is that they are part of the family of great apes by the way, did you really not know this? Humans share a much higher percentage of their DNA with the other great apes, as Darwin predicted of course are our closes evolutionary relatives.

 

[Sheldon]

So something did come from nothing?

Did it? You might want to collect your Nobel prize if you can evidence that. I'll watch the news with eager anticipation.