Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

[Skwim]

Wait...how did this singularity that may have existed for trillions of years come to exist in the first place?

Don't have the faintest idea , and hey, it's just a hypothetical. Maybe it was a reaction to the Big Crunch from a previous universe. Maybe the singularity was the instantaneous result of a fukmeier that took place in another dimension. Maybe it was _________________________________fill in your best guess_________________________________ . Thing is, NOBODY KNOWS.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Don't have the faintest idea , and hey, it's just a hypothetical. Maybe it was a reaction to the Big Crunch from a previous universe. Maybe the singularity was the instantaneous result of a fukmeier that took place in another dimension. Maybe it was _________________________________fill in your best guess_________________________________ . Thing is, NOBODY KNOWS.

Haha...there's a rumor God did it? But wait...where did God come from? We will leave that for another time....

 

[leibowde84]

I can quote a source....
evolution is a theory and a fact

it is a common source.
and for cause of it's extensive use....the words are becoming 'inappropriate'
and you would think intelligent people would spot the misuse.

facts are proven.
theories can be proven....and when they are....they become fact.

knowing a fact without experiment?....yes you can
Albert likely KNEW his 'theory' to be a fact
I don't think he did ANY experiment before making pronouncement.

decades went by .....and then a repeatable experiment was done

at that point the Theory of Relativity should have graduated to the LAW of Relativity.

but people like their word games

No, it's just that you don't understand the meaning of the words. You are clinging to the misconception that the common mistaken usage of the word "theory" in place of "hypothesis" is a good thing. Further, just because a theory is confirmed through repeated experiment and observation doesn't necessarily mean that it's perfect. The ToE is by far the best and most comprehensive way of explaining the evidence, and has been confirmed repeatedly, even being used to make predictions about what will be found in the future. Same goes for the theories of relativity, but they remain theories because, until they were confirmed repeatedly, they were hypotheses and not theories.

 

[Thief]

No, it's just that you don't understand the meaning of the words. You are clinging to the misconception that the common mistaken usage of the word "theory" in place of "hypothesis" is a good thing. Further, just because a theory is confirmed through repeated experiment and observation doesn't necessarily mean that it's perfect. The ToE is by far the best and most comprehensive way of explaining the evidence, and has been confirmed repeatedly, even being used to make predictions about what will be found in the future. Same goes for the theories of relativity, but they remain theories because, until they were confirmed repeatedly, they were hypotheses and not theories.

you're just trying to hang on to this thread....

 

[leibowde84]

you're just trying to hang on to this thread....

You are free to give up at any time.

 

[Thief]

I see no reason to....
what do your consider a law of science?
something an experiment was done for?

or could a clever fellow understand reality .....without the petri dish?

 

[leibowde84]

I see no reason to....
what do your consider a law of science?
something an experiment was done for?

or could a clever fellow understand reality .....without the petri dish?

I agree that facially, it seems counter-intuitive. But, when you actually do research in the reasoning behind the agreed upon meaning of these scientific terms, it makes perfect sense. Hypothesis, theory, and law are all pieces of the scientific method. Below is a pretty good explanation of the progression. And, follow the link for a more in depth look.

(From http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html)
In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of the phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough empirical data and are widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists within a discipline. Both also help unify a particular field of scientific study. However, theories and laws, as well as hypotheses, are separate parts of the scientific method.

"Hypotheses, theories and laws are rather like apples, oranges and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered," according to University of California. A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon; a scientific theoryis an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon. A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept, according to Kennesaw State University.

"There are four major concepts in science: facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories," Coppinger told Live Science. "Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton’s Law of Gravity or Mendel’s Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work."

Coppinger pointed out that the Law of Gravity was discovered by Newton in the 17th century. This law mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. However, Newton’s law doesn’t explain what gravity is, or how it works. It wasn’t until three centuries later, when Albert Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity, that scientists began to understand what gravity is, and how it works.

"Newton’s law is useful to scientists in that astrophysicists can use this centuries-old law to land robots on Mars. But it doesn’t explain how gravity works, or what it is. Similarly, Mendel’s Law of Independent Assortment describes how different traits are passed from parent to offspring, not how or why it happens," Coppinger said.

Another example of the difference between a theory and a law would be the case of Gregor Mendel. Mendel discovered that two different genetic traits would appear independently of each other in different offspring. "Yet Mendel knew nothing of DNA or chromosomes. It wasn’t until a century later that scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes — the biochemical explanation of Mendel’s laws. It was only then that scientists, such as T.H. Morgan working with fruit flies, explained the Law of Independent Assortment using the theory of chromosomal inheritance. Still today, this is the universally accepted explanation (theory) for Mendel’s Law," Coppinger said.

 

[Thief]

you are aware.....Albert was seeking an equation of which all things are included.
he doubted his own handiwork
so did many others.

he published his paper after hearing someone else was headed in the same direction.

and you are aware.?...that effort is not final

is there any law or theory or fact....you would declare absolute?

Albert was questioned in latter life.....what are you working on now?
" I'm trying to catch God in the act."

 

[leibowde84]

you are aware.....Albert was seeking an equation of which all things are included.
he doubted his own handiwork
so did many others.

he published his paper after hearing someone else was headed in the same direction.

and you are aware.?...that effort is not final

is there any law or theory or fact....you would declare absolute?

Albert was questioned in latter life.....what are you working on now?
" I'm trying to catch God in the act."

I don't believe in absolutes, unless we are talking about defined and constant circumstances, as prescribed by the term "scientific law".

 

[Thief]

I don't believe in absolutes, unless we are talking about defined and constant circumstances, as prescribed by the term "scientific law".

how about superlatives?

 

[leibowde84]

how about superlatives?

What about them? They exist, as they are a human linguistic creation.

 

[Thief]

What about them? They exist, as they are a human linguistic creation.

time exists as measure.....only
a cognitive device ....created by Man to serve Man

are you sure there are no spiritual superlatives?
I reckon there is ONE....Almighty

self explanatory

 

[leibowde84]

time exists as measure.....only
a cognitive device ....created by Man to serve Man

are you sure there are no spiritual superlatives?
I reckon there is ONE....Almighty

self explanatory

So, I guess you don't know what the term "superlative" means either. Here's some help:

Full Definition of superlative

1. 1: of, relating to, or constituting the degree of grammatical comparison that denotes an extreme or unsurpassed level or extent
   
   
2. a : surpassing all others : supreme
   b : of very high quality : excellent <superlative work>
   

 

[Gambit]

Therefore your will to write that post was uncaused. Did it not begin to exist?

Do you even bother to read what I post? Previously, I responded: "Free will does have a cause. It's called final causality." (God is the final cause.) Do I need to repeat that?

So , you really think that first person experiences can be used to refute the consequences of modern physics?

I think my first person experience can be used to refute the idea that we do not experience any change. Denying this is not an option.

Maybe, but as a I said, transferring the properties of the constituents to the aggregate is a logical fallacy.

There's no "maybe" about it. There really is no "unity" in your "uni-verse" because you deny that it has any transcendental ground. What you call the universe is nothing more than an aggregation of disconnected, contingent beings.

 

[Thief]

So, I guess you don't know what the term "superlative" means either. Here's some help:

Full Definition of superlative

1. 1: of, relating to, or constituting the degree of grammatical comparison that denotes an extreme or unsurpassed level or extent
   
   
2. a : surpassing all others : supreme
   b : of very high quality : excellent <superlative work>

bigger, faster, stronger, most intelligent and greatly experienced.

correct my grammar if you care to.....be sure to address the point.

there is only ONE who fits the description best.....Almighty

 

[viole]

Do you even bother to read what I post? Previously, I responded: "Free will does have a cause. It's called final causality." (God is the final cause.) Do I need to repeat that?

So, if I pick a gun and kill the first kid I see, that will of mine can find its final cause in God?

I think my first person experience can be used to refute the idea that we do not experience any change. Denying this is not an option.

This is not sufficient, by far, I am afraid. Every student in physics knows that personal experiences have zero value when it comes to understand how things really work. We found out that they are totally unreliable; probably, for the evolutionary reasons I explained.

Unless you would like to redefine the epistemology of science in order to give a glimpse of hope to your case, of course

There's no "maybe" about it. There really is no "unity" in your "uni-verse" because you deny that it has any transcendental ground. What you call the universe is nothing more than an aggregation of disconnected, contingent beings.

Well, no. That is a strawman of gargantuan proportions, probably motivated by your apparent lack of knowledge in basic physics.

All good laws of physics we are aware of are unitary. Which means that the state of the universe, and everything in it, is totally reducible to the state of the universe, and all things in it, at a prior moment in time. There are no disconnected components that exist contingently.

And, as I said, the block universe interpretation we get from relativity annihilates all your arguments at once. Unless we can refute relativity because we take our personal experiences seriously, of course

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

bigger, faster, stronger, most intelligent and greatly experienced.

correct my grammar if you care to.....be sure to address the point.

there is only ONE who fits the description best.....Almighty

That is just circular reasoning, which is flawed and doesn't actually mean anything. Of course if you assume that God is the Almighty, then you are assuming that God exists. And if God is the almighty, then of course he would be the best in all these categories. But, you haven't really gotten anywhere because first you would have to support your claim that 1. God exists, and 2. God is the almighty, before your claim above can be considered.

 

[Thief]

That is just circular reasoning, which is flawed and doesn't actually mean anything. Of course if you assume that God is the Almighty, then you are assuming that God exists. And if God is the almighty, then of course he would be the best in all these categories. But, you haven't really gotten anywhere because first you would have to support your claim that 1. God exists, and 2. God is the almighty, before your claim above can be considered.

no circles....straight line.....right back to God

Someone had to be first

 

[Pudding]

no circles....straight line.....right back to God

Someone had to be first

Someone had to be first, it has been noted that there are many different version of Gods which believe by many different people and many of them insist that only their God is the first but every others' God is not.

Simply declaring an unsubstantiated beliefs grants zero credibility to that empty claims.

 

[Thief]

Someone had to be first, it has been noted that there are many different version of Gods which believe by many different people and many of them insist that only their God is the first but every others' God is not.

Simply declaring an unsubstantiated beliefs grants zero credibility to that empty claims.

it's a simple regression.....
Someone had to be first.