Re: Paradoxes

On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 16:29:24 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/01/2025 3:45 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 06:41:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 27/01/2025 3:40 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:

>
>
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:10:59 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 26/01/2025 6:00 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:54:55 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 26/01/2025 2:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:08:35 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
>

Vince, what do you really want to discuss, and why?

>
Whether supernatural intervention per se is a properly formed
scientific hypothesis.  My position is that it's not; in fact it may
be not just anti-science but anti-intellectual as well.  I think this
is something that could bear some clarification in ID/evolution
debates.  For example, what distinguishes supernatural intervention
from superstition?
>

>
I suggest a first step is to establish a logical and complete set of
overarching possibilities, which I would state as:
>
1. Either the universe has always existed or it came into existence
without supernatural intervention, and in either case it develops
without supernatural intervention; or
2. The universe came into existence with supernatural intervention,
and/or it develops with supernatural intervention
>
Would you agree with this, or how would you put it?

>
I would say the real first step would be to make some predictions so
we can test the "hypothesis" of supernatural intervention.  But I
think the concept of supernatural intervention is too broad to take
that approach to the data.
>

>
Before we talk about predictions, we need to establish an agreed foundation:
>
1. Define God as an agent who exists outside of spacetime.

>
Postulating something that does nothing but "explain" what you're
trying to explain is not a good intellectual foundation.
>

2. The origin and development of the universe either did or did not
involve intervention by God.
>
So far so good?

>
#2 is a tautology, so including that helps with nothing.
>

>
My attempt at an incremental approach from first principles doesn't seem
to be working for us. Instead, what are your thoughts on my recent post
"Roger Penrose can’t escape an ultimate explanation for the universe"?

 
He may have gotten it wrong.  From
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind
 
we have, regarding one of his other ideas:
 
"Penrose states that his ideas on the nature of consciousness are
speculative, and his thesis is considered erroneous by some experts in
the fields of philosophy, computer science, and robotics."
 
And from:
 
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-zero-entropy/
 
"We don't need some miraculously low-entropy state to occur to begin
our Universe or to begin the process of inflation. All we need is for
inflation to arise in some volume of the Universe, even a small one,
and for the space within that volume to begin inflating."
 
And the multiverse is scientific because it has the laws of physics
that it has to conform to, while an omnipotent creator has no such
helpful restrictions on it.
 

>
Regarding low initial entropy, Sean Carroll disagrees:
>
"The second law, the idea of entropy increasing, is an interesting case
because near the time of the Big Bang, entropy was very, very, very low.
That's why it's been increasing for the past 14 billion years. This
doesn't violate the second law, but the question remains: why did the
Big Bang have such low entropy? The answer is that nobody knows. This is
an open question for cosmology."
https://youtu.be/FgpvCxDL7q4?si=-bjJ8GpUwoNOxmq4

Low, but not miraculously low.

But, fair point, who knows? And of course Penrose could be (may well be)
wrong.
>
Let's take any one of a number of phenomena whose explanation is
contended in terms of natural vs supernatural explanation, e.g. first
cause,

That's theological philosophy, not science.

low initial entropy, fine tuning,

Both of which could be explained by a multiverse.

https://scienceinfo.net/how-do-scientists-prove-the-existence-of-the-multiverse.html

OOL,

An unsolved problem for which "God did it" is not an appropriate
solution.

macroevolution,

The evidence for which is incontrovertible.

etc.

What other supposedly "faith-building ideas" have you got there with
"etc."?

Assume that for at least one of these, the contention has some
legitimate basis.
>
The explanation is either the contended phenomena is caused by (i) the
action of a powerful agency transcending spacetime (aka God), or (ii) a
naturalistic mechanism or process.

So if your car won't start, do you invoke a powerful agency
transcending spacetime, and pray for it to start?  Or do you assume a
naturalistic mechanism of the sort that an auto mechanic would be able
to fix?

I am not saying that this evidence proves God.

As well you shouldn't.

Nor am I saying that we
should therefore cease the search for a naturalistic explanation.

Science doesn't "search for" naturalistic explanations; rather they're
the only ones allowed, given the constraints that scientific
explanations are subject to.

I am
only saying that God is a valid possible explanation, alongside
naturalistic possibilities.

Okay.  Let's say that you invoke the God "explanation."  What comes
next? How does it generate new scientific research?

The more certain the available naturalistic explanation(s), the less
compelling the phenomena in question is as scientific evidence for
consideration of supernatural action.

Anything with that property is an indication of a pathology in an
explanation.  A *healthy* explanation doesn't depend on how other
hypotheses are doing in order to be evaluated.

Conversely, if over time all known

*Known,* as you appropriately note below.

viable naturalistic explanations are discounted,
the phenomena would become stronger evidence for consideration
supernatural action(with unknown natural causes remaining a possibility).

You're actually just suggesting if we have trouble explaining
something, after awhile we should just give up on trying to generate
rational, scientific explanations and start making things up out of
whole cloth. 

To exclude the God explanation as an option out of hand would be the
result of belief and not a rational response to the scientific evidence.

No, you're misinterpreting the scientific method.  God is not excluded
in science because of some kind of irrational belief against him, but
because he doesn't interact properly with the structure of scientific
analysis.

An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a
theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more
weight and consideration to a particular explanation based, in part, on
our belief.

No, you're conflating science with atheism.  Many scientists are
theists who don't choose to violate the structure of scientific
discovery by invoking supernatural activities.

Moreover, science itself can tell us nothing about this postulated
agent.

Where did you get that from?

That is the task of other epistemological domains (philosophy,
theology, personal experience, etc). Nevertheless, science can provide
an evidential pointer to God as a possible explanation.

Why God and not the Jolly Green Giant?

What do you think?

I think you lack any real evidence for God in your life, so you turn
to arcane scientific research to build up your faith.