Argument from Laws of Nature

Photobucket


(1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
(2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability
(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations. 
(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
(5) A mind that orders the universe fits the major job description for God, Thus mind is the best explanation, assuming the choices are mind vs random chance.
(6) Thus we have a rational warrant for belief that Go exists




If you recall last time I posted a prolegomena to an argument from laws of nature. In other words, an argument for existence of God based upon laws of physics and nature. That article was just thinking getting ready to make such an argument, Here I am making it. I encourage the reader to go back and read the article fist if you haven't already. The point is two fold:  the folks on Secular Outpost were so dubious of any such argument  and the presentation that set them off so deserved their ire (designed by Campus Crusade for Christ[1], that I felt like I had to try to (a) prove to the atheists there is a potential argument there and show my fellow Christians how to find it, at to offer  direction in which to move.

The bad argument on the website was purely a "god of the gaps" argument:

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."[2]
The only rational upon which the argument turns is the mystery concerning how laws work. That is a god of the gaps argument by definition, textbook. My arguments begins by stating a rational that, while it may hard to prove, is at least not a gap in knowledge, at least not only a gap. The problem with gaps is that they close up. Yet if we can demonstrate that mind is a more solid basis for the seeming law-like regularity of the universe that night make for a better explanation.[3]The argument:

(1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,

(2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against it's dependability. 

(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations. 

(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..

(5) A mind that orders the universe fits the major job description for God, Thus mind is the best explanation, assuming the choices are mind vs random chance.

(6) Thus we have a rational warrant for belief that Go exists

Notice I said nothing about law implying a law giver. The rational for mind is not based upon analogies to law. This does raise the one real sticking point, premises 1-2. Can we prove that mind is the best explanation for law-like regularity? I'm going to assume that it's pretty obvious that (P3) universe displays like-like efficiency. Also I don't think it will be such a struggle to prove 4-5 linking a mind that orders the universe with God. Therefore I wont bother to argue those here. Thus I will concern myself primarily with P's 1-2.

Certain schools of philosophy hold that an inference to the best explanation is a valid argument. That is if one amid a variety of explanations has a more significant likelihood of coming true, and is more in line with prevailing theory and serves to explain more of the data then that hypothesis can be warranted as "the best explanation,"[4Ratzsch goes on to quote Peter Lipton: "According to Inference to the Best Explanation … [g]iven our data and our background beliefs, we infer what would if true, provide the best of the competing explanations we can generate of those data (so long as the best is good enough for us to make any inference at all)."[5]


That complexity and efficacy are indicative of mind as an organizing principle might be hard or impossible to pull off but it makes sense on one level. Through complexity and fitedness one might deduce purpose or telos, and mind might be indicted in that sense.
All the richness and diversity of matter and energy we observe today has emerged since the beginning in a long and complicated sequence of self- organizing physical processes. The laws of physics not only permit a universe to originate spontaneously, but they encourage it to organize and complexify itself to the point where conscious beings emerge who can look back on the great cosmic drama and reflect on what it all means."

...The laws that characterize our actual universe, as opposed to an infinite number of alternative possible universes, seem almost contrived-fine-tuned, some commentators have claimed-so that life and consciousness may emerge. To quote Dyson again: it is almost as if "the universe knew we were coming." I cannot prove to you that this is design, but whatever it is it is certainly very clever][6]
Now the secularist skeptic might argue evolution demonstrates an organizing principle producing great complexity and in mindless fashion, While that might be the case the problem is evolution is surely the product of the law-like regularity and not it's cause. Presumably then we need laws to make evolutionary processes work and so we have not explained anything. even so the skeptic can always fall back on the fact that we don't have a world that we know is or is not designed by a mind to which we compare our own world. Even though P1 might make sense there is no way to prove it. Not having an undesigned universe to compare may mean that we can't prove the existence of God by the argument here advanced, It does not necessarily mean the argument is not a good one. If we forget about proof and talk about warrant: it may not be proof but it is probably the best explanation and that may warrant belief.
 In arguments of this type, superior explanatory virtues of a theory are taken as constituting decisive epistemic support for theory acceptability, warranted belief of the theory, and likely truth of the theory. There are, of course, multitudes of purported explanatory, epistemic virtues, including the incomplete list a couple paragraphs back (and lists of such have evolved over time). Assessing hypotheses in terms of such virtues is frequently contentious, depending, as it does, on perceptions of ill-defined characteristics, differences in background conceptual stances, and the like. Still, in general we frequently manage rough and ready resolutions...[7]

The argument does turn on the premise of a design argument but it could be considered more than that. Hawking ascribes the origin of the universe to the laws of physics, particularly gravity He certainly seems to indicate that they are more than just descriptions of what happens. Yet he makes no attempt to explain where these laws come from. In the sense mind offers a more complete explanation it could be the "best."

Stephen Hawking wrote a book, The Grand Design. in which he argued that gravity accounts for the existence of everything else:

If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative….Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can….Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.[8]

Edger Anders discusses the problem with this approach:
So gravity is God. Unfortunately the authors have no time to tell us who created gravity (earlier they rule out God because no one could explain who created him). Nor can they tell us why matter and gravity should pop out of nothing, except to argue that ‘nothing’ undergoes quantum fluctuations. However, this requires that (like gravity) the laws of quantum mechanics pre-existed the universe and that ‘nothing’ possesses the properties of normal space, which is part of the created order and cannot be its antecedent.[9]

Were I involved in a debate ageist a seasoned great thinker or some professional philosopher this is not the argument I  would use. I think it is a valid warrant for belief, the best explanation for law-like regularity.


Main supporting evidence: Laws of Physics,k beyond descriptoveprescroptovedochotomy

this is a chapter for a book I'm working on. It;s in three parts but supports thsi argument real well,


Supporter Material

Laws of physics: beyond prescriptive/descriptive Dichotomy

Sources


[1] Bradly Bowen, Adamson's Cru [de] Arguments for God part 1, Secular Outpost, (April 25, 2016) blog URL:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/04/25/adamsons-crude-arguments-for-god-part-1/
accessed April 28, 2016

[2] Marlyn Adamson, "Is There a God," Every Student, Published by Campus Crusade for Christ
On line resource, URL: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
She sites fn 11:Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great about Christianity; (Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2007, chapter 

[3] I recently posted on criteria by which to judge best explanation.

[4] Ratzsch, Del and Koperski, Jeffrey, "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/teleological-arguments/>. 

[5] Peter Lipton, Inference to the Best Explanation. 1st Edition. London: Routledge (1991, 58): quoted in Ratzsch, Ibid. 

[6] ."Paul Davies, "Physics and the Mind o God; Templeton Award Address, First Things ON LINE URL
http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 accessed 1/1/16

Paul Davies is Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia and the twenty-fifth recipient of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, which he received on May 3, 1995 at Westminster Abbey. His books include The Mind of God, God and New Physics, The Cosmic Blueprint, Superforce, and Other Worlds.



[7] Ratzsch, Ibid.

[8] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, New York: Bantum Books, 2010. 180

[9] Edgar Andres, “Review: the Grand Design,” Challies'.com, Tim Challies, on line reouce, URL:
http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/the-grand-design acessed 10/4/15
Andres is Emeritus professor University of London. Physicist and an expert on large molecules. Born 1932




Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: (1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
(2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability
(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations.
(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
(5) A mind that orders the universe fits the major job description for God, Thus mind is the best explanation, assuming the choices are mind vs random chance.
(6) Thus we have a rational warrant for belief that Go exists


This is a very odd argument.

(1) If you look at a salt crystal (using X-ray diffraction or similar!), you will find that it perfectly alternates sodium ions and chloride ions. This is an ordering at a scale beyond anything the human mind is capable of imagining (the number of ions is a 1 with twenty five or so zeros after it!).

The claim that a mind is more efficient or more dependable than that is just nonsense.

(2) What actually is random ordering? Do you mean putting something in random order, like shuffling cards? Probably not, but what?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is actually based on randomness, so this may not be as clear as you are hoping.

(3) In what sense is the universes displaying efficiency? What does that even mean?

The universe displays law-like dependability because of the laws of nature. The alternative is to suppose God is actively there checking that everything moves according to his laws, that the Law of Conservation of Energy, for example, only exists because God is carefully moving energy around to ensure it works. Is it God creating the laws or God actively maintaining the laws? You really need to clarify.
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
(1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know
- I don't think that's true at all. We observe ordering in nature through many different processes, and it happens precisely because it is efficient for some process, such as dissipation of energy, or or storage of material.

Hawking ascribes the origin of the universe to the laws of physics, particularly gravity He certainly seems to indicate that they are more than just descriptions of what happens. Yet he makes no attempt to explain where these laws come from. In the sense mind offers a more complete explanation it could be the "best."
- "Where do the laws come from?" is religious double-speak. Where does God come from? Don't tell me - I am an idiot for asking such a stupid question. God is the exception to all the rules. We don't have to explain that because God has aseity. So tell me this: Why do you allow an imaginary being to be the the big exception to all the rules, but you refuse to grant something natural a similar status? Why can't natural reality have aseity? Why does there have to be an answer to "Where do the laws come from?" Natural reality simply exists.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: (1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know,
(2) Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability
(3) The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations.
(4) Such efficiency and dependability is indicative of mind as ordering principle (from 1,3), therefore, it is logical to assume mind as the best explanation for the dependability of the universe..
(5) A mind that orders the universe fits the major job description for God, Thus mind is the best explanation, assuming the choices are mind vs random chance.
(6) Thus we have a rational warrant for belief that Go exists

This is a very odd argument.

(1) If you look at a salt crystal (using X-ray diffraction or similar!), you will find that it perfectly alternates sodium ions and chloride ions. This is an ordering at a scale beyond anything the human mind is capable of imagining (the number of ions is a 1 with twenty five or so zeros after it!).

but it's still very simple compared to human consciousnesses, when it writes a symphony I;ll be impressed. Besides it deeds upon how you define efficient

The claim that a mind is more efficient or more dependable than that is just nonsense.

o let's see your crystals ungerrymander the congressional districts for Texas



(2) What actually is random ordering? Do you mean putting something in random order, like shuffling cards? Probably not, but what?

the ordering that happens in nature is not planned it all revolves around immediate reaction to direct stimulate, as I say it's not writing things or planning ho to expand

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is actually based on randomness, so this may not be as clear as you are hoping.

how often can you trust that to cause planned communities to spring up? I don't need an architect i'll just wait for the law of thermodynamics to make me a house to live in.

(3) In what sense is the universes displaying efficiency? What does that even mean?

planing designing complex structures to meet a goal

The universe displays law-like dependability because of the laws of nature. The alternative is to suppose God is actively there checking that everything moves according to his laws, that the Law of Conservation of Energy, for example, only exists because God is carefully moving energy around to ensure it works. Is it God creating the laws or God actively maintaining the laws? You really need to clarify.


how do they exist? don't forget you said laws not descriptions you are actually taking the law side of the Quasimodo. the laws are there magically without God? how did they come to be?
Joe Hinman said…

Joe(1) mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know


- I don't think that's true at all. We observe ordering in nature through many different processes, and it happens precisely because it is efficient for some process, such as dissipation of energy, or or storage of material.

there is order and efficiency in nature but it can;t rival that which is planned by a mind.why do we need manufacturing why don't we just wait for building materials to evovle?



Hawking ascribes the origin of the universe to the laws of physics, particularly gravity. He certainly seems to indicate that they are more than just descriptions of what happens. Yet he makes no attempt to explain where these laws come from. In the sense mind offers a more complete explanation it could be the "best."


- "Where do the laws come from?" is religious double-speak. Where does God come from?

calling it double talk just means you don;t have an answer,It's obviously not double talk since it has a clear and precise meaning. Things imn nature tend to have causes. God is eternal so he didn;t come from anywhere the question is meaningless when applied to God but not when applied to nature,


Don't tell me - I am an idiot for asking such a stupid question. God is the exception to all the rules. We don't have to explain that because God has aseity. So tell me this: Why do you allow an imaginary being to be the the big exception to all the rules, but you refuse to grant something natural a similar status?


I don;t I have not give anything to an imaginary being. I just told you why God can be eternal and nature cna;t be, Bearnaise nature is time bound and caused and God is eternal; and is the basis of reality,God is being itself,


Why can't natural reality have aseity? Why does there have to be an answer to "Where do the laws come from?" Natural reality simply exists.

because it;s time bound (remember the big bang) of you want to say laws of physics are self sustaining and eternal you are basically cantilevering them to status of God.you are not an atheist, you are a scisentismist, worshiper of science,
The Pixie said…
Joe: but it's still very simple compared to human consciousnesses, when it writes a symphony I;ll be impressed. ...

What has writing a symphony to do with being "the most efficient and dependable source of ordering". You set the goalposts in your post. Now you want to change them.

Joe: .... Besides it deeds upon how you define efficient

Which begs the question; why have you not defined efficient in your post?

Joe: o let's see your crystals ungerrymander the congressional districts for Texas

Again, changing the goal posts.

Already just in point (1) we have established two faults with your argument. The goalposts you established you have now indicated were wrong, and you have no definition of "efficient", despite admitting it is significant here.

So point (2)... For reference, here it is: "Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability". Your comment on that:

Joe: the ordering that happens in nature is not planned it all revolves around immediate reaction to direct stimulate, as I say it's not writing things or planning ho to expand

So when you say "random ordering" you mean ordering with no purpose. Perhaps "purposeless ordering" would be a better term.

But then you have shot yourself in the foot by conceding that "the ordering that happens in nature is not planned it all". It is not, because it is purposeless. It really is random ordering as you call it.

Joe: how often can you trust that to cause planned communities to spring up? I don't need an architect i'll just wait for the law of thermodynamics to make me a house to live in.

Right. So on the one hand we have houses built by intelligent minds and on the other we have nature, with no intelligent mind behind it.

Joe: planing designing complex structures to meet a goal

Great. Now prove the universe is a planned, designed structure that meet a goal.

We are talking about efficiency. If we could consider how much of the solar system in inhabited, it is a tiny, tiny fraction of the total volume. Is that efficient?

A far more efficient universe would be the flat earth described in the Bible, with a small sun travelling across the firmament.

Pix: .... Is it God creating the laws or God actively maintaining the laws? You really need to clarify.

Joe: how do they exist? don't forget you said laws not descriptions you are actually taking the law side of the Quasimodo. the laws are there magically without God? how did they come to be?

The laws have aseity, as discussed previously. Duh.

Joe: how do they exist? don't forget you said laws not descriptions you are actually taking the law side of the Quasimodo. the laws are there magically without God? how did they come to be?

In my last post I originally wrote that you were vacillating on where God has to maintain the laws, but then edited that out because it was unfair, but given your refuse to clarify, despite being directly asked to, it really does look that way.

You cannot have it both ways. Either it is God actively ensuring the laws are kept to, or it is not. If you cannot decide one way or the other, then you do not know what it is you are trying to argue for.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: but it's still very simple compared to human consciousnesses, when it writes a symphony I;ll be impressed. ...

What has writing a symphony to do with being "the most efficient and dependable source of ordering". You set the goalposts in your post. Now you want to change them.


It's pretty obvious the more complex order is connected with mind of course purpose is so connected,there can;t even be an issue of purpose without mind.

Joe .... Besides it deeds upon how you define efficient

Which begs the question; why have you not defined efficient in your post?


you misuse the term begging the question, But the use is clear the examples I give define the point



Joe: o let's see your crystals gerrymandering the congressional districts for Texas

Again, changing the goal posts.

that was the original point, it involves order and purpose


Already just in point (1) we have established two faults with your argument. The goalposts you established you have now indicated were wrong, and you have no definition of "efficient", despite admitting it is significant here.

that's stupid, you are trying hard to be obtuse,I think it's obvious to any reader that I was and am always have been talking abouit purpose and order the way is order being compared to random workings of nature.

clearly the point being that the more efficient and complex nature the more obvious it is that mind stands behind laws of nature.



So point (2)... For reference, here it is: "Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability". Your comment on that:

Joe: the ordering that happens in nature is not planned it all revolves around immediate reaction to direct stimulate, as I say it's not writing things or planning ho to expand

So when you say "random ordering" you mean ordering with no purpose. Perhaps "purposeless ordering" would be a better term.

well duh

But then you have shot yourself in the foot by conceding that "the ordering that happens in nature is not planned it all". It is not, because it is purposeless. It really is random ordering as you call it.

we? we can make comparison between ordering that is directly the product of mind and that winch is only indirectly so. that is a coherent comparison

Joe: how often can you trust that to cause planned communities to spring up? I don't need an architect i'll just wait for the law of thermodynamics to make me a house to live in.

Right. So on the one hand we have houses built by intelligent minds and on the other we have nature, with no intelligent mind behind it.

obviously if i'm right there is a mind behind it but that doesn't mean we can't compare two different levels of planing, This is why skyscrapers don't spring up spomntneouisliy at the beach for the wording silicate,

Joe: planing designing complex structures to meet a goal

Great. Now prove the universe is a planned, designed structure that meet a goal.

it resulted in beings who deduce the existence of their creator and then worship him.

n my last post I originally wrote that you were vacillating on where God has to maintain the laws, but then edited that out because it was unfair, but giv


Newton tried to answer questions like that,I think we can't know that because we are not privy to God's purposes


You cannot have it both ways. Either it is God actively ensuring the laws are kept to, or it is not.

that's a ridiculous point, it doesn't take much imagination to see that God can make law that can;t be violated that; he doesn;t have to activity patrol to makie sure we areh;t levitating,



If you cannot decide one way or the other, then you do not know what it is you are trying to argue for.

I think I was pretty define about it, theologians have thought about this stuff a lot, you just have cut yourself off from that knowledge,

im-skeptical said…
there is order and efficiency in nature but it can;t rival that which is planned by a mind.why do we need manufacturing why don't we just wait for building materials to evovle?
- If you want to claim that one thing is more efficient than another, you first need to identify the process for which this effieiency is being assessed. Efficient at doing what? Next, you need to measure the levels of efficiency so you can compare them. If you haven't named a process, you obviously haven't measured efficiency. Your statement is meaningless.

calling it double talk just means you don;t have an answer
- That's the whole point. And neither do you. Not all things have an explanation, and that's fine with you, as long as you're talking about God.

I don;t I have not give anything to an imaginary being. I just told you why God can be eternal and nature cna;t be, Bearnaise nature is time bound and caused and God is eternal; and is the basis of reality,God is being itself
- But your reasoning is wrong. The universe is NOT time-bound, nor does it have a cause, other than natural reality. Anf your God is still imaginary.

because it;s time bound (remember the big bang) of you want to say laws of physics are self sustaining and eternal you are basically cantilevering them to status of God.you are not an atheist, you are a scisentismist, worshiper of science
- Learn some physics, Joe. The big bang does not imply a time boundary for the universe. And no, I do not attempt to lower the status of natural reality to that of your imaginary God.
Joe Hinman said…
because it;s time bound (remember the big bang) of you want to say laws of physics are self sustaining and eternal you are basically cantilevering them to status of God.you are not an atheist, you are a scisentismist, worshiper of science


- Learn some physics, Joe. The big bang does not imply a time boundary for the universe. And no, I do not attempt to lower the status of natural reality to that of your imaginary God.

3/19/2019 09:55:00 AM

yes it does you ignorant douses. the beginning of time,know nothing,
Joe Hinman said…
Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.
The Beginning of TIme - Stephen Hawking
www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end. When I gave a lecture in Japan, I was asked not to mention the possible re-collapse of the universe, because it might affect the stock market. However, I can re-assure anyone who is nervous about their investments that it is a bit early to sell: even if the universe does come to an end, it won't be for at least twenty billion years. By that time, maybe the GATT trade agreement will have come into effect."


At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.
im-skeptical said…
Joe, you truly are an ignoramus. You either didn't read the article, or you didn't understand it.

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."

Now read the rest of it. This article explains the problem with the traditional concept of a singularity at time zero - namely that physics wouldn't work in a true singularity. It discusses the no-boundary hypothesis as a solution, which is now widely accepted. This implies that there is no time before the start of the universe (much like there is no place south of the south pole), and therefore, the notion of causality for the cosmos becomes meaningless.
The Pixie said…
Point (1) "mind is the most efficient and dependable source of ordering we know"

I am just going to look at the issues on this one premise in this post.

Joe: It's pretty obvious the more complex order is connected with mind of course purpose is so connected,there can;t even be an issue of purpose without mind.

What you are talking about is completely unrelated to the claim in your premise.

Joe: you misuse the term begging the question,

I think that may be an English thing.

Joe: But the use is clear the examples I give define the point

They are not clear to me. I cannot even see what examples you mean. And a set of examples is a poor way to define something; it is the edge cases that are often important. A proper definition will cover the edge cases; a set of examples cannot do that properly (saying prime numbers are numbers like 3, 7, 23 and 29 is really not that useful).

Why not just tell us what you mean by it?

Joe: that was the original point, it involves order and purpose

But it makes no mention of purpose or anything related to it!

This is what I mean about changing the goal posts. The original point has nothing about purpose, but when you get called on it, you decide that actually it does!

Joe: that's stupid, you are trying hard to be obtuse,I think it's obvious to any reader that I was and am always have been talking abouit purpose and order the way is order being compared to random workings of nature.

If point (1) is about purpose, mention purpose in point (1)!

Have you ever done a course in logic? I assume not. If you do, you will discover that each premise is stated such that it is clear what it is about.

People using logic certainly do not make a premise saying one thing, and then later say, well obviously I also meant something else.

Joe: clearly the point being that the more efficient and complex nature the more obvious it is that mind stands behind laws of nature.

So if fact your conclusion is buried in your premise? Is that what you are saying? That makes it a circular argument.
The Pixie said…
Point (2) "Random ordering is usually inefficient and the odds are against its dependability"

So just premise (2) in this post.

The Pixie: So when you say "random ordering" you mean ordering with no purpose. Perhaps "purposeless ordering" would be a better term.

Joe: well duh

So we both agree it is obvious you should have used the term "purposeless ordering" rather than "random ordering". So why did you use "random ordering"?

Joe: we? we can make comparison between ordering that is directly the product of mind and that winch is only indirectly so. that is a coherent comparison

Right. And the ordering in a salt crystal is far greater than you or I could achieve. So what?

Oh, right. We have to move the goalposts.

Joe: obviously if i'm right there is a mind behind it but that doesn't mean we can't compare two different levels of planing, This is why skyscrapers don't spring up spomntneouisliy at the beach for the wording silicate,

Until you establish what "two different levels of planing" is, you are building your argument on a premise that your argument is trying to refute (nature is purposeless).
The Pixie said…
Point (3) "The Universe Displays a Law-like efficiency and dependability in the workings of it's natural machinations."

Joe: it resulted in beings who deduce the existence of their creator and then worship him.

How do you know that was the plan?

Again, why does (3) not indicate anything about a purpose?
The Pixie said…
Does God actively maintain the laws?

Joe: Newton tried to answer questions like that,I think we can't know that because we are not privy to God's purposes

Joe: that's a ridiculous point, it doesn't take much imagination to see that God can make law that can;t be violated that; he doesn;t have to activity patrol to makie sure we areh;t levitating,

Joe: I think I was pretty define about it, theologians have thought about this stuff a lot, you just have cut yourself off from that knowledge,

The question is not whether God could create laws that do not need him actively enforcing them, the question is whether that is what your are proposing here.

Your argument is based on ordering. When things order in nature, do you think they do so because they are mindlessly following laws God set in place billions of years ago? Or is God right there, putting them in order himself?

This has a HUGE impact on your argument, but still you seem unable to say either way, re-inforcing my suspicion that your argument relies on having it both ways.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: Newton tried to answer questions like that,I think we can't know that because we are not privy to God's purposes

Joe: that's a ridiculous point, it doesn't take much imagination to see that God can make law that can;t be violated that; he doesn;t have to activity patrol to makie sure we areh;t levitating,

Joe: I think I was pretty define about it, theologians have thought about this stuff a lot, you just have cut yourself off from that knowledge,

The question is not whether God could create laws that do not need him actively enforcing them, the question is whether that is what your are proposing here.

sure that seems to be what he;s done


Your argument is based on ordering. When things order in nature, do you think they do so because they are mindlessly following laws God set in place billions of years ago? Or is God right there, putting them in order himself?

the former

This has a HUGE impact on your argument, but still you seem unable to say either way, re-inforcing my suspicion that your argument relies on having it both ways.


No I just did. It;s so telemetry I din;t think it needed saying. telemetry my dead Watson



Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
Joe, you truly are an ignoramus. You either didn't read the article, or you didn't understand it.

which article?

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."

Now read the rest of it. This article explains the problem with the traditional concept of a singularity at time zero - namely that physics wouldn't work in a true singularity. It discusses the no-boundary hypothesis as a solution, which is now widely accepted. This implies that there is no time before the start of the universe (much like there is no place south of the south pole), and therefore, the notion of causality for the cosmos becomes meaningless.

what it does is establish that time has a begging thus showing the stupidity of your previous statement nothing else it says contradicts that know nothing,

the no boundary condition does nothing to change my Argentine, does not contradict what i had said, nor does it disprove God,it means beyond the BB is eternity,where God is
The Pixie said…
Joe: sure that seems to be what he;s done
...
the former
...
No I just did. It;s so telemetry I din;t think it needed saying. telemetry my dead Watson


So what is your point about ordering? The ordering we see all comes from the laws of nature. Given the laws of nature, what will result is the universe we see. We agree on that.

The "Theory of Everything" is as yet unknown, but is will unite quantum mechanics and general relativity. Take a look at Einstein's field equations here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Einstein's_equations

How much ordering does that take? There are only about ten terms in it. The equations of the "Theory of Everything" may have more terms, but probably not a lot more. Sure, the mathematics behind those terms are very complex, but again, where is the ordering?

Your whole argument is based on orderin, but as far as I can see, ordering is irrelevant here.
im-skeptical said…
which article?
- It's the one you cited. You know? Where you cherry-picked the passages that supposedly support your claims about time being bounded. But that article says the opposite of what you think.

what it does is establish that time has a begging thus showing the stupidity of your previous statement nothing else it says contradicts that know nothing
- What it does is establish that time is NOT bounded, and there is no time before the existence of the cosmos.

the no boundary condition does nothing to change my Argentine, does not contradict what i had said, nor does it disprove God,it means beyond the BB is eternity,where God is
- First, let's recall what you said: "I just told you why God can be eternal and nature cna;t be, Bearnaise nature is time bound and caused and God is eternal; and is the basis of reality,God is being itself ... because it;s time bound (remember the big bang) of you want to say laws of physics are self sustaining and eternal you are basically cantilevering them to status of God.you are not an atheist, you are a scisentismist, worshiper of science" You specifically made the claim that the universe is time-bounded, and that implies that there was a time before the big bang, which in turn is your basis for saying that it was caused by God. I'm simply telling you that your whole concept of the beginning is wrong, according to current cosmological theory. There was no time before the big bang, and therefore, you can't make any claims about causation. Causation is ALWAYS time sequential. But if there is no before, then there is no cause.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: sure that seems to be what he;s done
...
the former
...
Joe: No I just did. It;s so telemetry I din;t think it needed saying. telemetry my dead Watson

So what is your point about ordering? The ordering we see all comes from the laws of nature. Given the laws of nature, what will result is the universe we see. We agree on that.

where so the laws come from? They are indicative of mind because they are efficient and seem t work toward purpose.


The "Theory of Everything" is as yet unknown, but is will unite quantum mechanics and general relativity. Take a look at Einstein's field equations here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Einstein's_equations


understand, You don;t understand where they fit in my argument, they are indicative of a Transcendental signaler,


How much ordering does that take? There are only about ten terms in it. The equations of the "Theory of Everything" may have more terms, but probably not a lot more. Sure, the mathematics behind those terms are very complex, but again, where is the ordering?

that makes it even more elegant which is mo reflective of mind

Your whole argument is based on orderin, but as far as I can see, ordering is irrelevant here.


how so? it's the point it;s indicative of mind
Joe Hinman said…
which article?
- It's the one you cited. You know? Where you cherry-picked the passages that supposedly support your claims about time being bounded. But that article says the opposite of what you think.

which ariticle stupid? you claim to know what it says why don't you know who write it and the title? uk

what it does is establish that time has a begging thus showing the stupidity of your previous statement nothing else it says contradicts that know nothing


- What it does is establish that time is NOT bounded, and there is no time before the existence of the cosmos.


how does that effect my argument? How does that contradict anything i said?

JLHthe no boundary condition does nothing to change my Argentine, does not contradict what i had said, nor does it disprove God,it means beyond the BB is eternity,where God is



- First, let's recall what you said: "I just told you why God can be eternal and nature cna;t be, Bearnaise nature is time bound and caused and God is eternal; and is the basis of reality,God is being itself ... because it;s time bound (remember the big bang) of you want to say laws of physics are self sustaining and eternal you are basically cantilevering them to status of God.you are not an atheist, you are a scisentismist, worshiper of science" You specifically made the claim that the universe is time-bounded, and that implies that there was a time before the big bang,

that is really stupid, where the hell do you get the idea that time having a beginning means there's time before time? I Just said God is outside time why he's eternal,, you do not understand the most basic concepts,


which in turn is your basis for saying that it was caused by God.


Obviously sine the Bog Bang can't just pop into existence out of nothing.


I'm simply telling you that your whole concept of the beginning is wrong, according to current cosmological theory.

you don;t even understand it you just got it wrong look what i said I've corrected your stupidity understanding. you said that I claim there;s time before time I never said that. you don;t understand what eternity is


There was no time before the big bang, and therefore, you can't make any claims about causation.

that's really stupid, If God creates time he doesn't have to create things that go in time before time,he just crates time then starting thing in time.

This turns into a God argumemt you cannot answer, you have the same problem how can BB happen in non time? it can;t so how did it come to be? because a mind is needed to change the rules.the author of reality changed the ruels to create time. In your sustem of naturalism you have no answer,


Causation is ALWAYS time sequential. But if there is no before, then there is no cause.


God can turn the ruels on he can turn them off
Joe Hinman said…
Skepie shot himself in he foot
The Pixie said…
Joe: where so the laws come from? They are indicative of mind because they are efficient and seem t work toward purpose.

Which has nothing to do with the argument you presented in the blog post.

Joe: understand, You don;t understand where they fit in my argument, they are indicative of a Transcendental signaler,

Which has nothing to do with the argument you presented in the blog post.

Joe: how so? it's the point it;s indicative of mind

Not as presented in the blog post. The argument in your blog post is nonsense, and the fact that your responses here are unrelated to that argument prove that.
im-skeptical said…
God can turn the ruels on he can turn them off
- So the universe has to have a cause because it's the rules. But the rules also say that causes come before the effect. And if time begins with the universe, there is no before. But that's not a problem because God can turn off the rules. So why does the universe have to have a cause? Joe just shot himself in the foot.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: where so the laws come from? They are indicative of mind because they are efficient and seem t work toward purpose.

Px:Which has nothing to do with the argument you presented in the blog post.

sure it does the argument says that laws come from a mind this argument is about mind,Moreover you are confessed about the nature of argument,I;m using that idea to answer your objection as long as it applies its abouit the argumemt Nothing in the argument rules out mind.

Joe: understand, You don;t understand where they fit in my argument, they are indicative of a Transcendental signaler,

Which has nothing to do with the argument you presented in the blog post.

which doesn't matter because it;s arguing for my concept of God and this is it


Joe: how so? it's the point it;s indicative of mind

PX:Not as presented in the blog post. The argument in your blog post is nonsense, and the fact that your responses here are unrelated to that argument prove that.

You do;t understand the nature of argument, I'm arginine
for god this is God

Joe Hinman said…
God can turn the ruels on he can turn them off

- So the universe has to have a cause because it's the rules. But the rules also say that causes come before the effect. And if time begins with the universe, there is no before. But that's not a problem because God can turn off the rules. So why does the universe have to have a cause? Joe just shot himself in the foot.


the universe needs cause because it can;t come to exist out of nothing for no reason. God changing the rules is not creating for no reason it;s chafing what he created so he can create more.If God created in some other way he would still be the cause.

3/21/2019 10:05:00 AM
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
the universe needs cause because it can;t come to exist out of nothing for no reason.
- So, the rules of reality are unbreakable when you argument needs them to be unbreakable, and they are broken when your argument would fall apart by adhering to the rules. But it's God breaking them, not you (of course). I understand perfectly, Joe. This is called argument ad Hinmanus.
Joe Hinman said…
he universe needs cause because it can;t come to exist out of nothing for no reason.
- So, the rules of reality are unbreakable when you argument needs them to be unbreakable, and they are broken when your argument would fall apart by adhering to the rules. But it's God breaking them, not you (of course). I understand perfectly, Joe. This is called argument ad Hinmanus.

the God you choose to serve is much more rigid than the one I serve. The true God created the rules he can change them your God us stuck with the rules it assumes.
Joe Hinman said…
why should we not assume that God has the wherewithal to make his creative work stick?
Joe Hinman said…
I am closing this section

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?

Cosmological Argument: from contingency

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

Distinguishing between moral ontology and moral epistemology