https://youtu.be/yy5yWdVHv3o
"To the person who says, 'maybe God is Dark Matter,' if the only reason you say that is because Dark Matter is a mystery, get ready to have your god undone." Neil deGrasse Tyson

Seems like Einstein didnt have any problem reconciling his faith in God with reason. And neither did Sagan. They just didn't define God in anthropomorphic terms, but rather, the laws that govern nature or just, nature.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2018 08:41PM by koriwhore.

Still struggling with metaphor. . .

Yep.
But, hey, maybe there's one celebrity he can cross off his list of "I have the exact same beliefs as this famous person!" folks...?

I think you meant to say, "Still flailing with metaphor..."


Who the heck are NdGT, Einstein & Sagan when it comes to me having a good time? And what the hell, Einstein did his thinking in GERMAN!!! Or was it Austrian...? Austrian is hard to learn!!!!! Few people speak it well...

Well, I guess I'll get out of my soapbox, and get on the car and take a ride 'round the Barrio.

Do you know what to say when a guy gets in your face and spittles you good as he shrieks the eternal question, "Que barrio?"

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you know what to say when a guy gets in your
> face and spittles you good as he shrieks the
> eternal question, "Que barrio?"

No lo sé. :)

I thought you two were going to refrain from speaking Austrian.

Austria's our barrio! It's all the kangaroos and wallabies and koalas and pants big enough for me out back, mate! Austria is way cool!

Now open the door so I can get off the car!

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems like Einstein didnt have any problem
> reconciling his faith in God with reason. And
> neither did Sagan. They just didn't define God in
> anthropomorphic terms, but rather, the laws that
> govern nature or just, nature.

The laws dont govern nature. They are descriptions of our observations only.

"The laws dont govern nature. They are descriptions of our observations only."

COMMENT: That is not a correct statement in my view. "Laws of nature," as this term is used in science, represent mathematical (or conceptual) descriptions of the regularities and patterns existing in the physical world as revealed by our observations. By abstracting and applying such laws scientists are able make predictions of future events and physical states that are not currently observed. Scientists generally deem such laws as properties of nature itself, rather than transcendent or merely mental constructs from our observations. (In short, scientists are realists! They think there is a real world out there that encompasses order through inherent natural laws.)

"Descriptions of our observations" can be made mathematically (or conceptually) without abstracting such regularities and patterns; i.e. without ascribing any natural laws, and without assuming that our observations either reflect the real world or support predictions of future events.

That said, I agree that the laws of nature do NOT "govern" nature, in the sense that the laws of nature are somehow thought of as transcendent of the physical world which impose some sort of "will" on the physical world.

To the point of the original poster, Einstein, of course, did not believe in a personal, religious, God. However, his use of the word "God" often (unfortunately in my view) suggests that the laws of nature are transcendent of the physical world, placing such laws in a "god-like" status. That view begs the question as to where such laws came from, which in turn encourages religious speculations. I think it is better to say that Einstein's "God" language was misplaced, and that the laws of nature are not transcendent of the physical world, but are merely properties which emerged along with matter from the big bang.

Descriptions of our observations certainly allow predictions. We can catch a ball on a precise parabolic path without knowing or understanding the math.

My point about the law is there is no extrinsic rule we can rewrite to make the universe fit our desires. The legalist language of the laws of nature seems to deliver from when man thought he was understanding a design imposed on the universe by God.

This usage history contributes to sloppy sentimentalist sematics of the second post.

I can't break the law of gravity.

There is no gravity. The Earth sucks.

Descriptions of our observations certainly allow predictions. We can catch a ball on a precise parabolic path without knowing or understanding the math.

COMMENT: Descriptions of observations simply describe mathematically or conceptually what happened in any given case, or set of cases. So someone might say, "Bob through a ball which was caught by Mary who was 90 feet away." You can add any amount of detail you want but a description merely describes what happened; i.e. what was observed. You can then describe a new event with a similar description, say with the same ball being thrown by John and caught by Martha at the same distance. Again, it is still merely a description. To get a natural law you have to abstract regularities and patterns from such events and create general "law-like" statements that predict what will happen if similar events occur in the future. In short, descriptions of the events themselves, no matter how many, or how similar, do not imply any laws or predictions!
______________________________________________

My point about the law is there is no extrinsic rule we can rewrite to make the universe fit our desires.

COMMENT: O.K. We can take that as a given.
______________________________________________

The legalist language of the laws of nature seems to deliver from when man thought he was understanding a design imposed on the universe by God.

COMMENT: First, natural laws are by their nature "legalistic." That is precisely what provides their "rule-based" predictive power. Notwithstanding such legalism, such laws are still subject to the constraints of scale, as well as to mathematical approximations. After all, when formulating natural laws both rational and irrational numbers must be approximated to the appropriate decimal.

Now, notwithstanding the necessity of approximations, as noted above, in my view the existence of natural laws, i.e. the mathematical order of the universe, *does* require an explanation. The "apparent design" of such laws, as suggested by their "fine-tuned" order, begs the meta-question, "Why does the universe operate in accordance with orderly and prescribed laws?" That metaphysical question is a legitimate one for a theist to ask. Of course, some scientists have tried to answer this question by proposing anthropic explanations based upon a possible multiverse. The problem is that such an answer places science in the same metaphysical quandary as religion; i.e. an "explanation" without any prospect for verification.

That seems to me to be an application of human's hyperactive agency detection device.

Amen to that.

Note also that stuff having consistent properties also does not imply or evidence either "design" or "fine-tuning."

It only evidences consistent properties. :)

Note also that stuff having consistent properties also does not imply or evidence either "design" or "fine-tuning."

COMMENT: We are not talking merely about "consistent properties." Consistency is a minimal standard in science. What we are talking about is the well-established scientific fact that the universe exhibits profound and meticulous order in the form of natural laws. Such an observation is much, much, more than saying that nature is consistent.

As I have told you before, the concept of such natural laws being "fine-tuned" originated from science itself, not theology! (Do I really need to give you citations for this?) Thus, if your argument is that the natural laws of the universe do not exhibit properties suggesting "fine-tuning," then you are arguing against science, not religion.

"That seems to me to be an application of human's hyperactive agency detection device."

COMMENT: O.K. But that is not an answer. The question as to the ultimate source of natural law is a legitimate question. Why wouldn't it be? If one jumps to a "supernatural" God answer, then I tend to agree that there is quite possibly a "wishful thinking" theistic element at work. But can it not also be said that the alternative metaphysical explanation offered by science; i.e. the anthropic, multiverse explanation, might be at least partly motivated by an attempt to avoid design implications? After all, what other business would science have with metaphysics?

There may not be an ultimate answer of that sort.

To my view, this is an improper mixture of philosophy and science. The anthropic principle is more a philopsophic concept than a scientific one at this time. Not that one should never influence the other, but that in this particular instance, the anthropic principle offers no testable hypotheses to science. So there is a separation.

There may come a time when these two tracks merge again.

So I don't object to philosophizing in this way, but I think it's given more weight, or maybe popularity, than the evidence of today merits for the concept.

There are worlds where the octopus is king.

Is this about science or reason? God is hiding in the dark? Science is going to shoot the light of reason at him?

Any sufficiently advanced alien race could be considered God.

So could a bolt of lightning or even a big rock.

Reason works, faith waits.

Some people make the "leap of faith."

Others do not.

It's up to you.