Evidence for God from Science

Thanks Dom.

I've read the William Lane Craig article over once, I will need to digest it and read it over again. One thing that both yourself and William Lane Craig seem keen to point out is that the view is not a traditionally Christian one, this does not bother me. The logical reasoning of the infinite is something I will need to spend some more time with.

domokunrox wrote:All means all and that's all that all means.

?

domokunrox wrote:Infinity shouldn't even be in the dictionary because it describes absolutely nothing. There isn't an example of anything ACTUALLY infinite. God is best described as eternal, but even eternal is listed as a synonym for infinite. Which is again wrong. This is all a misunderstanding that only further complicates our Christian defense to the secular intellectuals in the world.

I tend towards the continued inclusion of infinite in the dictionary.
Whilst we may not have an example of anything actually infinite we've not yet found the edge of everything. Someone posted this lovely little flash site here recently which attempts to give some scale. I don't see what makes it more probable that it stops at some point than just roughly repeats ad infinitum. The advantage seems to be if one adheres to a finite view of things then one still has room for theism.

SnowDrops wrote:Proinsias,
I was reading the PDF, but whoever wrote it lost me at "various degrees of truth". How does it make sense to say something is partly true, or true for someone but not for someone else?

The admission that we are not omniscient. As we don't know everything there is always a chance that there is a more convincing explanation possible, it is also possible that this explanation will resolve previous explanations which were at odds. In an other thread domokunrox used the example that earth cannot be both round and not round, I think both are partly true, it's roughly round.

Proinsias wrote: In an other thread domokunrox used the example that earth cannot be both round and not round, I think both are partly true, it's roughly round.

Yes but the second you use the word "partly" the idea of a round earth and flat earth both lose their repsective meanings. Something cannot both be a circle and a square at the same time. Saying "partly circle and partly square" just invents a third option which is not the same as the originals.

I found this lovely gem of a comment about OM recently (moved this over from another thread because it's more relevant here than there)

"There are subjective facts, and I think that's the problem with the obj/sub discussion. If you touch a hot stove, the pain you feel will be subjective, but that doesn't make it any less of a fact. If something is subjective it doesn't make it factual. There are objective truths that are beyond "I exist" but then one has to assume. The entire universe exists regardless of anyone's knowledge".

The only part about this that makes sense is the "Going beyond I exist one must make assumptions" part. To a point, that's true, but if this person really believes this, then it's a knock-down argument for their own atheist defense. That means everything they rely on for proving their is no God is actually an assumption as well. Their grand science, their infallible science is simply an assumption. Better yet? The comment "the entire universe exists regardless of if we know about it" idea can be applied easily to the existence of God! God exists whether or not we know about him. They may argue "we can only say that about the universe because we have proof of it's existence through science" but then that would be contradictory since they just admitted anything beyond "I exist" is an assumption, including conclusions that science provides.

Edit: Though in all seriousness, let's analyze this. I would say, using the crime of rape as an example...

What would subjective fact be if a woman is raped? The event of the rape would be the "factual" part, but...the subjective? What could be subjective in the OBJECTIVELY wrong crime of rape? Would her emotions be the subjective fact? If that's how they would define it, then it's removing all of the onus on the act, since the emotions come after the act. How could an act of rape be considered "a subjective fact"? How could murder be a "subjective fact"? This whole line of thinking makes NO sense what-so-ever.

This comment makes so little sense to me, perhaps I'm reading too far into it, but when applied to things that I'm sure this person would consider wrong (rape, murder, etc), then it falls apart :S

Echoside wrote:

Proinsias wrote: In an other thread domokunrox used the example that earth cannot be both round and not round, I think both are partly true, it's roughly round.

Yes but the second you use the word "partly" the idea of a round earth and flat earth both lose their repsective meanings. Something cannot both be a circle and a square at the same time. Saying "partly circle and partly square" just invents a third option which is not the same as the originals.

I'm not claiming something to be both a square and a circle. The original statement was the earth cannot be both round and not round. My argument is that the earth is not truly round, it has mountains, valleys and many other features which prevent it from being truly round. If I'm going to nit pick then the earth is not round. Round gives us a rough idea of the shape of the earth whilst we know that it is not round, hence the reason we can go hill walking and skiing and that sort of thing and we're not all sliding around on a perfectly Euclidian oblate spheroid. For practical purposes I see degrees of truth in the earth being described as both round and not round, I hope that makes sense.

Proinsias wrote:

Echoside wrote:

Proinsias wrote: In an other thread domokunrox used the example that earth cannot be both round and not round, I think both are partly true, it's roughly round.

Yes but the second you use the word "partly" the idea of a round earth and flat earth both lose their repsective meanings. Something cannot both be a circle and a square at the same time. Saying "partly circle and partly square" just invents a third option which is not the same as the originals.

I'm not claiming something to be both a square and a circle. The original statement was the earth cannot be both round and not round. My argument is that the earth is not truly round, it has mountains, valleys and many other features which prevent it from being truly round. If I'm going to nit pick then the earth is not round. Round gives us a rough idea of the shape of the earth whilst we know that it is not round, hence the reason we can go hill walking and skiing and that sort of thing and we're not all sliding around on a perfectly Euclidian oblate spheroid. For practical purposes I see degrees of truth in the earth being described as both round and not round, I hope that makes sense.

Of course when you start moving toward the middle from either direction then things tend to get blurry. But this is not the case here, it is the case of absolutes. Can an absolute square be said to be an absolute circle? Next you will tell me there is no such thing as an absolute square or circle but indulge me a bit here and assume there were.

Exactly Byb.

The best general shape to describe the earth is round or spherical. Especially in its overall, general context. It isn't both round and unround at the same time. It is generally round in its overall context, yet not exactly round in a more reduced and exact perspective.

So it is true that the earth is generally round all the time. And it is also true that the earth isn't exactly round all the time. Now, from my perspective looking out my window, it isn't round at all. But does that change the truth regarding the overall, general shape? Not in the least. Both of these together (general roundness, not exact roundness) are true and do not contradict. But to say the earth is exactly two absolute different shapes at the same time............
The earth at any one moment has an absolute exact shape. It doesn't have two absolute exact shapes at the same time. In speaking of the earth, the best concept to describe the overall shape of the earth is roundness.

It should further be noted that any circular object examined microscopically is not going to be a perfectly Euclidian oblate spheroid. This is an issue of perspective. But it doesn't change how we determine the roundness of an object. The fact is that conceptually, we know what roundness represents. To say a basketball is both round and not round is distorting the basic idea of roundness.

So to amend to statement. The earth cannot be both generally round/spherical and not generally round/spherical at the same time. I can't believe I even had to type that post. Talk about straining a gnat. When someone says the earth is round, it SHOULD be universally understood, as we have a conceptual truth of roundness. The fact that the earth has mountains and valleys doesn't negate the roundness of the earth. We can say that the earth, a tennis ball, etc. are round.

Yes, but can a square be both a square, and a rectangle, at the same time?

RickD wrote:Yes, but can a square be both a square, and a rectangle, at the same time?

In the world of subsets, yes.

Byblos wrote:Of course when you start moving toward the middle from either direction then things tend to get blurry. But this is not the case here, it is the case of absolutes. Can an absolute square be said to be an absolute circle? Next you will tell me there is no such thing as an absolute square or circle but indulge me a bit here and assume there were.

I can't see how an absolute square could be an absolute circle. But as you note I've yet to see an absolute square or circle. I think this is what Cunze and those he cites describe as the lower logic and degrees of truth. It's also reminiscent of the EO Archbishop Bart posted recently talking about the differentiation between our models of reality and things as they are. Can an absolute square be an absolute circle does seem a little like asking could I dance with a unicorn, to steal a comparison. To what degree does the answer matter.

jlay, I think in essence we agree here. Again the only times these things become an issue for me is when they are used as some sort of proof for absolute truth presented in a binary true/false fashion. We agree the earth is generally, not absolutely, round, as I imagine most people would. When domokunrox states that objectivity is an all claim then things become stricter, the earth is either round or it is not, to use the example provided - if we're attempting to view this as some sort sort of absolute, objective truth then I'm on the side of not round. If we're taking degrees of truth I'm happy with round having a high degree of truth in describing the earth, if we're taking absolute true/false then I'm not so happy about the earth being described as round as it'a a bit bumpy with some sharp bits.

So it is true that the earth is generally round all the time. And it is also true that the earth isn't exactly round all the time.

An absolutely perfect, sorry, example of the degrees of truth that snowdrops was lost at. By inserting phrases like 'generally' and 'isn't exactly' the statement moves away from falsehood and towards reasonably accurate.

In short what I felt the essay was getting at was essentially the same as your point only applied to the principle of contradiction as opposed to the roundness of the earth. That the law of contradiction may not be absolutely valid and applicable but merely generally valid and practically applicable. Useful, not absolute truth.

I'd be tempted to say relatively, as opposed to generally, round.

Proinsias wrote:

Byblos wrote:Of course when you start moving toward the middle from either direction then things tend to get blurry. But this is not the case here, it is the case of absolutes. Can an absolute square be said to be an absolute circle? Next you will tell me there is no such thing as an absolute square or circle but indulge me a bit here and assume there were.

I can't see how an absolute square could be an absolute circle. But as you note I've yet to see an absolute square or circle. I think this is what Cunze and those he cites describe as the lower logic and degrees of truth. It's also reminiscent of the EO Archbishop Bart posted recently talking about the differentiation between our models of reality and things as they are. Can an absolute square be an absolute circle does seem a little like asking could I dance with a unicorn, to steal a comparison. To what degree does the answer matter.

jlay, I think in essence we agree here. Again the only times these things become an issue for me is when they are used as some sort of proof for absolute truth presented in a binary true/false fashion. We agree the earth is generally, not absolutely, round, as I imagine most people would. When domokunrox states that objectivity is an all claim then things become stricter, the earth is either round or it is not, to use the example provided - if we're attempting to view this as some sort sort of absolute, objective truth then I'm on the side of not round. If we're taking degrees of truth I'm happy with round having a high degree of truth in describing the earth, if we're taking absolute true/false then I'm not so happy about the earth being described as round as it'a a bit bumpy with some sharp bits.

So it is true that the earth is generally round all the time. And it is also true that the earth isn't exactly round all the time.

An absolutely perfect, sorry, example of the degrees of truth that snowdrops was lost at. By inserting phrases like 'generally' and 'isn't exactly' the statement moves away from falsehood and towards reasonably accurate.

In short what I felt the essay was getting at was essentially the same as your point only applied to the principle of contradiction as opposed to the roundness of the earth. That the law of contradiction may not be absolutely valid and applicable but merely generally valid and practically applicable. Useful, not absolute truth.

I'd be tempted to say relatively, as opposed to generally, round.

Fine, then let's talk about truths that can objectively be described as absolute, such as things that will otherwise lead to logical contradictions. 2 is not equal to 3; would you consider that as an absolute truth?

No

Proinsias wrote:No

Lol, I was hoping for a 'why' follow-up. So let me ask you a question then, are there any absolute truths at all?

I really don't know Byblos. It's the absolute certainty that there are absolute truths that I find odd. The idea that 2 cannot equal three is rooted in the principle of non-contradiction. Numbers, like Euclidean shapes, are not to me the mechanics of reality, they are our models of it. Exceptionally useful ones but still, not absolute truth.

Proinsias wrote:I really don't know Byblos. It's the absolute certainty that there are absolute truths that I find odd. The idea that 2 cannot equal three is rooted in the principle of non-contradiction. Numbers, like Euclidean shapes, are not to me the mechanics of reality, they are our models of it. Exceptionally useful ones but still, not absolute truth.

Of course I disagree with your assessment that numbers are not the mechanics of reality, they are exactly that. The entire universe is so uniform that it can be described mathematically. This is not a byproduct of our ingenuity but rather a discovery of such. Science discovered the constants of the universe. Those mathematical constants would still be true whether or not they were discovered. To state that 2 = 3 is a possibility undermines not only science but logic and reason itself, to say nothing of the very laws that govern our reality. Everything then becomes pointless and meaningless.

Or fun and exciting!