Philosophy Now Forum

As your Wiki quote puts it,
"The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."

Immanuel Can wrote: In other words, BB scientists have no explanation for what caused the BB. Thus, they are happy to claim they don't owe us any, even though they completely depend on a number of inexplicable things to do their work, such as a pre-existing "order," a pre-existing "cause," and a pre-existing set of Natural Laws to govern the universe and make science itself possible.

Yes, pre-existing does imply "cause". By not knowing the cause of the Big Bang cosmologists avoid the problem of the fallacy of false cause (Post hoc ego propter hoc). Big Bang cosmology remains viable because its effects are not dependent on knowing a specific cause. In other words, we can be unaware of the cause, but we can still observe the effects.

If one wants to know a "pre-existing cause" then one needs to delve into a quantum explanation.

Immanuel Can wrote:Design doesn't happen without intelligence. The universe everywhere shows design. Therefore, some intelligent Cause is the best answer we've got, both theologically and scientifically.

We can argue about the nature of that Cause, but it's pretty darn hard to argue against its necessity.

It is the best answer we got in terms of a theological and metaphysical explanation, but as a scientific explanation it is pseudo-science.


http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy".

Big Bang cosmology remains viable because its effects are not dependent on knowing a specific cause. In other words, we can be unaware of the cause, but we can still observe the effects.

But the effects are not in question. No one has doubts about the effects. We can observe them. The key question, though, is "what best explains those effects?" The answer, "gravitational fields" is totally inadequate to the observable effects.

It is the best answer we got in terms of a theological and metaphysical explanation, but as a scientific explanation it is pseudo-science.

What makes the best answer "pseudo-science"? I thought "best answer" was precisely what science seeks out. You cannot dismiss a First Cause simply because you don't like what it entails -- or rather, you can do so, as anyone can: but not and be a rational person. To do so is not scientific but gratuitous.

"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective

Oh yes...I know all about that. Nobody but Deists and the philosophically naive believe in it though, so it's totally a straw man here. Theism does not require a "God of the Gaps" explanation. It's not just philosophically but also metaphysically absurd as a view.

And in saying so, I'm not invoking the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. There are good reasons for dismissing it. Consider, for example, that if God is only a God of gaps, then every time a gap is closed it is discovered that the phenomenon in question was not actually God at all. ( This is precisely the point of the God-of-the-Gaps criticism). But then it wasn't really a Theistic view at all either.

Theism can, and does, posit a God capable of generating natural laws and allowing human freedom to operate within those laws or predictable realities, rather than one only capable of micromanaging the universe and reducing human freedom to a mere illusion.

Thus, if a particular phenomenon is scientifically discovered to be due to a law rather than direct Divine intervention, the Theist is not surprised. He can simply respond, "Yes, that's what we'd expect from a law-giving God." Having no "gaps" in natural explanations, such as those posited by the God-of-the-Gaps critique, he isn't put off by one being closed. It's what he'd expect.

Immanuel Can wrote:Design doesn't happen without intelligence. The universe everywhere shows design. Therefore, some intelligent Cause is the best answer we've got, both theologically and scientifically.

We can argue about the nature of that Cause, but it's pretty darn hard to argue against its necessity.

"Design doesn't happen without intelligence." agreed, but this Universe is not necessarily designed, if there were an infinite number of Universes, either preceding this one or in parallel with this one, one of them would have the correct conditions for us to exist. We just happen to be in this one, how many others have there been or are there right now? Even if the odds are very high against a particular event or combination of events, if you try often enough, it will eventually happen.

People get so enamored with the idea that we and the Earth are special and must have been picked especially for us to develop on. Nonsense, there may have been billions of Universes to try to get it right, and there may be billions of planets, one of them would have been just right. Try often enough, and it will happen.

but this Universe is not necessarily designed, if there were an infinite number of Universes, either preceding this one or in parallel with this one, one of them would have the correct conditions for us to exist.

Ah, but there's a serious mathematical fallacy here.

The argument only works for an unlimited number of universes constrained by a limited number of variable quantities. If there is an unlimited number of quantities, then there is an infinite chance against any particular set of variables repeating. And by definition, in infinite universes, there are also infinite variable quantities.

So the "infinite universes" explanation falls flat on its mathematical face.

Immanuel Can wrote:

but this Universe is not necessarily designed, if there were an infinite number of Universes, either preceding this one or in parallel with this one, one of them would have the correct conditions for us to exist.

Ah, but there's a serious mathematical fallacy here.

The argument only works for an unlimited number of universes constrained by a limited number of variable quantities. If there is an unlimited number of quantities, then there is an infinite chance against any particular set of variables repeating. And by definition, in infinite universes, there are also infinite variable quantities.

So the "infinite universes" explanation falls flat on its mathematical face.

No, an infinite number of Universes, with an infinite number of variables, would still lead to an infinite number of Universes and worlds where we could exist. There is an infinite number of times when the correct variables would come into existence. However I believe somewhere it was stated that there were 26 variables that needed to be correct for life as we know it to exist, far fewer than an infinite number. One thing that must be kept in mind, the correct conditions only need to have happened once, for us to exist.

No, an infinite number of Universes, with an infinite number of variables, would still lead to an infinite number of Universes and worlds where we could exist.

Mathematically incorrect. There are always an infinite number of ways that any universe could turn out *other than* one that has the conditions necessary for life. The only way you can make your case is if you can set a limit -- not to the number of variables and the possible permutations of those variables for life -- but on the number of ways that any universe can possibly be. And that, given the postulate of infinite universes, you cannot do: for there are always "other ways" for infinite possibilities to be actualized.

I fear you're falling prey to a kind of "Gambler's Fallacy," like when a gambler reasons, "I've lost sixty times on roulette in a row...that means I'm due to hit." Nope. He's always going to have the same odds against him on any given spin of the wheel, which is 1 in 38, on an American wheel.

But in your case, you're playing roulette with a wheel of infinite size when you say, "It's bound to happen that there are more universes like ours." And both for the gambler and for you, it's an illusion despite the fervency of your conviction.

Immanuel Can wrote: But the effects are not in question. No one has doubts about the effects. We can observe them. The key question, though, is "what best explains those effects?" The answer, "gravitational fields" is totally inadequate to the observable effects.

My links were meant to demonstrate effects not causes. I was just giving one example of why Big Bang is a theory and not a postulate. I could have just as easily posted a link on CMB. As you point out Big Bang does not explain what you call "pre-existing causes". This is a good point, but as I explained earlier, if you want these types of answers then Big Bang theory will not deliver. What is required is a quantum explanation.

Ginkgo wrote: It is the best answer we got in terms of a theological and metaphysical explanation, but as a scientific explanation it is pseudo-science.

Immanuel Can wrote: What makes the best answer "pseudo-science"? I thought "best answer" was precisely what science seeks out. You cannot dismiss a First Cause simply because you don't like what it entails -- or rather, you can do so, as anyone can: but not and be a rational person. To do so is not scientific but gratuitous.

Who said anything about pseudo-science being the best answer? I was saying your original statement is an example of a" God of the gaps" argument.

Here it is again:

"Design doesn't happen without intelligence. The universe everywhere shows design. Therefore, some intelligent Cause is the best answer we've got, both theologically and scientifically"

"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective

Immanuel Can wrote: Oh yes...I know all about that. Nobody but Deists and the philosophically naive believe in it though, so it's totally a straw man here. Theism does not require a "God of the Gaps" explanation. It's not just philosophically but also metaphysically absurd as a view.

If you know all about it then why did you quote mine?

Immanuel Can wrote: And in saying so, I'm not invoking the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. There are good reasons for dismissing it. Consider, for example, that if God is only a God of gaps, then every time a gap is closed it is discovered that the phenomenon in question was not actually God at all. ( This is precisely the point of the God-of-the-Gaps criticism). But then it wasn't really a Theistic view at all either.

Who said anything about this fallacy?

Immanuel Can wrote: Theism can, and does, posit a God capable of generating natural laws and allowing human freedom to operate within those laws or predictable realities, rather than one only capable of micromanaging the universe and reducing human freedom to a mere illusion.

I would agree this is possible.

Immanuel Can wrote: Thus, if a particular phenomenon is scientifically discovered to be due to a law rather than direct Divine intervention, the Theist is not surprised. He can simply respond, "Yes, that's what we'd expect from a law-giving God." Having no "gaps" in natural explanations, such as those posited by the God-of-the-Gaps critique, he isn't put off by one being closed. It's what he'd expect.

From a theistic point of view this would seem quite reasonable.

I was saying your original statement is an example of a" God of the gaps" argument.

But it's not. There is indeed a gap here in scientific understanding: but I'm not arguing that we should posit a Creator because there's a "gap." No, no.

What I'm doing is called "argument to the best explanation." That very simply means that when we observe a phenomenon, we should take the explanation for it that is most rational, given the requirements of adequately explaining that phenomenon.

In a designed universe, the most rational explanation is a Designer. It's such a natural move that even Dawkins says we must exert extraordinary effort to resist it: the evidence is intuitively very strong. In contrast, the postulate that design happened by accident is clearly inferior at first blush, very unnatural as a way of accounting for design and implausible under ordinary conditions; and in order to become more plausible would have to be defended in some very precise way -- a way which science does not, even by your confession, possess.

But I do not make a case for filling any "gaps" with explanations that are not the best explanation. So I'm making no "God-of-the-Gaps" case.

Clearer?

Immanuel Can wrote:

I was saying your original statement is an example of a" God of the gaps" argument.

But it's not. There is indeed a gap here in scientific understanding: but I'm not arguing that we should posit a Creator because there's a "gap." No, no.

What I'm doing is called "argument to the best explanation." That very simply means that when we observe a phenomenon, we should take the explanation for it that is most rational, given the requirements of adequately explaining that phenomenon.

In a designed universe, the most rational explanation is a Designer. It's such a natural move that even Dawkins says we must exert extraordinary effort to resist it: the evidence is intuitively very strong. In contrast, the postulate that design happened by accident is clearly inferior at first blush, very unnatural as a way of accounting for design and implausible under ordinary conditions; and in order to become more plausible would have to be defended in some very precise way -- a way which science does not, even by your confession, possess.

But I do not make a case for filling any "gaps" with explanations that are not the best explanation. So I'm making no "God-of-the-Gaps" case.

Clearer?

I see. The first problem you will encounter is trying to demonstrate empirically that the universe and everything in it is designed. By claiming it is the most "rational" explanation doesn't work when it comes to science. Science needs physical evidence for design.

The first problem you will encounter is trying to demonstrate empirically that the universe and everything in it is designed.

Yes. But fortunately for me, there are criteria for the recognition of design, such as irreducible complexity and specificity, and these will be helpful in estimating the probability of being correct.

By claiming it is the most "rational" explanation doesn't work when it comes to science.

Au contraire, it's *all* that science ever looks for.

The best explanation for apples falling from trees is gravity, so until a better hypothesis appears, the product of more full evidence, we're best to believe in gravity. And when that hypothesis appears, it too may eventually be disproven by a third theory. But for now, gravity is the best answer we've got, and the one with which we, as rational people, should stick.

That's perfect scientific practice: to go with the most rational explanation with provisional conviction, and rationally remain open to additional data.

Science needs physical evidence for design.

And there is plenty of such evidence. Many things in the world have a complexity, interdependence and arrangement, and incorporate specified information in such a way that, as Dawkins notes, the inclination to recognize design is nearly irresistible, except by a colossal effort of will.

The more important question is always, "Will one consent to consider, recognize and assess the evidence, or is one only willing to consider those phenomena that make possible continued belief in what one already wants to believe?"

Immanuel Can wrote:Design doesn't happen without intelligence.

According to Darwinian evolution it does.

The universe everywhere shows design.

If so its a pretty shoddy one.

Therefore, some intelligent Cause is the best answer we've got, both theologically and scientifically.

Theologically this is an assumed given, metaphysically this can be a logical thought but scientific its not.

We can argue about the nature of that Cause, but it's pretty darn hard to argue against its necessity.

Why? Its like Kant never existed as if causation is a part of our make-up then we can never get to a 'Cause' and its pointless talking about it other than just for fun and to suit the religious.

Immanuel Can wrote:Yes. But fortunately for me, there are criteria for the recognition of design, such as irreducible complexity and specificity, and these will be helpful in estimating the probability of being correct. ..

And yet the only 'irreducible complex' object that you IDers can find is a flagellum whereas every other object appears to be explicable via evolution, so how come this object has the weight and why is it not just that we haven't yet found an reasonable explanation?

Arising_uk wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Yes. But fortunately for me, there are criteria for the recognition of design, such as irreducible complexity and specificity, and these will be helpful in estimating the probability of being correct. ..

And yet the only 'irreducible complex' object that you IDers can find is a flagellum whereas every other object appears to be explicable via evolution, so how come this object has the weight and why is it not just that we haven't yet found an reasonable explanation?

But there are some hypothesis for the evolution of the Flagellum, and there is some evidence, the ID'ers can only say there is no evidence, therefore God did it, "The God of the Gaps". It has been sugested that the Flagellum evolved from the Type III secretion system, and there is a counter claim that the Type III secretion system evolved from the flagellum. But to make that claim is like shooting your self in the foot, if the flagellum evolved from the Type III secretion system, then is is also likely that the flagellum evolved from something. Making that claim does not disprove evolution, which was the purpose of irreducible complexity in the first place.

I almost forgot this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella