Beauty, Life, and Death through a Macro Lens: Is there an Intelligent Designer?

 

I’ve been dabbling in macro photography recently and it’s like having a new set of super eyes, one that allows you to appreciate the beauty of flowers and insects by seeing their vibrant colors and intricate eye patterns, like the weevil above and the fly below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Such beauty compels some people to conclude that there must be an Intelligent Designer, a Loving Creator who creates and sustains life. However, naturalists argue that it is the sun which is the ultimate sustainer of all life on earth. The sun makes the plants grow, and certain animals feed on them, like this bee sucking nectar from a flower.

 

 

 

 

 

Other animals prefer animals for food, like this spider waiting on another flower for a bee just like the one above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a colorful jumping spider. Handsome creature, isn’t it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does it look as beautiful now when it’s holding a small dragonfly in its jaws, paralyzing it with venom and slowly sucking the life out of it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is much debate about whether or not insects and even higher animals are capable of suffering pain from physical injury, e.g., being eaten alive, but even assuming that they don’t does not change the fact that certain lives must be ended in order to sustain other lives. That’s just the law of the jungle, the natural order of things – nature, red in tooth and claw – and it doesn’t look very lovingly designed at all. As Richard Dawkins observed in The Greatest Show On Earth,

If we are going to postulate the creator of the cheetah, he has evidently put every ounce of his designing expertise into the task of designing a superlative killer. But the very same designer has equally evidently strained every nerve to design a gazelle that is superbly equipped to escape from those very same cheetahs. For heaven’s sake, whose side is the designer on? Does the designer’s right hand not know what his left hand is doing? Is he a sadist who enjoys the spectator sport and is forever upping the ante on both sides to increase the thrill of the chase?

Now consider an artificial world inside a butterfly sanctuary, an environment tended by a Gardener who loves butterflies. The Gardener is not very powerful, but within his limited ability he provides a safe and abundant haven for the winged residents by putting a large screen dome to keep predatory birds out, removing spiders and their webs, planting different flowers, and even placing sliced peaches on a table for the butterflies to feast on all day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And this butterfly-loving Gardener did not plant a forbidden flower anywhere in the garden, a flower that would cause the banishment of the butterflies that would feed on its nectar.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Now contrast this garden world to the world we live in…

_______________

All images by Jong Atmosfera

143 comments

  1. the spider’s holding not a dragonfly but a tipulid fly, commonly known as crane fly.

    Nice macro photos you have there, what dslr model did you use to capture them?

  2. I owe it to this site's readers to hand over my example of a physically possible infinity and my reasons for why I think Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel, as 'formulated' by David Hilbert, is not the thought experiment which sought to demonstrate the physical impossibility of actual infinites that both Miguel and XIII claim the parable to be; and why, very early on in the comments, I said, 'Maybe Miguel meant See William Lane Craig's use [or misuse] of Hilbert's Paradox, and maybe mistook 'logical' for 'intuitional'.'

    First, the physically possible infinite:

    "The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. […] Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe." – http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

    "The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model." – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Univers

    "If we go to smaller and smaller times since the Big Bang, the green circle shrinks to a point, but the 78 billion light year box is always full, and it is always an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite Universe." – http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

    For Hilbert's Grand Hotel, all retellings I've read all cite George Gamow's own retelling of the parable. In his book One Two Three … Infinity: Facts and Speculations of Science, the scientist author introduces us to the story thusly:

    "According to our rule of comparing infinities we must say that the infinity of even numbers is exactly as large as the infinity of all numbers. This sounds, of course, paradoxical, […].

    In fact in the world of infinity a part may be equal to the whole! This is probably best illustrated by an example taken form one of the stories about the famous German mathematician David Hilbert.

    [Hilbert's Paradox.]

    Well, it is not easy to imagine the conditions described by Hilbert even in Washington as it was during the war, but this example certainly drives home the point that in operating with infinite numbers we encounter properties rather different from those to which we are accustomed in ordinary arithmetic." – (p. 17, http://goo.gl/usjev)

    In a New York Times article that is also widely cited, its author imparts:

    "My goal here is to give you a glimpse of this paradise. But rather than working directly with sets of numbers or points, let me follow an approach introduced by Hilbert himself. He vividly conveyed the strangeness and wonder of Cantor’s theory by telling a parable about a grand hotel, now known as the Hilbert Hotel." – http://goo.gl/FgdF

    So, there you have it. I hope some of you find these as fascinating as I did, if not as useful. Until next time!

  3. Here it is, Pecier: your logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress of causes:

    Miguel: "Even if an infinite number of guests checked out (odd numbered guests), an infinite number of guests still remain (even numbered guests). Of course, when I said there's a logical contradiction, I meant if it were instantiated in physical reality –something I will apparently have to keep repeating."

    • Miguel, informing us of the logical contradiction: "Even if an infinite number of guests checked out (odd numbered guests), an infinite number of guests still remain (even numbered guests). Of course, when I said there's a logical contradiction, I meant if it were instantiated in physical reality."

      Dr. Craig, meanwhile, differs: "It is, of course, true that every time one subtracts all the even numbers from all the natural numbers, one gets all the odd numbers, which are infinite in quantity. But that is not where the contradiction is alleged to lie."

      Miguel: "d_gently blithely insists that I've made implicit claims of being his philosophical superior."

      My superior? My? My, another lie. Lying about your opponent so much you've managed to even lie about yourself in the process:

      Earlier Miguel: "I pretty much studied the evolution of the cosmological argument from Aristotle to the medieval scholastics to Aquinas and Leibniz, and then finally to the modern version that's being popularized by Dr. Craig."

      "The problem with that version of creation ex nihilo is that it shows Krauss's complete ignorance of philosophy."

      (Addressing Garrick) "And to say that all that is just "babbling" seems to me a very thin excuse to avoid having to educate oneself in the subject –as indeed one should if he's to be taken seriously."

      (Still Garrick) "Your equation of this babyish mockery to the ideas of Aristotle, and the old scholastics is telling of your ignorance of philosophy, and it manifests a deep flaw in the way you think."

      Miguel, educated in philosophy, the subject of infinity, Hilbert's Paradox, and Dr. Craig: "An actual infinity is a logical impossibility, as Hilbert's hotel shows."

      Dr. Craig, amazingly, counters: "'The argument does not try to prove the logical impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things."

      Miguel: "So why on earth is he weaselly putting the burden on me to demonstrate for him to his satisfaction how an actual *physical* infinite is impossible? [Logically impossible—which of course he chooses to omit, making the retroactive corrections we've seen, hoping readers of this site wouldn't notice. Stupid readers… -dg] Beats me."

      Mathematics, Logic, David Hilbert, William Lane Craig, before this FF article: Hilbert's Paradox is logically non-contradictory.

      Earlier Miguel, and the first mention of Hilbert's Paradox: "There are logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress. See Hilbert's Paradox." And, "An actual infinity is a logical impossibility, as Hilbert's hotel shows."

      DG: "See Veridical Paradox." "See Burden Of Proof."

      Tinternets: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." – http://goo.gl/hdfF "The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition." – http://goo.gl/Kfg3W "In an argument, the burden of proof is on the person making an assertion." – http://goo.gl/5804o

      Expect more of the same sort of time-travelling corrections from he who's studied Dr. Craig, his latest being "subtracting infinity from infinity can yield both zero and infinity." Not even this another late addition of another supposed logical contradiction, to say nothing of its being no longer in Hilbert's Paradox, is going to save him. At this point, though, I'd rather have the conversation with someone with at least some traces of intellectual honesty in him and one who has, to quote and paraphrase, "educated himself in the subject—as indeed one should if he's to be taken seriously."

      As indeed.

      • Might want to quote people in context, yknow, just so it's more clear.

        d_gently quotes Craig:

        "Dr. Craig, meanwhile, differs: "It is, of course, true that every time one subtracts all the even
        numbers from all the natural numbers, one gets all the odd numbers, which are in?nite in quantity. But that is not where the contradiction is alleged to lie.
        "

        Interestingly, d_gently leaves out the part where Craig tells us where the contradiction lies. I think
        I know why.

        Craig on Hilbert's paradox (Odd Even numbers):

        "But Hilbert's Hotel is even stranger than the German mathematician gave it out to be. […] Suppose the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . check out. In this case an infinite number of people have left the hotel, but according to the mathematicians there are no less people in the hotel.[…]. we could have every other guest check out of the hotel and repeat this process infinitely many times, and yet there would never be any less people in the hotel.[…].These sorts of absurdities illustrate the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things."

        d_gently's subsequent paragraph affirms what I've been suspecting all along after his accusations of "fallacy" against XIII. He doesn't actually know what a fallacy is. He doesn't see himself when he commits one. Pointing out someone's mistakes as it pertains to philosophy isn't the same as saying you're better than them on the topic. When someone says he studied the cosmological argument, it doesn't mean he's saying he's smarter than you about it.

        If d_gently tells Richard Dawkins about his love for biology, or that he has studied it, Miguel guarantees d_gently, Richard Dawkins won't be offended.

        More of d_gently's dishonesty:

        M: "What I meant by the term 'actual infinity' was an infinite collection of things, or series of events."

        d_gently: "Patently untrue. Any reading of your use of the term 'actual infinity' all point to mean
        'physically existing'."

        M: "Yes, which is exactly how I said I used the term ("an infinite collection of things and series of events")"

        d_gently: "What [Miguel] meant by the term 'actual infinity' was an infinite collection of
        things, or series of events." [..] Yet, now, [he] insist[s] that: "[he] used it to refer to a
        "physically existing infinity" [he's] contradicted [himself] in an attempt to salvage any intellectual
        credibility.

        Did you see how d_gently amazingly accuses me of contradicting myself and salvaging "any intellectual credibility"?

        By interpreting what I said, and then shoving onto me his interpretation of what I said, and then saying it's inconsistent with what I said, despite that it was HIS interpretation of what I said. Funny that.

        (cont)

        • (continuation)

          d_gently on why the burden of proof is on me:

          "Tinternets: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." – http://goo.gl/hdfF "The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition." – http://goo.gl/Kfg3W "In an argument, the burden of proof is on the person making an assertion." – http://goo.gl/5804o "

          early on, d_gently says:

          "Here's a shocker: you might possibly be in one—as in, this universe—not parallel universes—but this one, the one you're living in right now." [..] If you think you can prove otherwise, there's possibly a Nobel medal waiting for you.

          and

          "Nevertheless, there is nothing mathematically and logically inconsistent and contradictory with this state of things and, thanks to infinite set theory, we have the mathematical tools to help make sense of it. "

          and

          "Not that I don't have examples of physically possible infinities."

          and

          XIII:“In math, you can get around this contradictions simply by calling it 'undefined' but
          in the real world there is no such cop out.”

          d_gently: "'In the real word'? See my last comment. There are no contradictions."

          my response to d_gently:

          Tinternets: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." – http://goo.gl/hdfF "The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition." &lt;ahref="http://goo.gl/Kfg3W&quot; target="_blank"&gt; <a href="http://;http://goo.gl/Kfg3W” target=”_blank”>;http://goo.gl/Kfg3W "In an argument, the burden of proof is on the person making an assertion." – http://goo.gl/5804o

          and
          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof "The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis."

          and

          null hypothesis: " It usually refers to a default state that is considered true until disproved."

          d_gently: "his latest being "subtracting infinity from infinity can yield both zero and infinity." Not even this another late addition of another supposed logical contradiction, to say nothing of its being no longer in Hilbert's Paradox, is going to save him."

          d_gently teaches Miguel (lesson 1) : "Miguel, Because Hilbert didn't think about it, were not permitted to use his paradox and look for more contradictions that he failed to think up. "

          lol.

          • Staying true to form, as predicted. In a pitiful and desperate bid to shift the burden of proof on me, he now wants to make it appear that the default view on Hilbert's Paradox—such is its power it defeats 8 of Pecier's questions—is the one that he happens to hold:

            "An actual infinity is a logical impossibility."

            As it happens, I could count not only mathematicians and logicians, scratching their heads at this new—and newly default—state-of-affairs, but even William Lane Craig himself. Maybe all of them owe Miguel a new formulation of a disproof, too, as do I?

            I don't think he realises people's comments here are actually 'dated' or are arranged in order of the time they have been written; he must think readers of this site will fall for his latest ploy; that because I've mentioned that we have physically possible infinities, it shall be on me whom the burden of proof rests. (Miguel, 4 days ago: "Even d_gently must admit, and maybe has admitted to XIII to some extent, that, at least intuitively, it does seem to be the case that an actual infinity cannot be physically instantiated." DG, 2 weeks ago: "Maybe Miguel meant See William Lane Craig's use [or misuse] of Hilbert's Paradox, and maybe mistook 'logical' for 'intuitional'.")

            Perhaps this is to be expected seeing he didn't —and, from all indications, still doesn't—understand what logical impossibilities are (and as opposed to physical impossibilities). Else, he would've bothered to check for an example of infinity in physics. You'd wonder though how much an example of a physically possible infinity would achieve at this point, when, until it was imparted to him, he:

            didn't know what an actual infinity was ("an actual infinity is different from the concept of infinity"); wrong to say Hilbert showed it using his famous math parable ("the grand hotel was another way of saying that […] the infinite cannot physically exist"); wrong to claim and insist it was a logical impossibility ("An actual infinity is a logical impossibility, as Hilbert's hotel shows") ; and wrong about where the alleged logical contradiction lie ("Even if an infinite number of guests checked out (odd numbered guests), an infinite number of guests still remain (even numbered guests")).

            And this from the guy who told us, 'See Hilbert's Paradox.'…

          • Well, since we no longer seem to be discussing the main issue (which may be my fault), I guess it's time to wrap this up.

            For what its worth, thanks for this discussion d_gently.

  4. M, on being asked to show how the logical contradiction must translate to physical reality: "I won't have to. An actual infinity–in how I've mistakenly defined the term […]—existing is already a contradiction."

    Mistakenly defined…by which he means physically existing. IOW: A physically existing infinity, um, existing is already a contradiction. Craig, at least, despite inconsistencies of his own, proceeds from metaphysical impossibility to physical impossibility of an actual infinite. Miguel logic does it in one. See Hilbert's Paradox. See Odd Even Rooms.

    M, on being asked to provide reason why one must treat an infinite temporal regress of events as an actual infinite: "You're asking me to show how an infinite series of events –infinite regress, if you prefer– must be an actual infinite? Seriously?"

    Craig take pains to do it in 2 steps, and not before making the jump from metaphysical impossibility to physical possibility. Miguel logic does it in one. See Hilbert's Paradox. See Odd Even Rooms.

    M: "[…] if you're not claiming that an infinite regress of events is possible and can be shown by set-theory, or some mathematical method, then what exactly is it are you claiming?[…] Or are you asking me to show why it's impossible? Aren't you supposed to show me why it's possible?"

    See Burden Of Proof.

    I.e., See: 'See Hilbert's Paradox.'

    I.e., Percier, to Miguel: '(1) Are there logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress of causes?' Miguel: 'I only have to answer your first question to undermine everything you said. Yes. There are logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress. See Hilbert's Paradox.'

    I.e., Miguel: 'An actual infinity is a logical impossibility, as Hilbert's hotel shows.'

    v.

    Craig, on Premise 2.11, re: an actual infinite cannot exist: 'The argument does not try to prove the logical impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things, but its metaphysical impossibility. [It] does not in any way deny that Cantor’s set-theoretical universe is, given its axioms and conventions, logically consistent, in that no contradiction has be shown to follow from its axioms. '

    David Hilbert: 'No one shall drive us out of the paradise which Cantor has created for us.'

    Mathematics and Logic, 2012: Set theory is correct.

    Miguel logic is saying we have a responsibility to him to show the logical possibility of an actual infinite.

    M: "I've already admitted to not knowing the precise definition, and was only using it in the way Craig did."

    I have made repeated attempts to show you've been using differently from Craig's own. Then you make the sorry excuse that I've definitions I'm insisting we use is only strictly used in math and philosophy, and that it's irrelevant to your point about distinctions to be made between 'the concept of infinity with the idea of an actual infinity.' If you can't even see the difference—a vastly important one—between Craig's and your use of the term, then you have no business teaching us the logical or philosophical lessons we must take from either Hilbert's Paradox nor Craig's exposition of it. It's highly entertaining to see you complain about strict uses, now dismissing it as pedantry, when your supposed to be the philosophically or logically learned amongst us, taking potshots at empiricism, by 'using logic',; at Krauss for his 'complete ignorance of philosophy.' Let's remind ourselves again, Miguel:

    "Krauss unruefully tried to circumvent this by saying that mathematicians do in fact deal with infinities, yet this only succeeds in further demonstrating the illogic of his position because an actual infinity is different from the concept of infinity."

    Either Krauss was right and no circumvention was being made; consistent with Craig's actual infinite, mathematicians do in fact deal with infinities, including actual infinities—and, alas, you were wrong to say otherwise. Or: you are right, but Craig (Krauss' opponent at the time) was wrong.

    But wait. Didn't you explain, concerning your Krauss comment, at the time I corrected you about this, that: "What I meant by the term 'actual infinity' was an infinite collection of things, or series of events."

    Yet, now, you insist that: "I used it to refer to a "physically existing infinity" –you're right. Its official usage in "mathematics or philosophy" is completely irrelevant to the point I made about how the 2 (concept of infinity [in an abstract sense] and actual infinity [as defined by me]) are profoundly different."

    • So…not only have you been inconsistent with Craig's use of the terms, you've contradicted yourself in an attempt to salvage any intellectual credibility.

      And I get called out by you for whirling and twirling with words, for 'talking, flinging poo and scraping barrel-bottoms', for making 'cheap rhetorical points for not reading what [you] said charitably or with minimal fairness'…

      M: "LOL."

      For readers of this site interested in David Hilbert, that quote was, as I've already alluded to, taken from On the infinite, a presentation by the mathematician before the Westphalian Mathematical Society in Munster, a copy of which can be read here: http://goo.gl/kBe1Z.

      I leave it you readers to judge for yourselves the disparity between Hilbert's approach and Miguel's 'See Hilbert's Paradox'.

      M: "Set of any physical objects or series of events. The point is that they cannot form an actual infinite. How many times must we repeat this?"

      What, like, 1 billion apples? Or is that an infinite set of apples? And we can't because…we don't have an infinite set of apples? See XIII's question-begging remark.

      Your repeating it does not at all entail you understand what is being discussed by either Hilbert or Craig. In fact, you don't understand what is being discussed here, which I shall show—again—in a moment.

      M: "Actually, I didn't mean anything of that sort. But thank you for that fascinating and irrelevant bit of trivia."

      If you think this is trivial, you have no business lecturing us about infinity. For christsakes, you even summoned Aristotle at one point…

      M, at last, on the supposed logical contradiction: "Even if an infinite number of guests checked out (odd numbered guests), an infinite number of guests still remain (even numbered guests). Of course, when I said there's a logical contradiction, I meant if it were instantiated in physical reality –something I will apparently have to keep repeating."

      Your late addition of a qualifier (after my pointing out, let's not forget)—'I meant if it were instantiated in physical reality'—cannot save you this time, I'm afraid. (Not that it could or ever did.)

      This is it? This is your philosophically sophisticated logical contradiction? Excuse me one moment….

      Okay, where were we? Ah, your logical contradiction: an infinite number of guests checked out (odd numbered guests), an infinite number of guests still remain (even numbered guests). You can't wrap your head at this?

      No wonder.

      Hey, Krauss and Craig! I've got a defeater for the both of ya! Listen to this, yeah.

      Imagine an infinite set of bananas. Done? This exists in reality, yeah, don't forget that. Now, what if I then ask you to peel of the skin on all of them. As in, ALL OF THEM. In reality, don't forget. Done? Now hear this for the logical contradiction, which David Hilbert correctly points out:

      He says…that what we should end up with is….still…an infinite number of skinless bananas! Imagine that!

      I know, right! How could you end up with another infinity when you just subtracted infinity! Preposterous state-of-affairs! So illogical!

      Checkmate, Infinity!

      I'm done here.

      • What's specifically amusing is that d_gently thinks his response is some artfully interwoven tapestry of words that undermine my answer to Pecier. "Checkmate"? Not hardly. Any sufficiently intelligent person can see it for what it is, i.e., an attempt to BS his way out of responsibility.

        The core problem is that he continues to dance around the main issue of whether an infinite regress is possible, and whether Hilbert's paradox has anything to say about an actual infinite's viability in the physical world –the context at which Pecier's question was directed. My answers were clear. An actual infinity cannot physically exist because it would be a logical contradiction; Hilbert's paradox does show this (else, why would Craig be bandying it about?). What Hilbert's grand hotel is demonstrating is that an actual infinite series is physically impossible because it yields contradictions. Even d_gently must admit, and maybe has admitted to XIII to some extent, that, at least intuitively, it does seem to be the case that an actual infinity cannot be physically instantiated. So why on earth is he weaselly putting the burden on me to demonstrate for him to his satisfaction how an actual *physical* infinite is impossible? Beats me.

        What moron will believe that, between 2 people making opposite claims of possibility and impossibility, the burden of proof must ultimately lie on the one making the negative claim? Not d_gently. He's obviously no moron. And he claims to not be making any claims ("—none, nada, zilch—"), which oddly raises the question: does anyone know what d_gently is actually arguing? Yup. Me neither.

        The significance of the precise definition of the term 'actual infinity', about which d_gently has been unrelentingly busying himself to show me, isn't as important to the discussion as he likes people to think. I used the term to mean an actual occurrence of an infinite series of events, or collection of physical things. Despite what d_gently wants you to believe, Craig used the term in a similar way ("An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite."). Of course, Craig is aware of the more precise definition d_gently gave, but I'm baffled why d_gently thinks that pointing this out accomplishes anything apart from how incompetent he was in his pedantry. It matters not one iota because an infinite series of events/infinite collection of physical things (in how I used the term 'actual infinity') still falls under the wiki definition. There's nothing in the way I used the term that would seem "vast" from the way Craig did. d_gently, nevertheless, delightfully expends mountains of words mocking the alleged "vast"ness between the 2 ways the term can be used. Maybe he thinks he's making a point? Who knows. Maybe he thinks that, unlike him, I'm blind to fairly trivial insights such as these? Maybe.

        What I was distinguishing was an actual physical infinity with that of the concept. Despite the latter being manipulable in set theory, this doesn't show an actual physical infinite can exist. So it isn't clear to me why d_gently is implying I'm casting aspersion on set theory ("Mathematics and Logic, 2012: Set theory is correct.") Unfortunately, despite the stellar mental capacity he's been displaying here, all this, rather inexplicably, flew by d_gently's big brain as though it didn't exist.

        • d_gently blithely insists that I've made implicit claims of being his philosophical superior. Never did. I would even readily concede the opposite is true. d_gently erroneously seems to think that pointing out someone's philosophical illiteracy –which Krauss provably has a lot of (2 + 2 will never equal 5)– says something about oneself. It doesn't.

          It's odd that d_gently says I'm being "inconsistent" when I said "What I meant by the term 'actual infinity' was an infinite collection of things, or series of events." because he says I later said "I used it to refer to a physically existing infinity", despite that an infinite collection of things or infinite series of events are physically existing infinities –or would have been, in the case of events. So am I being inconsistent, or is d_gently interpreting what I said inconsistently? Dunno.

          Weirdly, d_gently waxes incredulous about my responses to his questions. He may be right. Let's see:

          On his question of whether there was a logical contradiction in Hilbert's paradox (of course I assumed I was being asked, as Craig does, to imagine it physically exists): I said there was a contradiction in that subtracting infinity from infinity still yielded infinity. d_gently, as expected, derides the answer. The reason? He won't say. Presumably because he sees no contradiction despite subtracting infinity from infinity can yield both zero and infinity.

          d_gently to XIII: "That's infinity minus infinity for you!"

          what d_gently means: "That's zero for you XIII" and "That's infinity for you XIII (yey!)"

          Now, to the untrained eye, being this contradictory may seem like bottomless stupidity. d_gently asks us to disabuse our minds of such illogic. It's perfectly logical, he says, to pejoratively throw compliments; to deridingly praise; to insultingly exult XIII's arguments.

          On his request for me to provide reasons why one must treat an infinite temporal regress of events as an actual infinite: I imply that it's a silly question because an infinite teporal regress of events is, in fact, an actual infinite. d_gently, again, derides this answer. Why? He won't say. Presumably because, to him, it's rather obvious that an 'infinite temporal regress of events' and an 'actual infinite' are both collections of infinite things, so there's not much similarity between the two.

          On his request that I show how the logical contradiction translates to physical reality: I say an actual physical infinity would already be a contradiction (because it will always be finite and incomplete). Perfectly reasonable, yes? Not so much, says d_gently. He says Craig at least does it in 2 steps, while "Miguel logic" does it in one.

          Craig on his Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:

          (2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist.

          Miguel logic:

          "a physically existing infinite is already a contradiction (therefore cannot exist)."

          Much knowledge to be had from d_gently, it seems.

          If d_gently is more interested in discussing this than in flinging poo, I'll
          be happy if he can answer these questions:

          1. Does he think an infinite regress of events is logically possible. If so, why?

          2. Can an actual infinity exist? If so, how?

          If he's not interested, that's fine.

  5. M: "The question was if whether an infinite regress of events was logically impossible. I said it is, and Hilbert's hotel shows it to be."

    An infinite regress of events? Don't get ahead of yourself, or for that matter, everyone, Miguel.

    First, show the logical contradiction—which you claimed there was—in Hilbert's Paradox. I repeat: logical contradiction.

    Next—and not before you've shown the logical contradiction—show, using Hilbert's Paradox, how the logically contradictory result of an (actual) infinite amount of objects should translate to physical reality. I repeat: physical reality, for that is another of your claim.

    Then, if or when you successfully shown the physical impossibility of an actual infinite, show how an infinite temporal regress of events must be treated or considered as an actual infinite.

    That should only be fair as it was you (and XIII) who's made the assertion that Hilbert's Hotel shows the logical contradiction.

    M: "But you still seem to be claiming that set theory shows an infinite regress of events is possible –without any demonstration it seems."

    This is plain and utterly false, deliberately deceitful, and oblivious to your own conduct in this thread.

    It was not I who said 'Yes. There are logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress. See Hilbert's Paradox.' Not I who said physically existing infinity 'is a logical impossibility, as Hilbert's hotel shows.' I have not made claims—none, nada, zilch—that set theory shows an infinite regress of events is (physically) possible. I have even made clarifications to the opposite: that set theory cannot show what you insist I am making it show. I have even clearly laid out my position in my last reply to you. Here it is again, if you want to keep playing obtuse—in your pitiful attempts at trying to shift the burden of proof on me:

    "I don't know of anyone who has said that here. I could no more 'prove', using set theory alone, that an infinite set of objects is allowed to exist in nature than I can 3 particles in a universe that is entirely made up of 2 all because I've been able to show that 2 + 1 is mathematically possible."

    You can't even be trusted to know the definition of an actual infinity—regardless, since it is you who's made the assertion that there is a logical impossibility (or contradiction, or whatever) and, as you said, as Hilbert's Hotel shows it, then:

    The onus is on you to demonstrate it.

    Hopefully, with a modicum of honesty this time, if you can manage it.

    M: "Cantor and Hilbert, ironically, believed none of that."

    And you—contra Cantor, Hilbert, the rest of mathematics and logic, and science—claim you can show an infinite regress of events is impossible from—listen to this—the logical impossibility you say Hilbert's Paradox demonstrates. To wit: 'See Hilbert's Paradox.'

    Irony, Actual Infinite, and Hilbert's Paradox: I don't think any one of these terms means what you think it means. Ironically.

    • d_gently "First, show the logical contradiction—which you claimed there was—in Hilbert's Paradox. I repeat: logical contradiction. "

      Even if an infinite number of guests checked out (odd numbered guests), an infinite number of guests still remain (even numbered guests). Of course, when I said there's a logical contradiction, I meant if it were instantiated in physical reality –something I will apparently have to keep repeating.

      d_gently "Next—and not before you've shown the logical contradiction—show, using Hilbert's Paradox, how the logically contradictory result of an (actual) infinite amount of objects should translate to physical reality. I repeat: physical reality, for that is another of your claim. "

      I won't have to. An actual infinity –in how I've mistakenly defined the term –which you seem to love pointing out–despite my having admitted it several times–despite its being irrelevant to the original point that's been made– existing is already a contradiction.

      "Then, if or when you successfully shown the physical impossibility of an actual infinite, show how an infinite temporal regress of events must be treated or considered as an actual infinite. "

      You're asking me to show how an infinite series of events –infinite regress, if you prefer– must be an actual infinite? Seriously?

      This is plain and utterly false, deliberately deceitful, and oblivious to your own conduct in this thread.

      Well, you'll have to make up your mind. Because if you're not claiming that an infinite regress of events is possible and can be shown by set-theory, or some mathematical method, then what exactly is it are you claiming?

      You keep talking, flinging poo and scraping barrel-bottoms, yet, after all that dribbling, you admit an infinite regress is impossible?

      Or are you asking me to show why it's impossible? Aren't you supposed to show me why it's possible?

      And you—contra Cantor, Hilbert, the rest of mathematics and logic, and science—claim you can show an infinite regress of events is impossible from—listen to this—the logical impossibility you say Hilbert's Paradox demonstrates. To wit: 'See Hilbert's Paradox.'

      The logical impossibility of an actual infinity –in how I've mistakenly defined the term –which you seem to love pointing out–despite my having admitted it several times–despite its being irrelevant to the original point that's been made–existing. Hilbert's hotel illustrates an actual infinity existing in reality, and, it, well, seems to be impossible. How bout to you? But, yah, you get cheap rhetorical points for not reading what I said charitably or with minimal fairness.

  6. Still at it with the strawman arguments, aren't we, XIII? If you're finding it hard to fit me in your apologetics script, then put up a blog or something and make up sockpuppets who are not able to see through your sleights of hand.there. Don't do it here in FF.

    XIII: “Again, I said that Hilbert's Paradox is a veridical paradox only insofar as it occurs within the realm of Mathematics, not when actuated in reality. Fact is: you've never denied the point.

    Intellectually dishonest. Here's what I said: 'To Mathematics and Logic, yes—and so? It is mathematically and logically consistent and non-contradictory.' Which I've followed through and expounded on eventually with a specific query asking you why the mathematical and logical prescription for dealing with infinite sets should not be allowed in Craig's metaphysical realm, but you're again and still silent on that point.

    For the nth time: Where is this logical contradiction?

    XIII: “What needs to be understood here is that Metaphysical Modality refers to modal properties (and any entailments therein) as they pertain to metaphysics. […] logical possibilities refer only to possibilities as they relate to the first-order rules of logic while metaphysical possibilities examine possibilities as they relate to a broader metaphysical worldview. Now, I didn't use the term as I felt that using the term 'physical' possibilities would be easier to understand (thinking perhaps that metaphysics would be too technical).”

    What you fail to mention, conveniently, is that, 'what needs to be understood' under that modal logic with which you try to wow and educate us philosophically unsophisticated simpletons, a metaphysical possibility is importantly and wholly distinct from a physical possibility.

    Wiki, http://bit.ly/A2pCuu: “Something is physically possible if it is permitted by the laws of physics. […] while it is logically possible to accelerate beyond the speed of light, modern science stipulates that it is not physically possible for material particles or information.”

    Physically possible actual infinites? Oh, we do have them, make no mistake about that.

    What needs to be understood is that metaphysical modality is, as Craig admits, 'so much woollier a notion than strict logical modality', adding, 'Arguments for metaphysical possibility or impossibility typically rely upon intuitions and conceivability arguments, which are obviously much less certain guides than strict logical consistency or inconsistency.'

    Strict logical consistency? Like mathematics, i.e., set theory? Like set theory.

    Craig is more careful, when pressed, by admitting he is showing the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinities, and then proceeds from there to conclude the physical impossibility. Hey, but what do I know, right?

    XIII: “You ask, have I tested these conclusions? Isn't Hilbert's Paradox merely an appeal to intuition? Well, as an argument, this is just weak.”

    Except I did not ask those questions or made such an argument. Again, your intellectual dishonesty is showing. At the risk of irritating even this site's readers, here again is what I actually said:

    (On the supposed empirical testing) “In science this [bringing a logically and mathematically consistent result into reality] is accomplished by performing empirical experiments, making predictions, testing those predictions,” etc. I went on to add (emphases added for your benefit), “You, throughout this discussion, claim you have brought Hilbert's paradox and actual infinites into reality. But what do you have to show for it? Just another thought experiment that's directed to appeal to our intuitions. We're still pretty much in the abstract realm, just as we were with Hilbert’s Paradox and set theory, but now with more intuition and Craig-style mathematics—which is not reality—pumped in.”

    Did I ask that you test it empirically? Did I actually say or imply that Hilbert's Paradox was merely an appeal to intuition? Have I made or relied on either of those arguments? The readily verifiable answers to all those is NO.

    • XIII: “You say that quantum indeterminacy furnishes us with a counter-example to the Law of Non-Contradictions (LNC). First point, I did not, in fact, respond to this because this was a Red Herring in that the truth or falsity of the LNC does not, in fact, disprove the original argument”

      So while it should be acceptable that you have been making the argument that actual infinites cannot physically impossible because of Hilbert's Paradox, my example of a physical phenomenon or physical possibility of quantum superposition—contra your LNC, which was a point you raised, in support of your argument that Hilbert's Paradox results in logical contradictions, and against my pointing out of its veridicality, which I was perfectly entitled to do—is a red herring?

      Wow. Do you even know what a Red Herring fallacy means? This is the third time in this thread you've accused me of a logical fallacy, perhaps in the hopes of it sticking and no-one noticing. I thought you've changed, XIII, but it is disappointing to see you're still pretty much engaged in this kind of hand-waving and diversionary tactics we've seen from you before in the forums.

      XIII: “Lastly, you say that Renormalization equations are not merely equations but computational and predictive tools in physics. This is irrelevant. […] renormalization fails to serve as a proven counter-example to the original argument.”

      Oh, yes, call it irrelevant why don't you—once I've responded to the charge that mathematics is a cop out; XIII: “In math, you can get around this contradictions simply by calling it 'undefined' but in the real world there is no such cop out.” I've even explicitly said it my reply: 'I did not offer these as an example of physical possibility, but as a real world counter to your attempt at smearing of mathematics' dealings with infinities.' Either you're being underhanded again or your reading comprehension is seriously suspect.

      XIII: “[…] the fact is that quantum indeterminacy and the contradictions that arise from it (as exhibited in Schrodinger's Cat) occur only on indeterministic interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (like the Copenhagen interpretation). There are interpretations of QM that are fully deterministic and these have yet to be ruled out (majority preferences notwithstanding).”

      (Oh, dear, you misunderstand yet another thought experiment… But on to the more relevant point.) Other interpretations of that are fully deterministic? Which ones of the four? I don't know about either de Broglie-Bohm Theory or Time-Symmetric Theories—but surely not Many Worlds Interpretation nor Many Minds Interpretation with their physically possible infinite universes or minds? If MWI is correct and we asked God, with his omnipresence and omniscient view of everything, whether our aforementioned string is either vibrating or not he'd say, 'Well, it's both actually.' At which point, he poofs into non-existence—thanks to the Law of Noncontradiction. Damn you, Aristotle!

      At all rates, to say these other interpretations need to be ruled out first—while at the same time dismissing the one which, though not complete, have proven their explanatory and predictive power and their empirical rigour to such an extent it has been made possible for you and me to communicate past these vast distances—is an appeal to ignorance. Furthermore, it is a standard you completely disregard when you dismiss mathematics and logic, quantum physics, and, though perhaps you haven't realised it yet, even classical (non-quantum) physics.

      I will repeat my questions from my last reply to you, which we still have to see you answer:

      1) The logical contradiction: does it take place in the metaphysical realm?

      2) And if so, are we able to bring in and make use of logic and mathematics in this metaphysical realm?

      3) And if we cannot, what do we use in its place?

      And finally, and no less important, when you have answered 1 to 3:

      Show us the logical contradiction.

    • Apologetic script? What? I haven't even had to consult my books yet. All I've said so far is strictly off the top of my head so you aren't even pressing me all that hard. :

      You've shown that you aren't really interested in truth here more than you're interested in winning the argument so let's pull out all the stops. I'm getting serious here, readability be damned. Be warned.

      Anyway:

      1. Mathematics and logic are not the same thing. What may be mathematically possible may not also be metaphysically possible. In fact, in philosophy, we call this a non-sequitur. You insist on grouping terms together that may not actually be the same thing (for example, when you insist on grouping mathematical possibilities with metaphysical possibilities).

      The reason why mathematical possibilities are metaphysically impossible is that it leads to logical contradictions (as per the absence of the prohibitions extant under the framework of Set Theory). It is the lack of these attendant prohibitions (in that they are absent in reality, as exhibited by Hilbert's Paradox) that lends us to believe that actual infinites, while mathematically useful, are impossible in reality.

      2. The logical contradiction lies thus: you subtract identical infinite quantities from identical infinite quantities and get self-contradictory answers (which is why the subtraction of identical infinite quantities is prohibited in Set Theory).

      3. Metaphysics is the framework of our worldviews. Like the meaning of words, sentences, logic, existence, proof and evidence. The nature of numbers, physical reality, mathematics, mind, conscience and ethics.

      While it it true that a metaphysical impossibility is distinct from a physical possibility, it is wholly insufficient to suggest that just from that distinction, we can arrive at the physical possibility of actual infinites. A logical contradiction (i.e. an absurd result as per a reducto) is sufficient to lead us to the conclusion that something is wrong with a proposition.

      Also, what are these examples of physically possible actual infinites you keep harping on about? The very nature of infinites (the impossibility of adding up to an actual infinite ) leads us to believe that were an actual infinite to exist, it must exist now (actualized and complete).

      4. No, you did not ask me but you implied it (by pointing out that these conclusions are not scientifically verifiable). In any case, I accept your retreat on the point so let us speak no more of this.

      Cheerio. 🙂

      • XIII: "Mathematics and logic are not the same thing."

        Strawman. Whoever said they were? You and Miguel are the ones insisting Hilbert's paradox is logically inconsistent. WLC disagrees, as does the rest of mathematicians and logicians. David Hilbert was a logician. Georg Cantor also a logician. What part of 'Georg Cantor applied the tools of mathematical rigor and logical deduction to questions about infinity in search of satisfactory answers' do you not understand?

        XIII: "You insist on grouping terms together that may not actually be the same thing (for example, when you insist on grouping mathematical possibilities with metaphysical possibilities)."

        Where exactly have I done what you say?

        XIII: "The reason why mathematical possibilities are metaphysically impossible is that it leads to logical contradictions (as per the absence of the prohibitions extant under the framework of Set Theory)."

        Meaningless twaddle. Maybe we can make out what you're trying to say if—for once—you would actually provide precise definitions for the terms you're using. I've asked you this already, as far back as a week ago. If you actually cared about the 'truth' and philosophy like you so profess, define your terms, instead of coming up with the pathetic excuse about 'negative connotations'. Start with physical possibility, then logical possibility, then metaphysical possibility, then, if you like, mathematical possibility.

        XIII: "It is the lack of these attendant prohibitions (in that they are absent in reality, as exhibited by Hilbert's Paradox) that lends us to believe that actual infinites, while mathematically useful, are impossible in reality."

        Oh, add "in reality" to your list.

        XIII: "The logical contradiction lies thus: you subtract identical infinite quantities from identical infinite quantities and get self-contradictory answers (which is why the subtraction of identical infinite quantities is prohibited in Set Theory)."

        You need to unpack this; maybe formalise it, if you can—you did say it's a logical contradiction, after all. As we've seen from your equivocations of metaphysical with physical impossibility, we need for you to identify what you mean by 'identical infinite quantities'. It's only fair that you do so.

        XIII: "While it it true that a metaphysical impossibility is distinct from a physical possibility, it is wholly insufficient to suggest that just from that distinction, we can arrive at the physical possibility of actual infinites."

        Strawman. Nowhere will you find that I have made such a suggestion. How many times are you going to repeat this lie of yours, XIII?

        Maybe this is your way not admitting to the bumbling error—or if not, tactic—of sneaking in the term 'physical impossibility' when what you mean really is metaphysical impossibility.

        XIII: "Also, what are these examples of physically possible actual infinites you keep harping on about?"

        This shouldn't concern you for now. First, show us the logical contradictions.

        XIII: "The very nature of infinites (the impossibility of adding up to an actual infinite ) leads us to believe that were an actual infinite to exist, it must exist now (actualized and complete)."

        There you go again with your impossibilities. 'Very nature'? Multiple unsupported premises in one sentence. Again, let's start with your definitions.

        XIII: "No, you did not ask me but you implied it (by pointing out that these conclusions are not scientifically verifiable). In any case, I accept your retreat on the point so let us speak no more of this."

        Retreat?! So, you build up a strawman, which I then expose and then correct, and you call it a retreat? Amazing.

        This procedure, where I have to routinely fend off your strawmen of my arguments, I cannot accept. The first time—the very first time—we hear from you, it was to pre-empt and ultimately misrepresent my position. This doesn't look at all like it stopped.

        Maybe if you show yourself to be able to write a response that is free of proxy replacement arguments of the ones I've actually made, I could be convinced to continue this.

        But not until then.

  7. “I appreciate the clarification, but you're confusing, I think, the concept of infinity with the idea of an actual infinity. (Krauss made the same mistake during his debate with Craig, which is something I pointed out to Garrick.) The concept of infinity is manipulable, of course, by our imagination; we can use it, we've in fact been using it (well not me, but others), in set theory, in contriving paradoxes and what have you.”

    No. It's you who's confused—and that's putting it kindly. There is—there are actual infinites in mathematics.

    (What does it even mean to say I'm confusing the concept of an infinity with that of the idea? It's one and the same thing.)

    Really, you're just making stuff up. See Actual Infinity.

    “Actual infinity is the idea that numbers, or some other type of mathematical object, can form an actual, completed totality; namely, a set. Hence, in the philosophy of mathematics, the abstraction of actual infinity involves the acceptance of infinite entities, such as the set of all natural numbers or an infinite sequence of rational numbers, as given objects. …

    The mathematical meaning of the term "actual" in actual infinity is synonymous with definite, completed, extended or existential, but not to be mistaken for physically existing. The question of whether natural or real numbers form definite sets is therefore independent of the question of whether infinite things exist physically in nature.” – Wiki, http://goo.gl/QMmS

    “But an actual infinity is a logical impossibility, as Hilbert's hotel shows; […]”

    See my response to XIII.

    “[A]n actual infinity would be akin to saying 2 + 2 = not 4.”

    This is so wrong on so many levels, so beyond wrong, it's not even not even wrong.

    But, okay, let's grant for a moment your definition of “actual” infinity. Here's a shocker: you might possibly be in one—as in, this universe—not parallel universes—but this one, the one you're living in right now.

    See Physics.

    If you think you can prove otherwise, there's possibly a Nobel medal waiting for you.

    • What I meant by the term 'actual infinity' was an infinite collection of things, or series of events. In that sense, the concept of infinity is different from the idea (or "concept", if you prefer) of an infinite collection of things, or series of events.

      I didn't know the term 'actual infinity' had a precise definition. I was only using the term in the way Craig used it.

      I agree that the concept of infinity can be used abstractly; in math, one can represent the concept of infinity and talk about it consistently given certain procedural rules and so forth. But the same cannot be said for an actual infinite number of things, which is precisely what Hilbert's hotel shows.

      Really, I'm not "making stuff up". Those 2 are profoundly different.

      If you're saying that math (or set theory, or whatever it is) can prove that an actual infinity –again, in the sense that Craig uses the word– can, or does, in fact, exist, then I guess I'll have to concede your point. But in the little I know about set-theory, I gather it doesn't purport to be able to do any such thing.

      • “What I meant by the term 'actual infinity' was an infinite collection of things, or series of events. In that sense, the concept of infinity is different from the idea (or "concept", if you prefer) of an infinite collection of things, or series of events. I didn't know the term 'actual infinity' had a precise definition. I was only using the term in the way Craig used it.”

        Patently untrue. Any reading of your use of the term 'actual infinity' all point to mean 'physically existing'. Craig's use of the term is the same one used in the Wiki link. Craig accepts and uses the mathematical concepts of infinities. Don't let the example of 'books' or 'coins' confuse you; notice instead terms such as 'even', 'odd', etc.

        “I agree that the concept of infinity can be used abstractly; in math, one can represent the concept of infinity and talk about it consistently given certain procedural rules and so forth.”

        This is true for ALL mathematical objects, even finite ones—zero, integers, etc.—and in ALL of mathematical domains, not just infinity or infinite sets.

        “But the same cannot be said for an actual infinite number of things, which is precisely what Hilbert's hotel shows.”

        This doesn't make sense.

        What Hilbert's Hotel shows is the kind of absurdities when our everyday arithmetical intuitions of numbers (which infinity is not) or experience with finite objects (with which we're familiar) and everyday language encounters infinite sets and their weird nature (and/or the mathematical rules, i.e., set theory, that we use to extract as much answers as we can from them).

        The solutions the hotel manager (or it might've been someone else in the story) makes use of are to be found in set theory. It is derived from set theory. It is set theory. The whole thought experiment is an introduction not only to infinite sets but to set theory as well, where you are taught how to deal with transfinite numbers, the size and hierarchy of sets, etc.

        We doubt those solutions and ask How could that be? How can he fit more people in when the hotel is full? For proof, thusly, See Set Theory.

        This is no different when we started introducing negative numbers and the number or concept of zero to mathematics: we found ways to make sense and use of them. For infinite sets, it's Set Theory. That is why the paradox is considered as veridical by logicians.

        “If you're saying that math (or set theory, or whatever it is) can prove that an actual infinity –again, in the sense that Craig uses the word– can, or does, in fact, exist, then I guess I'll have to concede your point. […] ”

        I don't know of anyone who has said that here. I could no more 'prove', using set theory alone, that an infinite set of objects is allowed to exist in nature than I can 3 particles in a universe that is entirely made up of 2 all because I've been able to show that 2 + 1 is mathematically possible.

        Weirdly, it is your and XIII's position that you've disproven the physical existence of an infinite amount of objects because of via Hilbert's Paradox.

        "But in the little I know about set-theory, I gather it doesn't purport to be able to do any such thing."

        Finally.

        But there's more to this than you realise. It is your very own and much-beloved William Lane Craig—and ultimately, you and XIII— who's claiming he can make use of set theory (via Hilbert's Paradox), plug it in his 'Metaphysical Modality', then prove the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinities. And therefore its physical impossibility.

        Do you understand this now?

        • Patently untrue. Any reading of your use of the term 'actual infinity' all point to mean 'physically existing'.

          Yes, which is exactly how I said I used the term ("an infinite collection of things and series of events"). Craig uses it, as far as I know, in the same way I have. So, I seriously don't know what you're talking about here.

          This is true for ALL mathematical objects, even finite ones—zero, integers, etc.—and in ALL of mathematical domains, not just infinity or infinite sets.

          Of course. Any mathematical object can be used abstractly. Math is an abstraction.

          This doesn't make sense.

          Hilbert's hotel shows that an infinity cannot be instantiated in physical reality. Hilbert was a rigorous defender of Cantor's theorems, and the grand hotel was another way of saying that, although set theory can use the infinite (in some abstract sense), the infinite cannot physically exist. Anyone can imagine a set that contained all the natural numbers, say. But all natural numbers cannot have a one-to-one correspondence with anything in physical reality because if you lined them up, that line would have no end, and will thus make the collection forever incomplete; forever finite. Actual infinities, i.e., actual infinite collection of things or series of events, thus, cannot exist. It can exist, however, in people's imaginations.

          We doubt those solutions and ask How could that be? How can he fit more people in when the hotel is full? For proof, thusly, See Set Theory.

          The question was if whether an infinite regress of events was logically impossible. I said it is, and Hilbert's hotel shows it to be.

          But you still seem to be claiming that set theory shows an infinite regress of events is possible –without any demonstration it seems. Cantor and Hilbert, ironically, believed none of that.

          • M: "Craig uses it, as far as I know, in the same way I have. So, I seriously don't know what you're talking about here."

            Seriously, Miguel, you cannot be this obtuse. When one says actual infinite in mathematics or philosophy—and, yes, that includes Craig—they mean a complete or completed infinite set of objects; you on the other hand have been using the term actual infinite to mean a physically existing infinity. To further drive the point, here is Craig clarifying that an actual infinite 'is a collection in which the number of members really is infinite. […] it is 'complete''. And, elsewhere: 'If an actually infinite number of things could exist, a Hilbert's Hotel would be possible.'

            If we were to insist your definition was correct and consistent, this is what happens to that last Craig quote when replaced with your own definition of actual infinite:

            If a physically existing infinite number of things could exist, a Hilbert's Hotel would be possible.

            The statement becomes self-referential or circular and cumbersome to the point it becomes meaningless.

            (I've made the same corrections on actual infinites (and v. potential infinites) to XIII in the past. It took forever, but we got there in the end and he relented and modified his definitions. I didn't get thanked nor acknowledged then, though I wasn't expecting nor in need of any. But I'm wondering now why he hasn't stepped in yet to make the same corrections to you and your definitions.)

            M: "Of course. Any mathematical object can be used abstractly. Math is an abstraction."

            Abstract to same extent as Hilbert's Grand Hotel is. To the same extent as Craig's metpahysical realm is. But we don't see you bring into question their validity and their limits, do we?

            M: "Hilbert's hotel shows that an infinity cannot be instantiated in physical reality."

            That's not what Hilbert's Paradox shows because Hilbert's Paradox is not physics. Maybe you meant Craig shows—using Hilbert's Paradox—that an infinity cannot exist in reality—by showing first that is is a metaphysical impossibility. Or maybe you meant Hilbert's hotel shows that an infinity cannot be instantiated in metaphysical reality. What is utterly strange with this and should be quickly apparent to anyone is that the very first thing you are asked to do in the thought experiment is to: imagine there exists an infinite hotel. I don't know how much more 'instantiated in metaphysical reality' you could get!

            M: "Hilbert was a rigorous defender of Cantor's theorems, and the grand hotel was another way of saying that, although set theory can use the infinite (in some abstract sense), the infinite cannot physically exist."

            Maybe you know something Hilbert didn't about the force of his thought experiment? Because—very much unlike you—in his opposition to and search for an infinity in reality he actually also checked with the physics of his time. If what you say is true, then Hilbert himself is so lacking in insight he failed to realise the potency of his own thought experiment. He's so stupid for bothering with his examples from physics and for failing to mention his Grand Hotel when he made his 'the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, it neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought' speech to the Westphalian Mathematical Society? He even tried to solve the continuum problem, the poor man!—when all he needed to do was tell them his Hotel story!

            M: "Anyone can imagine a set that contained all the natural numbers, say."

            Anyone? Okay, if you say so. But then that should not be just for numbers, mind you. The same goes for hotels, books, universes, or angels dancing on the head of a pin.

            M: "But all natural numbers cannot have a one-to-one correspondence with anything in physical reality because if you lined them up, that line would have no end, and will thus make the collection forever incomplete; forever finite."

            Again, meaningless waffle that's an attempt or made to look like it understands the concepts involved in infinity. A one-to-one correspondence with anything in physical (metaphysical—but I'm going to drop this contention for now) reality? What would that anything be, pray tell? Forget first about lining up, what do we line up with the set of all natural numbers? Describe what this set—if it is that—of anything is.

            [The line … I think you mean the numbering of that (any)thing—but this is your example so… which we take to be infinite would have no end… You're right: it doesn't have an end. But what you do not realise is that it doesn't have a beginning either.)

          • Seriously, d_gently, you can't possibly be this pedantic. You could at least be more competent about it.

            Craig's says:

            "Can anyone sincerely believe that such a hotel could exist in reality? These sorts of absurdities illustrate the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things."

            and

            "2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
            2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite."

            You can go read the whole "scholarly article" he's written about the KCA and notice how he uses the term. The point is, I used it to refer to a "physically existing infinity" –you're right. Its official usage in "mathematics or philosophy" is completely irrelevant to the point I made about how the 2 (concept of infinity [in an abstract sense] and actual infinity [as defined by me]) are profoundly different. I've already admitted to not knowing the precise definition, and was only using it in the way Craig did. So, nobody's "insist[ing" their definition is correct but you.

            d_gently "That's not what Hilbert's Paradox shows because Hilbert's Paradox is not physics "

            If Craig uses Hilbert's paradox to show "that an infinity cannot exist in reality—by showing first that is is a metaphysical impossibility", then that's "what Hilbert's paradox shows" –at least to him and those who are persuaded by his argument. What I find "utterly strange", however, is how you can whirl and twirl about with so many words yet wind up in the same place.

            d_gently: "Maybe you know something Hilbert didn't about the force of his thought experiment? Because—very much unlike you—in his opposition to and search for an infinity in reality he actually also checked with the physics of his time. If what you say is true, then Hilbert himself is so lacking in insight he failed to realise the potency of his own thought experiment. He's so stupid for bothering with his examples from physics and for failing to mention his Grand Hotel when he made his 'the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, it neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought' speech to the Westphalian Mathematical Society? He even tried to solve the continuum problem, the poor man!—when all he needed to do was tell them his Hotel story! "

            David Hilbert: "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite…is solely that of an idea…"

            LOL.

            d_gently: "Again, meaningless waffle that's an attempt or made to look like it understands the concepts involved in infinity. A one-to-one correspondence with anything in physical (metaphysical—but I'm going to drop this contention for now) reality? What would that anything be, pray tell? Forget first about lining up, what do we line up with the set of all natural numbers? Describe what this set—if it is that—of anything is."

            Set of any physical objects or series of events. The point is that they cannot form an actual infinite. How many times must we repeat this?

            d_gently: "[The line … I think you mean the numbering of that (any)thing—but this is your example so… which we take to be infinite would have no end… You're right: it doesn't have an end. But what you do not realise is that it doesn't have a beginning either.)"

            Actually, I didn't mean anything of that sort. But thank you for that fascinating and irrelevant bit of trivia.

  8. “1. You do know that Hilbert's Paradox is only a veridical paradox insofar as it pertains only to mathematics?“

    To Mathematics and Logic, yes—and so? It is mathematically and logically consistent and non-contradictory.

    “Yet what the KCA asks us to imagine is Hilbert's Hotel existing in reality.”

    No, Hilbert's Paradox can and does manage to do that all on its own. That is, if the Grand Hotel or any such infinite set exists in reality, this is the absurdity you would see or should expect. Nevertheless, there is nothing mathematically and logically inconsistent and contradictory with this state of things and, thanks to infinite set theory, we have the mathematical tools to help make sense of it.

    “No one has ever denied that Hilbert's Hotel is strongly counter-intuitive yet can be demonstrated to be true in mathematics.”

    Have we forgotten what Percier was asking for, which Miguel has acknowledged and, hence, why we are where we are now? To wit: Are there logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress of causes?

    “That is because mathematics (and set theory) have prohibitions set in place that forbid certain operations when working with mathematical infinites.”

    I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The nature of infinities 'set' those prohibitions in place, not set theory. This is how infinities behave or operate, and in set theory we have one logically consistent and non-contradictory way—a mathematical proof—of dealing with its nature.

    “The problem is that these prohibitions have no normative force in reality.”

    I've answered this lament with my statements above. And even if I had not, this is question-begging, and you of all people should know it.

    “In math, you can get around this contradictions simply by calling it 'undefined' but in the real world there is no such cop out.”

    'In the real word'? See my last comment. There are no contradictions. If you have them, lay them out for everyone to see. And maybe we can disprove set theory along the way.

    “That is because mathematics (and set theory) have prohibitions set in place that forbid certain operations when working with mathematical infinites. The problem is that these prohibitions have no normative force in reality.[…] In math, you can get around this contradictions simply by calling it 'undefined' but in the real world there is no such cop-out.”

    I can do you one better. I can show you something that is, or once was, mathematically absurd, yet can and has made the most precise predictions unmatched anywhere within science. See Renormalization.

    “The renormalization group emerges from the renormalization of the quantum field variables, which normally has to address the problem of infinities in a quantum field theory (although the RG exists independently of the infinities). This problem of systematically handling the infinities of quantum field theory to obtain finite physical quantities was solved for QED by Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, who received the 1965 Nobel prize for these contributions. They effectively devised the theory of mass and charge renormalization, in which the infinity in the momentum scale is cut-off by an ultra-large regulator, Λ (which could ultimately be taken to be infinite — infinities reflect the pileup of contributions from an infinity of degrees of freedom at infinitely high energy scales.). The dependence of physical quantities, such as the electric charge or electron mass, on the scale Λ is hidden, effectively swapped for the longer-distance scales at which the physical quantities are measured, and, as a result, all observable quantities end up being finite, instead, even for an infinite Λ. Gell-Mann and Low thus realized in these results that, while, infinitesimally, a tiny change in g is provided by the above RG equation given ψ(g), the self-similarity is expressed by the fact that ψ(g) depends explicitly only upon the parameter(s) of the theory, and not upon the scale μ. Consequently, the above renormalization group equation may be solved for (G and thus) g(μ).” – Wiki, http://goo.gl/UajqL

    That's infinity minus infinity for you.

    “What this shows is that an actual infinite though mathematically possible is impossible in reality. […] what we're trying to show you is that Hilbert's Paradox results in logical contradictions. And logical contradictions are, by definition, impossible in reality.”

    No. All you've been doing is saying Hilbert's Paradox leads to a logical contradiction. If you've got a stricter and more rigorous treatment of Hilbert's Hotel than mathematics or mathematical logic, then present it. Even William Lane Craig grants the logical possibility of actual infinites and the logical consistency of set theory. You don't, and maybe have something better, so come up with them.

    • “For example, it is impossible for some statement x to be both true and not true at the same time (e.g. it is impossible for the earth to both exist and not exist at the same time) as per the Law of Non-Contradiction (dialetheists notwithstanding). “

      See Quantum Superposition.

      “Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It holds that a physical system (say, an electron) exists in all its particular, theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but, when measured, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics).” – Wiki, http://goo.gl/iydty

      See under Experiments and Applications.

      “Successful experiments involving superpositions of relatively large (by the standards of quantum physics) objects have been performed. A "cat state" has been achieved with photons. A beryllium ion has been trapped in a superposed state. A double slit experiment has been performed with molecules as large as buckyballs. An experiment involving a superconducting quantum interference device ("SQUID") has been linked to theme of the thought experiment: "The superposition state does not correspond to a billion electrons flowing one way and a billion others flowing the other way. Superconducting electrons move en masse. All the superconducting electrons in the SQUID flow both ways around the loop at once when they are in the Schrödinger’s cat state.” A piezoelectric "tuning fork" has been constructed, which can be placed into a superposition of vibrating and non vibrating states. The resonator comprises about 10 trillion atoms. An experiment involving a flu virus has been proposed.” – Wiki, http://goo.gl/iydty

      “[N]either Miguel and I are begging the question here because we are not assuming that the universe is eternal but are showing that it is not eternal by proving that an infinite regress (of anything) is impossible in reality.” (Emphasis mine.)

      Proof belongs in Mathematics and Logic. Your “proof”, if there ever was one, derives from your misunderstanding, mistreating, and misusing Hilbert's Paradox. For example of proof, See Set Theory.

      “Many mathematical concepts can be defined precisely using only set theoretic concepts. For example, mathematical structures as diverse as graphs, manifolds, rings, and vector spaces can all be defined as sets satisfying various (axiomatic) properties. Equivalence and order relations are ubiquitous in mathematics, and the theory of mathematical relations can be described in set theory.

      Set theory is also a promising foundational system for much of mathematics. Since the publication of the first volume of Principia Mathematica, it has been claimed that most or even all mathematical theorems can be derived using an aptly designed set of axioms for set theory, augmented with many definitions, using first or second order logic. For example, properties of the natural and real numbers can be derived within set theory, as each number system can be identified with a set of equivalence classes under a suitable equivalence relation whose field is some infinite set.

      Set theory as a foundation for mathematical analysis, topology, abstract algebra, and discrete mathematics is likewise uncontroversial; mathematicians accept that (in principle) theorems in these areas can be derived from the relevant definitions and the axioms of set theory. Few full derivations of complex mathematical theorems from set theory have been formally verified, however, because such formal derivations are often much longer than the natural language proofs mathematicians commonly present. One verification project, Metamath, includes derivations of more than 10,000 theorems starting from the ZFC axioms and using first order logic.” – Wiki, http://goo.gl/IbOW

    • This is quickly turning into something called, "Proof by Verbosity", which is a style of presenting some purported proof by giving an argument loaded with jargon and appealing to obscure results (for example, you frequently say, "read this" or "read that").

      No matter. I have some experience in dealing with such arguments.

      First off, let's re-examine the argument from Hilbert's Paradox and examine how your arguments relate to the initial premises:

      P1: Hilbert's Paradox leads to logical contradictions when actualized in reality.
      P2: Logical contradictions are impossible in reality.
      C1: Hlbert's Paradox is impossible in reality.

      Objection 1: Hilbert's Paradox is a veridical paradox, i.e. a paradox that can be demonstrated to be true.

      I replied that the question we're asking is whether or not Hilbert's Paradox is possible in reality. I've conceded that Hilbert's Paradox is possible within the confines of Set Theory but the specific contention was that Hilbert's Paradox is impossible when actualized in physical reality. This is because the Paradox, when actualized, results in logical contradictions that are impossible in reality but are possible in Set Theory because there are prohibitions set in place to prevent it (like prohibiting the subtraction of identical infinites).

      You say that even William Lane Craig grants the logical possibility of actual infinites (and the logical consistency of set theory). This is irrelevant. It may be true or it may be not, it does not matter because the specific area in contention is whether such-and-such is possible in physical reality. Here, Craig has been clear in maintaining that actual infinites are impossible in reality (because of the contradictions). Interestingly, this also explodes your insinuation that my positions somehow differs with that of Craig's which is something of an impossibility given that he's my primary source on this.

      Finally, all of this occurs within the specific confines of logic and reason (thus furnishing us with logical reasons for rejecting infinite regresses 'in reality').

      You say, "this is how infinites operate" and that the nature of infinites, not Set Theory, is what led to these prohibitions. This is categorically not true. There's nothing about the nature of infinites that prohibit us from removing an infinite number of books from an infinite library (were such a library to exist as per your contention). All you would need would be an infinite amount of time or an infinite amount of people (which poses no problem as you maintain that actual infinites are possible in reality)

      Objection 2: .Renormalization furnishes us with a counter-example.

      No, it does not. Here once again, you are confusing mathematical possibilities with physical possibilities. In the first place, Renormalization was formed as a response to problematic infinite quantities in Quantum Mechanics. The computations under girding Renormalization all fall under the aegis of Set Theory (and it's attendant prohibitions) such that the equations aren't really counter-examples that are pertinent to both our contentions.

      No one here denies that infinites are possible under the aegis of Set Theory because there are prohibitions set in place to prevent said contradictions.

      Cheers. 🙂

      • Are you actually interested in what I have to say and in reading what I actually write, XIII? Or do you just want to do this on your own and speak on my behalf and make my arguments for me? The first time we hear from you you actually pre-empt and misstate my position. Stop with the strawmanning.

        Logical

        “Objection 1: Hilbert's Paradox is a veridical paradox, i.e. a paradox that can be demonstrated to be true.”

        This is just underhanded, XIII. Again: Pecier was asking for a logical reason for ruling out an infinite regress, which Miguel answered with a paradox, believing the paradox led to a logical contradiction.

        I raised ‘objection’ 1—the fact of the paradox being veridical—right after Miguel's retort: ‘See Hilbert’s Paradox.’ You are making it look like I made the ‘objection’ after you’ve made your Premise 1. This does nothing to my objections, per se—I trust the reading comprehension of this site’s vistors—but I do not appreciate when others make a (false) summary of them that’s out of chronological order.

        Ultimately, Hilbert’s Paradox is a veridical paradox and we agree on that, I hope. If you still can’t concede even this, your quarrel isn’t with me anymore but with the whole discipline of Mathematics and Logic. Show them a disproof of Set Theory—the math and logic of infinite sets— and this will be settled and Percier’s demand shall be fully met.

        Confines of Logic

        You keep referring to Set Theory as if it only flourishes outside of logic. Statements such as ‘only to mathematics’, ‘within the confines of Set Theory’, and others elsewhere, against ‘all [Craig’s impossibility assertion] of this occurs within the specific confines of logic and reason’, exposes your desire to denigrate the discipline. Set theory is both math and logic.

        “You say that even William Lane Craig grants the logical possibility of actual infinites (and the logical consistency of set theory). This is irrelevant.”

        Perhaps—if only that were all I said, and if one forgets what it was originally in response to. You said, and I even quoted you then: ‘what we're trying to show you is that Hilbert's Paradox results in logical contradictions.’ I repeat: logical contradictions. Set theory is math. Set theory is logic.

        Consistency with Craig

        Here’s you, XIII (emphases mine): “ […] the specific area in contention is whether such-and-such is possible in physical reality. Here, Craig has been clear in maintaining that actual infinites are impossible in reality (because of the contradictions). Interestingly, this also explodes your insinuation that my positions somehow differs with that of Craig's which is something of an impossibility given that he's my primary source on this.”; “ […] you are confusing mathematical possibilities with physical possibilities.”

        Here’s Craig: ”The fact that the argument is framed in terms of metaphysical modality also has an important epistemic consequence. Since metaphysical modality is so much woollier a notion than strict logical modality, there may not be the sort of clean, decisive markers of what is possible or impossible that consistency in first-order logic affords for strict logical modality. Arguments for metaphysical possibility or impossibility typically rely upon intuitions and conceivability arguments, which are obviously much less certain guides than strict logical consistency or inconsistency.

        I would like to hear your definition of physical impossibility and of metaphysical impossibility so that we may actually find out if they are consistent with Craig's own use of the terms as you claim.

        • Actualised in Reality

          How does one bring a logically and mathematically consistent result into reality?

          In science this is accomplished by performing empirical experiments, making predictions, testing those predictions, and sharing the results with a community, members of which are equally incentivised when they demonstrate results as wrong, just as much if not more when they confirm its correctness. We call mathematics 'actualised in reality', Physics.

          You, throughout this discussion, claim you have brought Hilbert's paradox and actual infinites into reality. But what do you have to show for it? Just another thought experiment that's directed to appeal to our intuitions.

          We're still pretty much in the abstract realm, just as we were with Hilbert’s Paradox and set theory, but now with more intuition and Craig-style mathematics—which is not reality—pumped in. When you ask us to imagine an infinite library, you didn't suddenly bring us into reality. Listen. Carefully. You ask us to imagine. And what is that you ask us to imagine? An infinite library.

          I know: it’s because of those pesky contradictions, isn’t it? I really, really want to see those contradictions spelled out, which you said were logical…but of course you’re free to change this since I’d like to see this discussion move forward—but before doing so, can you answer these questions first:

          1) The contradiction you’re about to show: does it take place in the metaphysical realm?

          2) And if so, are we able to bring in and make use of logic and mathematics in this metaphysical realm?

          3) And if we cannot, what do we use in its place?

          As per the Law of Non-Contradiction

          And whilst we wait for your answers, let's recall your example of a logical contradiction—one you say should never be possible in reality, the thrust of your second premise:

          “It is impossible for some statement x to be both true and not true at the same time (e.g. it is impossible for the earth to both exist and not exist at the same time)”

          How's this for impossible: 'a string is either vibrating or not vibrating, but never at the same time'?

          And yet a simultaneously vibrating and not vibrating string is what we have observed, recorded, measured, and verified. In fact, I gave 5 such examples, which you conveniently dismissed as 'some purported proof […] jargon and appealing to obscure results.’

          Let’s see whether this gets a mention on your next reply. We can worry about the implications later for your premise 2.

          Re: Renormalization is a cop out

          “In the first place, Renormalization was formed as a response to problematic infinite quantities in Quantum Mechanics.The computations under girding Renormalization all fall under the aegis of Set Theory (and it's attendant prohibitions) such that the equations aren't really counter-examples that are pertinent to both our contentions.” (Emphasis mine.)

          No, these are not mere equations. They are used as a computational and predictive tool in physics. These equations—which abide by and makes use of these ‘attendant prohibitions’ (whatever it is you mean by it)—made it possible for us to compute the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, agreeing with real world experimental results. To a precision of 1 part in a billion. The most accurate and precise agreement there is in all of physics.

          I did not offer these as an example of physical possibility, but as a real world counter to your attempt at smearing of mathematic's dealings with infinities.

          Not that I don't have examples of physically possible infinities. But first, this business of you showing the logical contradictions in Hilbert's Paradox.

          (question-begging, proof by verbosity, … )

          • Objection 1: Hilbert's Paradox as a Veridical Paradox

            Again, I said that Hilbert's Paradox is a veridical paradox only insofar as it occurs within the realm of Mathematics, not when actuated in reality. Fact is: you've never denied the point. You've tried to bury this under a host of jargons and definitions (perhaps hoping somebody would get confused) but the fact is that no-one has ever denied that Hilbert's Paradox is a veridical one.

            What's been pointed out (repeatedly) is that that is true only within the confines of Set Theory but that when you attempt to conceptualize actual infinites as physical possibilities, you start getting these logical contradictions.

            Objection 2: False Impressions

            You say that I am giving the impression that Set Theory only flourishes outside of logic. No, I am not. I am merely pointing out that what may be true in Set Theory may not also be true when in reality.

            That said, my contention has always been that Hilbert's Paradox is an example of the logical contradictions that would occur were actual infinites to be actuated in reality. I have always, always, maintained the qualifier, "in reality". This, however, does nothing to show that Miguel's original contention is wrong. Showing that actual infinites result in logical contradictions (when actuated) does, in fact, furnish you with logical reasons for rejecting an infinite regress of causes.

            Objection 3: Inconsistencies with Dr. Craig

            You say that my position is inconsistent with Dr. Craig's and you even pulled a citation (link please). What needs to be understood here is that Metaphysical Modality refers to modal properties (and any entailments therein) as they pertain to metaphysics. A logical possibility, on the other hand, is simply a statement has no contradictions located therein.

            For example (to use Kripke's famous one): Water is H20.

            While it is strictly logically possible that Water is not H20 (it violates no first-order rules of logic), it is nevertheless metaphysically impossible that water is not H20 because we know that water is always H20. Basically, logical possibilities refer only to possibilities as they relate to the first-order rules of logic while metaphysical possibilities examine possibilities as they relate to a broader metaphysical worldview.

            Now, I didn't use the term as I felt that using the term 'physical' possibilities would be easier to understand (thinking perhaps that metaphysics would be too technical). That and the word meta- (especially in conjunction with the word 'physics') stirs up negative connotations.

            Objection 4: Empirical Verifiability

            You ask, have I tested these conclusions? Isn't Hilbert's Paradox merely an appeal to intuition?

            Well, as an argument, this is just weak. To say that an argument is wrong simply because it has not and ,interestingly, cannot be empirically verified smacks of positivism (a worldview long since shown to be incoherent).

            In order to show some proposition x to be false, it is not necessary to test it empirically. It is sufficient to show that proposition x results in a logical contradiction.

            In fact, we have a word for this in logic: Reducto ad absurdum, which is 'a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence'.

            Interestingly, that is what the argument from Hilbert's Paradox is.

            Objection 5: Law of Non-Contradiction

            You say that quantum indeterminacy furnishes us with a counter-example to the Law of Non-Contradictions (LNC).

            First point, I did not, in fact, respond to this because this was a Red Herring in that the truth or falsity of the LNC does not, in fact, disprove the original argument. Any objection that I rejected this as being something too 'verbose' is purely imaginary.

            More importantly, the fact is that quantum indeterminacy and the contradictions that arise from it (as exhibited in Schrodinger's Cat) occur only on indeterministic interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (like the Copenhagen interpretation). There are interpretations of QM that are fully deterministic and these have yet to be ruled out (majority preferences notwithstanding).

            QM thus hardly furnishes us with a proven counter-example to the LNC.

            If this doesn't suffice, Aristotle himself foresaw this LNC and a harmonized interpretation of the LNC is readily available that is fully compatible with even indeterministic models of QM.

            Objection 6: Renormalization

            Lastly, you say that Renormalization equations are not merely equations but computational and predictive tools in physics. This is irrelevant. So long as the equations fall under the aegis of Set Theory (and it's attendant prohibitions), renormalization fails to serve as a proven counter-example to the original argument.

            Cheers. 😀

  9. The fallacy comes with presupposing nature's design as "intelligent": optimal, perfectly adapted to the environment, efficient, elegant. ID proponents are fixated on the survivors of natural selection. Aside from the laws of the natural world, however, there's no holds barred when it comes to the emergence and survival of species. Nature's design is chaotic, needing thousands and millions of years of refinement and harsh attrition to give rise to an organism.

    Got this idea from an essay of one of my favorite atheists and paleontologists, the departed Stephen Jay Gould, in "Darwin and Paley Meet the Invisible Hand."

    As I said, this third alternative is grossly inefficient and defies the logic of a clockwork universe, built by our standards and reasoning. No wonder it never entered Paley's head. The only thing going for this third view–the only reason for even raising such an unpleasant topic here–is that nature seems to work this way after all. Nobody ever called this method elegant, but the job gets done. We call this third view natural selection by survival of the fittest, or Darwinism. Darwin himself commented most forcefully upon the inefficient and basically unpleasant character of his process, writing to his friend Joseph Hooker in 1856: "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature!"

    Of course, there is much beauty even in chaos, and this knowledge does not lessen my curiosity and fascination about the natural world.

  10. I *already* told you I *do not* care about dboncan. I am saying that Natural Selection in no way explains the appearance of design of the universe and that Dawkins' counter-arguments against this is *bunk*.

    You've got to get this right.

    My position isn't really related to dboncan's other than in two points: 'Dawkins' and 'design'. It doesn't even have to necessarily be the same sort of 'design' as what I'm talking about is the cosmic fine-tuning.

    Reading comprehension is your friend.

  11. //But the very same designer has equally evidently strained every nerve to design a gazelle that is superbly equipped to escape from those very same cheetahs. For heaven’s sake, whose side is the designer on? Does the designer’s right hand not know what his left hand is doing? Is he a sadist who enjoys the spectator sport and is forever upping the ante on both sides to increase the thrill of the chase?//

    Now I imagine God as some sort of Yuri Orlov type.

  12. I find the title of this article very very funny. It questions the design of the universe and yet it does not question what the role intelligent design plays in the manufacturing of the camera or the processing of of the photo. The universe has more complexity in it than the camera or the photograph and yet the question arises if it is designed intelligently.

      • I guess when one has to apply a rigorous system of logic into what was once considered to be common sense, there is something wrong at the core. happy new year.

      • the point was to show how the principle of causality has never been answered. i admit that for those who do not see any design in the universe, in spite of their acceptance of a LAw of nature, will never see anything in nature to be intelligently designed. so indeed the argument has to assume that people are honest enough to see design in nature. Even Dawkins admits that there is at least seeming design in nature.

        • //Even Dawkins admits that there is at least seeming design in nature.//
          citations please.

          from the looks of it Dick. even when there are empirical studies visible, repeatable and verifiable, there are still those who will never see the evidence: we call those deluded nutjobs.

          • To be fair, I do remember Dawkins saying that biology can seem to look designed. That's why people are so convinced of creationist narratives (even the Catholic version of guided evolution). But, obviously, Mr. Boncan here misrepresented Dawkins.

            "The argument from improbability states that complex things could not have come about by chance. But many people define 'come about by chance' as a synonym for 'come about in the absence of deliberate design'. Not surprisingly, therefore, they think improbability is evidence of design. Darwinian natural selection shows how wrong this is with respect to biological improbability. And although Darwinism may not be directly relevant to the inanimate world – cosmology, for example – it raises our consciousness in areas outside its original territory of biology.

            A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing complexity. Before Darwin, philosophers such as Hume understood that the improbability of life did not mean it had to be designed, but they couldn't imagine the alternative. After Darwin, we all should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design. The illusion of design is a trap that has caught us before, and Darwin should have immunized us by raising our consciousness. Would that he had succeeded with all of us." — The God Delusion, Chapter 4 — "Why there almost certainly is no God"

          • The apparent design is because of Natural Selection. A good starting point would be the book by Dennet, Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

            Either dboncan didnt read Dawkins or didn't understand his writings.

          • Or maybe it is because that Dawkins is a hack. Anyway, how on earth does Natural Selection lead to an appearance of design?

          • 1. I don't care about dboncan.
            2. My point is that Natural Selection in no way explains the appearance of design, most clearly evident in the cosmic fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

          • Natural Selection is about biology, not about cosmic fine tuning. Now it shows who is the hack here. Seems you are in the same boat as dboncan. Make sure you understand first what you are trying to discredit.

          • now now, just because someone does not subscribe to dawkins does not mean he is a fundy. irreligion is viewed through many angles.

            you got the likes of
            Harris vs. Dawkins (on morality)
            Berlinski vs. Hitchens (on philosophy NOT Intelligent Design)

          • Not me who said somebody is a fundie, dude. I am saying NS is about biological evolution and does not have in its scope

            "design, most clearly evident in the cosmic fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life"

            which is religion talk, not science.

          • //I don't care about dboncan. //
            neither do i, as far as i care he's a source of entertainment.

            // My point is that Natural Selection in no way explains the appearance of design, most clearly evident in the cosmic fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.//

            thats the point of the book. creationists see what they want to see and rely on their imagination to come to a conclusion.

            seeming desing = designed.

            Neil Degrasse Tyson explains the human body, the world etc. could not be designed intelligently. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ

          • That's why I did not appeal to the appearance of design of the human body.

            For the record: I believe in evolution.

            Now, what I'm trying to say here is that there is no comparably good explanation for the appearance of design as regards to the cosmic fine-tuning (cosmology) as exists in evolution (biology). Dawkins admits as much in his book, 'the God Delusion'. To wit:

            "6. We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology."
            – Dawkins, The God Delusion,158.

            Now, you do point out that there is a jump from something's seeming designed to it actually being designed. For example, there might be other, more plausible explanations other than design that could count for that appearance. For example, chance.

            That is true (that there are other explanations) and the task of the critical thinker is to weigh competing arguments from both sides in order to discern the truth. Is the fine-tuning due to chance, nature or design? You decide.

          • still working on the Cambridge paper. differing views is the spice of life!

            //That is true (that there are other explanations) and the task of the critical thinker is to weigh competing arguments from both sides in order to discern the truth. Is the fine-tuning due to chance, nature or design? You decide.//

            Oh i agree wholeheartedly. Read, learn and understand before making an informed decision. i would not be making my jump to agnosticism without it.

            i just keep an open mind until technology and discoveries finally reveal more than what we currently have.

            just for the record i am no Dawkins-fanboy. i find fun in trashing creationist quote-miners. and i dont see design, i see the beauty of adaptation, mutation then finally evolution.

          • _XIII_, what's your take on both weak and strong anthropic principles, then? Or, more to the point, on the Copernican principle as applied to cosmology and meta-cosmology? Note that I don't even have to invoke the hidden dimensions landscape hypothesis.

            And isn't claiming that the fundamental constants of the universe are fine-tuned to support life a claim too strong to be thrown out in such a cavalier way? Have we observed other universes and compared them to ours for us to be able to conclude that our set of fundamental constants are for the maximization of life? Do we know enough about the effects of changing the values of these constants to so confidently declare that all other sets are inferior in supporting life or even hostile to life? Remember, optimization is only well defined when it is in the context of a comparison of values. If the universe is optimized to support life, what is our source of comparison, thought experiments and hypothetical tweaking of fundamental constants?

          • 1. I'm not familiar how the strong anthropic principle relates to the Teleological Argument so I can't comment. That said, I don't find the weak anthropic principle convincing as an argument at all. To wit:

            "As Leslie points out, if 50 sharpshooters all miss me, the response “if they had not missed me I would not be here to consider the fact” is inadequate. Instead, I would naturally conclude that there was some reason why they all missed, such as that they never really intended to kill me."
            (Collins 2009)

            Why?

            "Because, conditioned on background information . . . that does not include my continued existence – such as the background information of a third-party observer watching the execution – my continued existence would be very improbable under the hypothesis that they intended to kill me, but not improbable under the hypothesis that they did not intend to kill me."
            (ibid)

            What Collins does here is formalize Leslie' intuitions as regards to his counter-example to the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP).

            Collins proposes that in response to the WAP, we simply need to reformulate the argument as follows: that our existence as 'embodied moral agents' is extremely unlikely under Naturalism but not under theism (which goes on to disconfirm naturalism vis-a-vis theism).

            I can't explain it very well due to space constraints but Leslie's counter-example should be plenty clear enough to at least get the point across.

            2. We don't need to compare our universe with other universes in order to discern whether our universe is fine-tuned for life. For example, gravity. Very simply, if gravity were stronger, we wouldn't exist as even a planet only 40ft in diameter would exert a gravitational pull 1000 times that of Earth (if gravity were to, say, be 1 billion times stronger).

            Now, we don't need to compare that with other universes in order to discern that gravity so defined is not life-permitting. We know that the Laws of Physics in our universe would entail that.

          • So Dawkins is a hack. What are you then? Do you have a thesis you could publish to refute it? Don't worry, we know who the real hack is. 🙂

          • I'd take a hack of a deranged loon anytime (heinze writes for jack chick).

            In fairness to XIII i did fall asleep reading the god delusion. too much science can make any read tedious.

            though select chapters are definitely worth reading.
            like: NOMA, the great prayer experiment and primitive man's overactive imagination

          • If you want an actually credible work, might I suggest the Cambridge Companion to Atheism? At least there, you don't get such glaring fallacies like a non-sequitur, of all things.

          • Oh, come off it.

            Just because Dawkins writes books doesn't mean that his ideas are sacrosanct or that he's never wrong. The reason I dismiss Dawkins as a hack is because his arguments (that touch on philosophy) are *dubious*. You don't have to take my word for it. Other (much more credible) atheists have also expressed the same sentiments.

    • //It questions the design of the universe and yet it does not question what the role intelligent design plays in the manufacturing of the camera or the processing of of the photo. //

      We know that the camera is manufactured by one of the big electronics companies out there. It's just a matter of checking its label, the manual, or the warranty. Or failing that, tracking down the legal patents a company has to the technology implemented in the gadget.

      And if the bloody thing happens to break down after your first few shots, you can bet your ass it's a Sony. XD (Sorry – still LOL'ing at the VITA launch incident).

      We KNOW that there the creator of the camera is because of the massive amount of empirical evidence proving his/her existence.

      • and should you get out of your narrow point of view and go back in time as to who made that camera and who made that person who made that camera… etc… you end up with what? Nothing?So nothing created something… that sound a bit like hocus-pocus to me.

        • I know I’m going to regret this, but I really do want to believe that you are simply trying to understand the world as best as possible.

          Here’s why an ex nihilo universe is highly plausible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

          I understand that it’s really counter-intuitive. It requires some familiarity with quantum physics.

          But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the watchmaker argument was the least bit convincing to people who took up high school biology. It still only supports the deist non-interventionist God. Not the God of your choice.

          (Also, I really can’t help but point out the irony in you being suspicious of “hocus-pocus.”)

          P.S. Adding God to the top of the causality chain only begs the question. Who made God? If no one made God, then why can’t it be that no one made the universe?

          • The problem with that version of creation ex nihilo is that it shows Krauss's complete ignorance of philosophy. Krauss's "nothing" is a sea of quantum energy still governed by physical laws. That's hardly a "nothing" in a strict metaphysical sense. Krauss even admitted this much during his debate with Craig.

            And to object with a "who made God?" is to seriously miss the point because it assumes the premiss the argument rests on is 'everything has a cause'.

            Not quite.

            The premiss the whole argument actually rests on is the one for which we have at least prima facie evidence for, which is: everything that *begins to exist* has a cause, or, everything that's contingent has a cause.

            God isn't arbitrarily defined as an uncaused entity, actually. The aim of the whole argument, in it's complete form, and not the form it takes on infidel websites, is to show that there must be a cause of everything which could not in principle be caused because it's not the sort of thing that in principle can be said to have had a cause.

            Ofcourse, the reasons for the above, in all their complexity, won't be easy to show here –if I even attempted to do so, I'd be doing an injustice to philosophers like al-Ghazali, Aquinas, Leibniz, or Craig– but It nevertheless shows why an objection like the one made above is not a serious objection to the cosmological argument.

            Just sayin.

          • Yes, that is true because, according to quantum physics, even empty space has stuff due to the uncertainty principle. Actually, to suppose a “beginning” for the universe misunderstands what time is and how it “began” itself at the big bang. All notions of causality fly out the window. Asking what came before the big bang is like asking what’s north of north or what is outside space. It is effectively meaningless. Krauss’ “nothing” is simply a something that is not the universe we have today—an environment from which a universe such as ours, with its dimensions, particle energies, and entropies, can spring forth. So, on that we can agree.

            A god is an arbitrary starting point because it is a failure of the imagination. It asserts that the universe could not bring itself to being, or could not have existed forever. Huge assumptions that are not even argued for with any evidence whatsoever. It assumes that there must be nothing rather than something. Why shouldn’t we ask, rather, why there could even be nothing? Why is nothingness the default? It prioritizes our own cognitive biases over the actual fact of the matter: that the universe is much stranger than we can ever intuitively understand. And why would we be able to intuitively understand the nature of cosmos? Our brains never had the evolutionary pressure to understand how light can be both a particle and a wave, how electrons are everywhere in an area but only as a function of a probability equation, how light takes every possible path from point A to point B.

            It is outside our realm of experience to know just what kinds of things “start” something like the universe, which is not like just anything else that we know, because it itself is everything that there could be. We have never seen anything like a universe, where time is inextricable from space, begin. So, to suggest that since everything we know has a cause, then the universe itself must have a cause rests on a simple failure of the imagination. It’s an argument from incredulity.

            At the very very least, the position must remain that we do not know how or why the universe began. And definitely, to add a sentient intelligent being as the solution to the causality chain is no answer at all. (It itself rests on even more assumptions, such as that things such as intelligence and sentience can exist without material such neurons or electrical charges.)

            To summarize, the god argument rests on several tenuous assumptions:

            – That there is something that is “before” time. (That is, there was a time, t = –1s.)
            – That the universe or the laws of nature did not always exist.
            – That the universe could not bring itself into being from the pre-existing laws of nature.
            – That there must always be nothing instead of something.
            – That a god is free from all the existential responsibilities of causality that are unfairly lumped on the universe.
            – That the beginning of the universe operated on our intuitions of cause and effect.
            – That the universe must have a cause.
            – That sentient intelligent gods with thoughts, wills, and desires can exist without material such as neurons or electrical impulses.

            And these are just off the top of my head.

            And, again, this is just the deist argument. Theists have all their work ahead of them even if we allow them all these assumptions.

          • The "what's north of the north pole' objection has become an increasingly popular objection to the cosmological argument. But, ironically, it has already been dispensed with centuries ago.

            Aristotle wasn't even interested in proving God's existence when he made his argument from change where a potential can only be actualized by something that's already been actualized until a first cause that's pure actuality would be inescapable as a starting point.

            Aquinas and the old scholastics even assumed that the universe was eternal.

            Ofcourse, these versions were made centuries before Einstein developed his theory that gave us an idea of the reality of time.

            But, so what? the objection will only hold if the argument claims God created the universe *before* time. Indeed, the word 'before' shows a temporal relation, so it really wouldn't make sense to say "before time". But God need not be chronologically prior to the act of creating. Intention and action can happen simultaneously; you can be preforming the act of hanging from a tree branch while simultaneously having the intention of not falling. So, the idea that God created the universe while not being chronologically prior to it isn't at all incoherent. And it sure is more coherent than an infinite regress.

            Krauss unruefully tried to circumvent this by saying that mathematicians do in fact deal with infinities, yet this only succeeds in further demonstrating the illogic of his position because an actual infinity is different from the concept of infinity.

            God isn't an "arbitrary starting point" because the cosmological argument is a strict metaphysical demonstration that precludes any scientific considerations. They start with a priori generalizations that science itself must assume to be true for it to work –like, for instance, that there's an empirical world at all, or that our senses can be trusted. Like I said previously, without getting into the details of the argument, it's aim is to show that there must be a cause of everything which could not in principle be caused because it’s not the sort of thing that in principle can be said to have had a cause.

            Nothing is arbitrarily posited. Everything proceeds from premises that science can scarcely deny without denying its own evidential presuppositions.

            And, if everything proves sound, then, yes, theists will still have alot of work ahead of them in demonstrating the truth of their views. But then it would be a debate between different strands of theism, and not whether theism or atheism were true.

          • " So, the idea that God created the universe while not being chronologically prior to it isn't at all incoherent. " And you can't replace "God" here with the "laws of physics" why?

            "Krauss unruefully tried to circumvent this by saying that mathematicians do in fact deal with infinities, yet this only succeeds in further demonstrating the illogic of his position because an actual infinity is different from the concept of infinity."

            Completely beside the point.

            "They start with a priori generalizations that science itself must assume to be true for it to work –like, for instance, that there's an empirical world at all, or that our senses can be trusted."

            The difference being science actually admits to its limits. If, say, that empiricism were to fail to produce an understandable and coherent picture of our nature, then science must revise itself. That the world is not empirically comprehensible would have implications on science. Suppose that evidence of the supernatural actually rears its fabled head, then science must incorporate this into itself. If it is unable to study the supernatural, then, at the very least, study the how the supernatural interacts with the natural.

            But, this is all to fall prey to your attempts to sidetrack the conversation.

            "God isn't an "arbitrary starting point" because the cosmological argument is a strict metaphysical demonstration that precludes any scientific considerations."

            Then it is consigned to meaninglessness. You could very well say the same thing about invisible snow faeries with orange capris.

            "Like I said previously, without getting into the details of the argument, it's aim is to show that there must be a cause of everything which could not in principle be caused because it’s not the sort of thing that in principle can be said to have had a cause. Nothing is arbitrarily posited. "

            Yes, "God" is the arbitrary assertion. Why can't the universe or the laws of physics not be the uncaused cause?

            I issue the challenge again, why should there be nothing instead of something?

            The advantage of starting with the universe or the laws of physics is you cut off an unnecessary element that explains nothing. We know for a fact that the universe exists (to the extent that the word "fact" retains any meaning). Nobody knows for a fact whether God, a god, or gods exist. Until proven otherwise, I would choose the more parsimonious theory. Especially in the face of the assumption you conveniently ignored: that sentience can exist without matter.

            For the sake of convenience, I will post again the list of assumptions that the god hypothesis makes.

            – That there is something that is "before" time. (That is, there was a time, t = –1s.) [To be charitable, I'll let you off the hook for this one, but I do not think you understand the implications of this. No "before" time would mean that the laws of nature have always existed in some form without needing gods.]

            All the rest, you did not back up at all.
            – That the universe or the laws of nature did not always exist.
            – That the universe could not bring itself into being from the pre-existing laws of nature.
            – That there must always be nothing instead of something.
            – That a god is free from all the existential responsibilities of causality that are unfairly lumped on the universe.
            – That the beginning of the universe operated on our intuitions of cause and effect.
            – That the universe must have a cause.
            – That sentient intelligent gods with thoughts, wills, and desires can exist without material such as neurons or electrical impulses.

          • You draw your conclusions from begging the question that naturalism is true. You're beholden to the idea that propositions for which we cannot have empirical evidence for are meaningless, but that's a snake that bites itself in the tail because you cannot prove, through empirical evidence, that only propositions we can have empirical evidence for are meaningful. Much of modern philosophy has already ruled out verificationism as a philosophical dead-end precisely because it is self-refuting.

            The reason why "the universe or the laws of physics" cannot be it's own prime-mover is because that's the very thing that is ruled out by the cosmological argument –which, again, proceeds from premises that even science cannot dismiss without undermining itself. If you think we should do so, then at least some argument as to why we must distrust our modal intuitions is in order.

            Let's take one of its variations; aristotle's 'act and potency (although Craig's Kalam is the most honed in my opinion): 'Only what is actualized can have the potential to actualize, therefore, an agent that's pure actuality must have been the starting point'. (this is, ofcourse a very rough summation). Saying the universe is it's own prime-mover is essentially saying that the universe actualized itself, which violates the whole concept of act and potency, which claims, not through arbitrary armchair-meandering, but through rigorous philosophical and metaphysical demonstration that that which has potency cannot actualize itself. It must be actualized by something else.

            That's why you cannot just assert that the universe can be its own prime-mover without a philosophical argument that's sound. Without the ability to infer that conclusion from demonstrably sound premises, you might as well assert anything you wish in its place.

            So, I'm not "undercutting" anything that's already necessarily ruled out by the argument. You can, however, refute the argument, or one of its premises. I would be glad to hear some such.

            And on the "noth of north pole" thing, what I was saying is that it's not incoherent for God to create the universe and do so outside of time (not before time). To create would entail an *intention* to do so. And it doesn't put God
            chronologically prior to the act of creating –which would mean he was *before time*– because he could have intended to create while simultaneously doing so, as my previous example shows. I am not suggesting that God existed before time. I'm suggesting God exists outside of time. I'm familiar with that contention, and the only seeming contradiction is the intent and the act, because both are seen to have temporal relations, which isn't necessarily the case.

            On your notion that only complex systems can be sentient, this isn't as obvious as you seem to think. The mind-body problem, and mental states like intentionality suggest otherwise. But this is a completely different subject. And it's a digression that isn't worth having as it will lead us away from the heart of our discussion. However, we can get to this, if you like.As for your "list of assumptions", I'm afraid I'm going to have to overlook it for now. But I think I've been able to answer the more substantive part of your case.

          • I simply subscribe to naturalism because there are no good reasons to believe that the supernatural exists. I also believe that an objective reality exists (that is, I do not think that we are in a computer simulation). The world would be very different if the supernatural were to be a real thing. (Fields such as medicine would cease to be a coherent field of knowledge if prayers, for example, were to disrupt the lawful succession of events of disease progression.) I admit that science has values of empiricism built into it, and ultimately, the only reason why we use such values is because they work. (A reason why I do not think that there is a true distinction between facts and values, but that’s a different thing altogether.) I acknowledge the limits of reason, in that you cannot use logic to prove logic and no amount of evidence can be used to support the idea that using evidence is a good idea. But here’s the thing, the same limits apply to you. Unless you simply want to assert narratives about this god of yours and how you simply take this assumption without making a case for it using evidence because you do not value evidence, reason, or logic, then our conversation is at an impasse. I cannot reason with you at all. Though, I am skeptical that you would be as dismissive of empiricism if someone were to say to you that your car is being towed.

            So, if you continue to assert simply that the cosmological argument says that the universe cannot bring itself into being because that’s what the cosmological argument means (“The reason why “the universe or the laws of physics” cannot be it’s own prime-mover is because that’s the very thing that is ruled out by the cosmological argument –which, again, proceeds from premises that even science cannot dismiss without undermining itself.”) then I simply cannot convince you of anything and that’s alright, because this thread has been exceedingly interesting.

            “Saying the universe is it’s own prime-mover is essentially saying that the universe actualized itself, which violates the whole concept of act and potency, which claims, not through arbitrary armchair-meandering, but through rigorous philosophical and metaphysical demonstration that that which has potency cannot actualize itself.”

            I can see now that it takes a lot of learning, such as what you clearly have, to be so very wrong. Such babbling as this is exactly what physicists like as Hawking complain about regarding philosophy. It has failed to keep up with science and it is drowning in its own ejaculate. “Rigorous philosophical and metaphysical demonstration” indeed. I am almost tempted to believe that this is a Sokal-esque hoax.

            “That’s why you cannot just assert that the universe can be its own prime-mover without a philosophical argument that’s sound.”

            “Without the ability to infer that conclusion from demonstrably sound premises, you might as well assert anything you wish in its place. ”

            I completely agree, which is why I’m baffled that you seem to have impressed even yourself. I would hope that it is not sufficient that a system of knowledge be self-consistent to be believable for you. It would need to reflect objective reality. I’m afraid that this might be too much to hope for.

            “I’m suggesting God exists outside of time. ”

            I know, which is why I stopped pressing the point. The fiction of intention and tree branches remains unimpressive, however.

            “But I think I’ve been able to answer the more substantive part of your case.”

            I think you have, in that I think you have refuted my assumption that people are generally reasonable and amenable to change their mind using evidence.

            You may very well be completely right, Miguel, on every single one of your claims. But I could also be right when I say that blue and yellow polkadot-speckled narwhals the size of battleships emerged from the tails of rhinoceroses during lunar eclipses in the Devonian era. This is because narwhals achieve their potential quantum systematics as a result of temporal displacement topologies. Neither of these claims make testable predictions and neither will ever be disproved. Without a single drop of evidence for your case, (all the while abstracting Aristotelian concepts) you would only be right coincidentally. I’d sooner choose to admit that I do not know how the universe came to be than bask in glibness masquerading as a plausible refutation of a thoroughly scientific claim: that the universe brought itself into being.

          • You talk as if empiricism owns logic so that denying the former entails denying the latter. That's not true. Logic is precisely what I'm using –and what others have used– to show that empiricism, or verificationism, is false. You then assume that when one denies empiricism one is committed to the belief that emprirical evidence doesn't matter. Again, that's not true. Empirical evidence does matter, but It's not all that matters, and that's where the "logic" points to.

            The problem with all of this isn’t that it’s an absolutely bizarre response, though of course it is, but rather that it seems to be a very obvious attempt at creating a strawman just to be able to attack something.

            Notice that I never "continue[d] to assert simply that the cosmological argument says that the universe cannot bring itself into being because that's what the cosmological argument means" without having expended a good effort to show why that is precisely the case. You accuse me as if I merely asserted it. I did not. But I understand that it will be easier for you to pretend that I did.

            And to say that all that is just "babbling" seems to me a very thin excuse to avoid having to educate oneself in the subject –as indeed one should if he's to be taken seriously.

            The you bandy about the implication that I'm inconsiderate of your "evidence", which you say should suffice to convince a reasonable mind. But where, pray tell, is it?

            As for your puerile analogy of "blue and yellow polkadot-speckled narwhals the size of battleships", I'll take it seriously once you show how it can have the same explanatory power a God hypothesis can have while still having some semblance of being non adhoc. Your equation of this babyish mockery to the ideas of Aristotle, and the old scholastics is telling of your ignorance of philosophy, and it manifests a deep flaw in the way you think. You think philosophy is all "babble". The problem is, the God question is a philosophical one.

          • "You then assume that when one denies empiricism one is committed to the belief that emprirical evidence doesn't matter. Again, that's not true. Empirical evidence does matter, but It's not all that matters, and that's where the "logic" points to."

            I don't see anywhere where I claimed this. In fact, I even conceded to the limitations of empiricism.

            "Notice that I never "continue[d] to assert simply that the cosmological argument says that the universe cannot bring itself into being because that's what the cosmological argument means" without having expended a good effort to show why that is precisely the case. "

            Here is exactly where you did this: "The reason why "the universe or the laws of physics" cannot be it's own prime-mover is because that's the very thing that is ruled out by the cosmological argument –which, again, proceeds from premises that even science cannot dismiss without undermining itself." Premises, I might add, that you never presented.

            "And to say that all that is just "babbling" seems to me a very thin excuse to avoid having to educate oneself in the subject –as indeed one should if he's to be taken seriously. "

            I'm sorry if all this talk of potency and whatnot strikes me as nonsense. "Saying the universe is it's own prime-mover is essentially saying that the universe actualized itself, which violates the whole concept of act and potency, which claims, not through arbitrary armchair-meandering, but through rigorous philosophical and metaphysical demonstration that that which has potency cannot actualize itself."

            "You think philosophy is all "babble"."

            I find nowhere in did I say that all philosophy is babble. Maybe yours is, but certainly not all.

            "The problem is, the God question is a philosophical one."

            I must insist that it is scientific as the god hypothesis (at least, the theist variant) makes testable predictions. It makes predictions about the nature of medicine, biology, and physics. The deist variant is one of a failure of imagination, still.

            "The you bandy about the implication that I'm inconsiderate of your "evidence", which you say should suffice to convince a reasonable mind."

            On the contrary, I assert that you have no evidence for your claims, not that I particularly have evidence for mine. You may have noticed that I remain in the position that "I do not know how the universe came to be than bask in glibness masquerading as a plausible refutation of a thoroughly scientific claim: that the universe brought itself into being." I avoid any claims to know how the universe began, save that the god hypothesis is unimpressive at best and useless at worst.

            "I'll take it seriously once you show how it can have the same explanatory power a God hypothesis can have while still having some semblance of being non adhoc. "

            And what is the power of the god hypothesis? That something intelligent and sentient must have created the universe? That requires even more explaining. It's much simpler to presume that the universe (or its prerequisites that have been proposed by Krauss, Penrose, and Hawking) must have always been here in some form. No need to posit additional attributes to the first cause such as intelligence or sentience.

            My challenge remains unsatisfied: why should there be nothing rather than something?

          • Garrick,

            I'm not saying their should be nothing rather than something, I'm saying there should be a prime-mover, or an uncaused cause, and that the cosmological argument rules out the universe itself, or whatever physical laws, as a candidate.

            I'm also saying that the cosmological argument doesn't posit a God out of convenience. It's the opposite. Aristotle, who's act and potency argument was where most of the variations of the CA had been derived, wasn't even meant to show the existence of a God. But that's where it led to. The cosmological argument leads to theism, it doesn't start from it.

            The God question is a purely philosophical one, because the scientific method needs to presuppose naturalism to work. You cannot know anything about the immaterial if you're employing a method that already presupposes it does not exist. You're cutting the branch that holds you and thinking yourself clever by doing so.

            I won't go to back to each of your points. We both won't be persuading the other. But that's just as well, because we both don't seek to.

            Thanks for this exchange. I apologize if I was being a bit too polemical in my previous posts.

            Happy new year to you.

          • "… the cosmological argument rules out the universe itself, or whatever physical laws, as a candidate."

            Why?

            "You cannot know anything about the immaterial if you're employing a method that already presupposes it does not exist."

            I don't immediately dismiss the supernatural on principle. The world would look vastly different, however, if the supernatural existed.

            "Thanks for this exchange. I apologize if I was being a bit too polemical in my previous posts. Happy new year to you."

            To be quite honest, this was very refreshing, and as I said before, this was exceedingly interesting. You might have noticed the level of discourse that's usually here.

            Happy new year!

          • Just to answer your last question so you don't lose sleep over it. (I kid.) :

            The cosmological argument rules out the universe or whatever physical laws as a candidate because they are, by their nature, contingent.

            I pretty much studied the evolution of the cosmological argument from Aristotle to the medieval scholastics to Aquinas and Leibniz, and then finally to the modern version that's being popularized by Dr. Craig.

            Anyway, I'm sure we'll be debating again. I check this blog often. I usually butt heads with innerminds. He's a nice chap.

            Thanks again.

          • I agree that the universe as it is currently known to science is contingent.

            Here are a few things that bother me about the CA, however:

            (1) Are there logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress of causes?

            (2) Human science seems, at least to me, to be less than halfway toward achieving a final theory. Who is to disregard the possibility that in the final theory (considering that such exists), the Universe (both in the philosophical and physical sense) will turn out to have a logically necessary existence so that it will not require an uncaused cause? Remember, although science rests on the assumptions of naturalism, some versions of the final theory hope to discovery a (natural) link between a priori truths and the ultimate nature of reality. Aren't we prematurely anticipating the form that this final theory will take by assuming that only a supernatural entity can provide the link between being and non-being?

            (3) This is a corollary of the previous item: Is it valid to assume that all natural facts must be contingent facts? Is it not possible to someday discover a fact that is both natural (not supernatural) and necessary (not contingent)?

            (4) Still a corollary of (2): What are the reasons for supposing that the totality of nature (what one might call the Universe) is not its own uncaused cause? Who are we to deny once and for all the possibility that several causal chains back from the Big Bang is an uncaused cause that is not supernatural?

            (5) Should we still hold on to Kant's strict dichotomy between a priori truths and a posteriori truths? Have not Kripke and others thrown serious doubts on the said dichotomy?

            (6) Are all necessary facts a priori? Are there logical reason for denying the existence of necessary a posteriori facts? (Note: I am asking for logical and not practical reasons. The reason must have nothing to do with execution, only with logical possibility.)

            (7) Does causality have meaning outside of time? That is, is it meaningful to assert that the cause of the Universe's existence is outside of time?

            Given the above questions, I think the CA has a lot of gaping holes its supporters are happy to skirt around.

            I am aware that the above questions are double-edged swords. I am not at all cozy with my atheism and naturalism. But given the current state of scientific knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality, I don't think anyone has the right to be cozy with their metaphysical beliefs.

            Also note that the above challenges cannot be done away with by saying that the CA rests on premises that are prior to science, because it is this very premise that is being put under question. Who are we to say that science, even in its final form, will remain subsequent to logic?

          • I only have to answer your first question to undermine everything you said.

            Yes. There are logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress. See Hilbert's Paradox.

            on your 7th question, it certainly isn't meaningless to say that something caused the universe and did so outside of (our) time. If it were meaningless, then we can forget about string theory, oscillating universe theories and other such.

            And, you may not know this, but it's ridiculous to imply that science may undermine logic –which is what you did in the last sentence of your response– because logic is an important component of science. If divorced, it will make the whole project useless.

          • PD: '(1) Are there logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress of causes?'

            M: 'I only have to answer your first question to undermine everything you said. Yes. There are logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress. See Hilbert's Paradox.'

            DG: See Veridical Paradox.

          • And you can demonstrate that, yes? Can you demonstrate that Hilbert's Paradox is, in fact, false? If you say that the fact that this universe exists proves that Hilbert's Paradox is wrong, that's begging the question: You are assuming that the universe is eternal.

          • M: "Yes. There are logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress. See Hilbert's Paradox."

            Hilbert's Paradox:

            'is a mathematical veridical paradox (a non-contradictory speculation that is strongly counter-intuitive) about infinite sets presented by German mathematician David Hilbert. …

            These cases demonstrate the 'paradox', by which we mean not that it is contradictory, but rather that a counter-intuitive result is provably true: The situations "there is a guest to every room" and "no more guests can be accommodated" are not equivalent when there are infinitely many rooms.' – Wikipedia, http://goo.gl/44pA6

            A NON-CONTRADICTORY speculation that is strongly counter-intuitive.

            DG: See Veridical Paradox:

            “The logician Willard V. O. Quine distinguishes Falsidical Paradoxes, which are seemingly valid, logical demonstrations of absurdities, from Veridical Paradoxes, such as the birthday paradox, which are seeming absurdities that are nevertheless true.”

            Seeming absurdities that are nevertheless true.

            Ergo Set Theory.

            XIII: "And you can demonstrate that, yes? Can you demonstrate that Hilbert's Paradox is, in fact, false? If you say that the fact that this universe exists proves that Hilbert's Paradox is wrong, that's begging the question: You are assuming that the universe is eternal. "

            Or I can do you one better and not only 'demonstrate' it, but prove it—the 'logical' part in Pecier's asking for logical reasons.

            Better still, I can—well, not me personally, but Georg Cantor—prove it as TRUE.

            So I repeat myself: See Veridical Paradox. See Set Theory.

            Maybe Miguel meant See William Lane Craig's use [or misuse] of Hilbert's Paradox, and maybe mistook 'logical' for 'intuitional'.

            'At the turn of the century, in Germany, the Russian-born mathematician Georg Cantor applied the tools of mathematical rigor and logical deduction to questions about infinity in search of satisfactory answers. His conclusions are paradoxical to our everyday experience, yet they are mathematically sound. The world of our everyday experience is finite. We can't exactly say where the boundary line is, but beyond the finite, in the realm of the transfinite, things are different.'

            – Infinity is for Children—and Mathematicians!, http://goo.gl/X33O7

          • XIII: (i) 'If you say that the fact that this universe exists proves that Hilbert's Paradox is wrong, that's begging the question: You are assuming that the universe is eternal.'

            Who's saying what, really? I mean:

            (ii) 'If you say that the fact that this universe exists proves that Hilbert's Paradox is TRUE (as in, NOT logical (or not intuitive)), that's begging the question: You are assuming that the universe (or, for our purposes, the multiverse) is NOT ETERNAL.'

            i, as I've already shown, is NOT my position, whilst ii is demonstrably a re-statement of your (or Miguel's) argument. Your appeals to intuition basically amount to saying that 'the fact that this universe exists proves that Hilbert's Paradox is ''true''—XIII and Miguel ''true''; i.e., illogical—such that an infinite regress cannot happen.'

            I wonder, therefore, who, really, is begging the question?

          • 1. You do know that Hilbert's Paradox is only a veridical paradox insofar as it pertains only to mathematics?

            Yet what the KCA asks us to imagine is Hilbert's Hotel existing in reality. No one has ever denied that Hilbert's Hotel is strongly counter-intuitive yet can be demonstrated to be true in mathematics. That is because mathematics (and set theory) have prohibitions set in place that forbid certain operations when working with mathematical infinites.

            The problem is that these prohibitions have no normative force in reality. As Craig points out, you can slap the hand of the mathematician who goes against these prohibitions but there's nothing you can do against someone who takes a book from an infinite library or a child who takes a coin from an infinite piggy bank.

            In math, you can get around this contradictions simply by calling it 'undefined' but in the real world there is no such cop-out.

            What this shows is that an actual infinite though mathematically possible is impossible in reality.

            2. That's not what we do at all (that is, beg the question in favor of a temporally finite universe). Rather, what we're trying to show you is that Hilbert's Paradox results in logical contradictions.

            And logical contradictions are, by definition, impossible in reality.

            For example, it is impossible for some statement x to be both true and not true at the same time (e.g. it is impossible for the earth to both exist and not exist at the same time) as per the Law of Non-Contradiction (dialetheists notwithstanding).

            On the contrary, neither Miguel and I are begging the question here because we are not assuming that the universe is eternal but are showing that it is not eternal by proving that an infinite regress (of anything) is impossible in reality.

          • I appreciate the clarification, but you're confusing, I think, the concept of infinity with the idea of an actual infinity.

            (Krauss made the same mistake during his debate with Craig, which is something I pointed out to Garrick)

            The concept of infinity is manipulable, of course, by our imagination; we can use it, we've in fact been using it (well not me, but others), in set theory, in contriving paradoxes and what have you. But an actual infinity is a logical impossibility, as Hilbert's hotel shows; an actual infinity would be akin to saying 2 + 2 = not 4.

            But I'll leave you to your discussion with XIII as this is also, I think, what he's reasoning.

          • [Yes. There are logical reasons for ruling out an infinite regress. See Hilbert's Paradox.]

            Noted. Let me get back on this point at some later time.

            However, I do not believe that answering the first question undermines everything I said. The other questions are quite independent from the first.

            [on your 7th question, it certainly isn't meaningless to say that something caused the universe and did so outside of (our) time. If it were meaningless, then we can forget about string theory, oscillating universe theories and other such.]

            Nope, a supernatural God outside of time is on a completely different league from string theory and oscillating universes. If an atemporal God and string theory are comparable, then that would undermine one of the central claims of the CA. Isn't that why we supposedly need a God outside of time, because even quantum vacuum and pre-singularity scientific theories are supposedly not enough to surmount the challenges of the contingency of Being? Don't you agree that string theory and oscillating universe theories are incomparable to the supposed act of God's initiation of Being?

            In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you even used their incomparability in your discussion with Garrick. You remember your reply when Garrick suggested the quantum void as a candidate uncaused cause? If you are to be consistent with that reply, then you must not compare God's atemporal causation with string theory and oscillating universe theories.

            At any rate, what do you mean by time? Time, has a very precise definition in physics. There are two, actually, one used in GR and the other used in QM. The GR definition is quite fixed while the study of time in QM is still an active field of research. At any rate, it is these definitions that I had in mind when I asked my question. What definition of time do you have in mind?

            [And, you may not know this, but it's ridiculous to imply that science may undermine logic –which is what you did in the last sentence of your response– because logic is an important component of science. If divorced, it will make the whole project useless.]

            No, I was not implying that science will undermine logic; I agree that that's ridiculous and I sure as hell wouldn't make that claim. You know it's funny because I was actually implying the exact opposite: I was implying that science will turn out to be logical in the end. In other words, I was opening the possibility that the final theory of science will turn out to be a logical necessity. In that sense, a supernatural uncaused cause will be both unnecessary and superfluous.

            Btw, are you familiar with the many competing views on the final theory of science? If you are not, then it's understandable why you utterly misunderstood items (2) through (7). They are all linked to the idea that the final theory of science will turn out to be a logical necessity. In short, in some versions of the final theory, logical facts and fundamental empirical facts (such as the universe's existence or the values of the fundamental constants) will turn out to be linked by necessity.

            Personally, I am not sold to this view of the final theory. However, the possibility that this view is correct throws serious doubts to the very starting points of the CA project.

            I am busy now, but your almost complete misunderstanding of many of my points deserve a respectable reply, so please wait for them. In the meanwhile, try answering items (2)-(7) again.

          • Pecier, do you mind if I just overlook your previous response and answer this one to streamline our discussion.

            The rest of your questions may not be dependent on the first, but they certainly are rendered irrelevant by my answer to it.

            A God shown by the CA will necessarily be outside of (our) time (at least Craig's CA) and so will other candidate universes and whatever universe creating mechanism –if you'd like to call it that– that created ours. So while string theory, per se, may be immune to this, some extensions that arise from the theory, without which the theory, at least for some scientists, won't work, won't be. Of course, I don't know where the consensus is on this. As far as I know, a lot of scientists even think the theory is bunk. The point is, in a lot of the theories (maybe not all) something will have to exist prior to the initial singularity where the state is said to be infinitely dense –meaning a "nothing state".

            I don't believe that if some multiverse, or oscillating universe theory were true, then it would undermine a God. Maybe some old scholastic version of the CA, but not a God. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem posits that even if our universe was oscillating, say, it would still need a starting point. Any multiverse theory would just put the problem a step back since we will still have to explain a multiverse generating mechanism or something of that sort –which may be impossible to have evidence for because such a thing can only exist, like in what I previously said, beyond our universe and therefore outside of our time.

            The conceptualization of time I'm referring to is the a-theory of time where only present events are real. I don't actually know if this answers your question.

            As for science "turning out logical in the end", how should I know? Who knows? It seems logical to me now. What doesn't seem logical to me is when a conclusion some scientist makes is not based on science but on scientism, which has nothing to do with science.

          • [The rest of your questions may not be dependent on the first, but they certainly are rendered irrelevant by my answer to it.]

            I'm sorry Miguel, but I don't really see your point here. What must I say to convince you that (2)-(7) are not invalidated by Hilbert's Paradox?

            [I don't believe that if some multiverse, or oscillating universe theory were true, then it would undermine a God.]

            Precisely. That is why you cannot answer the problem of atemporal causation as it relates to God by invoking string theory. And yeah, I also think that string theory is bunk. But who are we to be certain, right?

            [The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem posits that even if our universe was oscillating, say, it would still need a starting point.]

            Well, that's true.

            [The conceptualization of time I'm referring to is the a-theory of time where only present events are real. I don't actually know if this answers your question.]

            Well, we can work with this view of time (although I'm not sold to it — it's inconsistent with time as it is understood in relativity theory). Now, how is God's atemporal causation of Being to be explained in this view of time?

            [As for science "turning out logical in the end", how should I know? Who knows? It seems logical to me now.]

            What I mean is that the existence of something natural (something that is not God) may prove to be a logical necessity in the end.

          • Well, this will seem pedantic. But remember that you asked me to.

            Your second question suggests we shouldn't rule out a "natural uncaused cause". I'm saying that's logically impossible viz. my answer to your first question.

            Your third question suggests there may be a natural fact that's not contingent but necessary. I'm saying that's logically impossible viz. my answer to your first question, and insofar as how we understand the word "natural" to mean. The onus is on you to show how it's possible for something natural to be non-contingent and necessary as a cause.

            Your 4th question suggests we shouldn't rule out the universe as its own prime-mover. I'm saying that's illogical viz. my answer to your first question. The universe seems to be by its very nature contingent. Also, the cosmological argument, if sound, rules out self actualization. Your
            welcome to try to refute the premises from which that conclusion is seen to follow.

            Your 5th question, I'll have to admit, I scarcely understand.

            Your 6th question is simply irrelevant to what the cosmological argument purports to show. Of course all "necessary facts" aren't a priori. I don't see what this has to do with anything, actually.

            Your 7th question isn't covered by my answer to your first, which is why I went over it separately in my response above.

            The a-theory of time is not inconsistent with relativity. Both the a-theory and b-theory are consistent with relativity. Einstein, however, seems to prefer the b-theory, as far as I've been able to read (I could be wrong). But it's not because of any internal inconsistency between relativity and the a-theory.

            And if you're going to suggest that something natural may be the cause of everything, which is what you seem to suggest in your last sentence, then you'll have to give evidence for this. We seem to have at least prima facie evidence that that's not the case; that it cannot be the case; that everything natural is contingent. Unless you'll be referring to something outside the natural and calling that "natural", like some string theorists do. But, again, a good argument on why we must distrust our modal intuitions on this would be in order, as they seem to indicate against it.

          • Also, my central question, the very meat of my challenge, is (2). You are yet to answer that correctly. In fact, you have completely misunderstood it. (See previous comment.)

            [If it were meaningless, then we can forget about string theory, oscillating universe theories and other such.]

            Another thing: There is time in string theory and in oscillating universe theories. Causality is a perfectly valid concept in string theory, for example, because string theory is a scientific hypothesis (I don't think it deserves the designation 'theory' just yet). Meanwhile, the CA is supposedly immune to scientific challenges. And thus the philosophical/logical questions: If God existed prior to time, then what does his causing time to exist mean? How is causality to be defined in this singular instance of atemporal causation?

            Again, as far as our current understanding of physical time is concerned, there must always be time as long as physical entities exist. Your adding the qualifier 'our' to your argument suggests that you cannot help but agree with this. One simply cannot deny that fact that even strings and previously collapsed universes have to have temporal existence.

          • They may have "temporal existence" of their own accord, but their extensions (some of them) will have to exist outside of our time. Sure, they may have their own "time", but it's outside the time of our universe. A multiverse, for instance, will have many universe's that exist outside of our universe, and therefore outside of our time. Whatever the mechanism that produces universes –that produces the multiverse– will have to be chronologically prior to our universe. I'm saying that even a natural explanation cannot avoid this rut; I'm saying that it's not the problem you seem to think it is.

          • O.K. I may have overlooked this. But Garrick asked a similar question, so I thought I already put this to rest. Anyway, I'll answer this here again:

            You ask:

            "If God existed prior to time, then what does his causing time to exist mean? How is causality to be defined in this singular instance of atemporal causation? "

            — I'm not saying God "existed prior to time" I'm saying he exists outside of time. Phrasing it in the way you have ("existed prior to time") shows temporal relations, which is what makes you think it can't make sense. But to say God exists *outside* of time makes the relationship of God with time atemporal.

            The contradiction that people see –maybe you haven't thought about this or maybe you have– is that the act of creating needs to be preceded by an intent to do so. So, the intent and act of creating in this case are seen to have temporal relations. But that's not necessarily the case since they can occur simultaneously. You can be performing the act of hanging from a tree while simultaneously having the intention of not falling –my example to Garrick (which is Craig's example actually).

            So, God can create the universe outside of time while not being chronologically prior to it.

            And if you're going to say that it doesn't make sense to cause time to exist, then any naturalistic argument that purports to show how the universe was created will be falling in that same rut, as I've explained previously.

  13. To quote David Attenborough on his opinion regarding creationism:
    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354

    "My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'."

    • Creationism is flawed but this hardly represents the bulk of believers who believe that the universe is intelligently designed, Creationists are a minority.

      • //Creationism is flawed but this hardly represents the bulk of believers who believe that the universe is intelligently designed, Creationists are a minority. //

        Actually, the Intelligent Design theory is nothing more than repackaged creationism.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_

        And it shouldn't matter how many people believe ID – science is not a popularity contest.

        • Intelligent Design and Creationism are religious ideas. Cannot compare science with religion as religion is just fantasy.

          • Doesn't change the fact that Intelligent Design is a bullshit theory with no scientific grounding, and is a fucking waste of time 😉

          • you mean with all the logic in you, you can't state the principle of causality and apply it to our world?

          • I am tempted to tell you to look for it yourself in his books but being the New Year, i will be more charitable.“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins,The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}“We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins,The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}

          • ripped word per word from this site – http://www.creationism.org/heinze/AppearanceOfDes

            lets expound that article shall we.
            Dawkins added that if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.} I must add, there are many molecular machines in living things. Their moving parts work together to do the work of every cell. Most of us would interpret all this as telling us that living things really were designed. Dawkins admits that living things look like they had been designed, but he does not believe they were. He goes on to use imagination, speculation, philosophy, and his wonderful story telling ability to undercut the evidence.

            the same article praises Michael Behe's studies. who, was already pointed out to be laughing stock even in his own University and his own son.

            quote-mining as usual.

          • //hehehe that's why it's called a quote.//
            hehehe it's called a quote-mine Dick.

            nutjobs tend attract and quote from each others work.

            if you want to quote do it right:

            The difference is one of complexity of design.

            (the extracted quote)
            Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

            (the part Dick and Heinze conveniently omit)
            Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt us to invoke design. At first sight, man-made artefacts like computers and cars will seem to provide exceptions. They are complicated and obviously designed for a purpose, yet they are not alive, and they are made of metal and plastic rather than of flesh and blood. In this book they will be firmly treated as biological objects.

            the chapter talks about false analogy. how you cannot compare the inner workings of a human being (biology) to a thing like a computer (engineering). clearly you didnt read it, even if you did, you clearly did not understand it.

            Dick and Heinze – can we get that as a new TV show title, its quite catchy.

          • I think it would be better if you had read the quote from the original text instead of from a secondary source. Quotes CAN be taken out of context, particularly in this example. Especially since secondary source seems somewhat… biased.

          • Thank you for the suggestion but i think you should read the entire context of our exchange so that way you know that my quote is not out of context.

          • What i said: “Even Dawkins admits that there is at least seeming design in nature.” I never said that he admitted that there is a designer.Do I need to grammatically deconstruct my sentence for you to understand it. Didn't I say “seeming”now given the quote on Dawkins, doesn't he say “give the appearance of…”did I say that he believes in it? Nope all I said was Dawkins makes mention of it… a seeming design nature.

          • //did I say that he believes in it? Nope all I said was Dawkins makes mention of it… a seeming design nature. //

            So you admit that you quoted him out of his original context.

          • I quoted him based on what I said… that even dawkins mentions a seeming design in nature. you can only accuse me of quoting or taking someone out of context if I said that dawkins BELIEVES in design in nature and i present this quotation as a stand alone! Kailangan ko bang tagalogin?

          • //you can only accuse me of quoting or taking someone out of context if I said that dawkins BELIEVES in design in nature and i present this quotation as a stand alone! Kailangan ko bang tagalogin? //

            Actually, you did quote Dawkins out of context, by insinuating that he believes in ID. Your original statement:

            "i admit that for those who do not see any design in the universe, in spite of their acceptance of a LAw of nature, will never see anything in nature to be intelligently designed. so indeed the argument has to assume that people are honest enough to see design in nature. Even Dawkins admits that there is at least seeming design in nature. "

          • ohhhh how stupid of me… i forgot that dawkins did not believe in design. i forgot that he is an atheist. I forgot that he also said in that same book that he believes it is by chance…. i forgot i have his book and have read it.oh my oh my could it be that is why i said SEEMING…? again kailangan ko bang tagalogin ito… saabihin niyo lang para magkaintindihan kayo.

          • About the Author

            Thomas Heinze served for 34 years as an evangelical missionary in Italy with WorldVenture, first in evangelism and then directing the publishing house, Edizioni Centro Biblico. Since retiring in Portland, OR, he has written five books and two minibooks published by CHICK PUBLICATIONS. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Oregon State University and a Masters in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary.

            False Expert; An evangelical theologist making himself appear as an expert in biology and is endorsed by noneother than jack chick himself.

          • Man oh man did you even think your response through? I didn't use his expertise on any theological arguments from his article but only a quote from Dawkin's book which he also quotes and is available from many other websites, wikipedia notwithstanding.. I could have gotten the quote from his book but I don't have it with me right now… heaven's sake!

          • actually i do. do you?

            did i mention you as a proponent of the article? nope, maybe. dont care.
            is the author some kind of loon? yep. just pointing it out. endorsed by Jack Chick!

            For the sake of Jebuz!

            i guess it was coincidental you got the same two identical quotes with the same identical punctuations. with the same argument, that Heinze and all lead ID supporters use. how serendipitous.

            nice try weaseling out of it though. Think before you click!

          • Goes to show that when a person lacks any substance in the argument, he resorts to trivialities and hairsplitting.good day.

          • yep goes to show how an intellectually dishonest man-child digs his own graves when it comes to intelligent conversations.

          • Didn't I say I give you the victory of the argument. You've nitpicked me into submission. I can't have an exchange (intellectual or otherwise) with someone who wants to argue commas and periods. You can't even distinguish what should be rightfully referenced or not. You can't even distinguish that the quote can be taken from any of several dozens of pages in the web including wikipedia…. It referenced Dawkins as the origin of that quote, did you mean that I had to reference the other fellow who used that quote too when I didn't lift anything from his entire original work? Would it matter, was the quote false or inaccurate in any way? Is this a thesis defense or a formal dissertation? If this is what it has come down to thenplease that is why I said YOU WIN, enjoy your victory.

          • //I am tempted to tell you to look for it yourself in his books but being the New Year, i will be more charitable.//
            aww how humble yet we found the quotes easily. if your position holds true, you should have mentioned exactly where you pulled the quotes. and since for the 3rd time you just insist you may have gotten it somewhere on a book or wiki… and dont cherry pick if you dont want to be nitpicked. hehe.

            //Even Dawkins admits that there is at least seeming design in nature. //
            didnt we just confirm you have taken it out of context. should we really play the grammar game?

            blah blah blah. this is a thinkers board. not a Whine Cellar.

            if you make a comment be damn sure to defend it. if you cannot defend it, retract it. since you can't do either. well…

            Chill Dick. Want some AstroGlide with that?

          • Of course I can't…duhhhh. And from the looks of it, you can't either, well of course you can say Goddidit…but come on…will you really make it that easy?

          • yeah, i know the principle of causality…but that's not the point here, the point is…can you answer the principle of causality? Seems like you are saying something way over your head.

          • scientists can confidently say they cannot confirm… yet! technology can only take you so far.

            however religious nutters can confidently confirm things despite lack of evidence. claims such as geo-centricism or flat earth.

            sun, tides, thunder and lightning, natural disasters are also part of that last list.
            primitive man's answer to thing they don't understand = Goddidit!

            and when confronted with reality, they act like kids who have been told santa or the tooth fairy does not exist.

      • "Creationism is flawed but this hardly represents the bulk of believers who believe that the universe is intelligently designed, Creationists are a minority."

        'Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism' – Gallup (http://bit.ly/fvC8qb). 40% for creationism, 38% for ID, and 16% for 'secular evolution'.

        dboncan is right: 40% is a minority and hardly represent the overwhelming 38% majority who are ID-ists. You matheists really say the most ridiculous things!

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here