Natural Order and Science

[Harris]

For the sake of argument if I agree with you that things “never really created so much as the constituent matter reshaped into different configuration” then why there are laws which are driving that shaping and reshaping in precise orderly manner according to specific code of instructions. That is the actual idea behind my original post.

I don't think you understand the term "laws" when talking about physics.  The laws aren't driving anything.  They are predictions based on observations.  If a scientific law involves velocity, time, space and so on, the law isn't affecting time, space or velocity.

I said this earlier to you, the laws of science aren't like the laws of the government, it's not as if sound would be travelling faster than the speed of light but it can't or else god will give it a speeding ticket because it's prevented by laws.   It's how sound and light behave due to how they are formed, the way they travel, what they are and so on.

I'm not an expert on physics so sorry if it sounds like I'm pretending I am, but I'm pretty sure it's accurate to say that no laws of science are shaping or reshaping anything, please anyone feel free to correct anything I've said incorrect based on my lack of knowledge about this topic.

The primary function of any law is to control activities in procedural manner. Without having universal gravitational law, you cannot travel into space and without having civil law you cannot live in peace and harmony with other member of your community.

[Harris]

Metaphysically, it is counterintuitive to assume that something can come into being out of nothing.

It is no more intuitive to believe that something exists without having been brought into existence.

Given that the universe has a beginning that means it must therefore have had a cause; it could not have popped into existence uncaused and the cause of the universe would have to have certain important properties.

Why would this be given for the universe, but not for God?  Special pleading, no how matter large your text walls, is still just special pleading.

Nothing which is the result of causes can have its existence inherent in itself. There are no uncaused events and all caused events are contingent to just one necessary substance, upon which all contingent things depend. If something were inherently existent it would be permanently (that is, necessarily) existent.

Based on this I have developed these premises:

So you are basing your entire line of argument on the samve philosophical assumptions which it points to.  This is begging the question.  My counter is a conditional one: IF (IF!) anything can exist without being caused to exist, then it is more likely that that which we know to exist (the Universe) is that thing than that a humanoid magical being, for whom there is no proof or even good evidence.

1. Everything in the universe is a created being

That depends on your semantics of "creation."

2. Universe is a created being

Not known.

3. Every created being is a contingent being

Fine

4. Universe is a contingent being

Not known.

5. If universe does not depend on God then whatever it depends upon is God

An equivocation.  If you say "Whatever caused the universe is God," then if that whatever it is has neither consciousness nor will, then you are just calling nature God.  You can call it the Loch Ness Monster if you want, but that is just semantics-- it's not a good argument for the existence of an actual Loch Ness Monster.

In order for philosophy to produce any useful results, all philosophers have to make at least three assumptions:

1. That the universe exists
2. That you can learn something about reality
3. Models with predictive capabilities useful than models without predictive capabilities.

I see most of you are favouring models without predictive capabilities by supporting the ideas that processes can be self-subsistent and that things can pop out from nowhere. The interesting point here is that none of the proponents of these absurd ideas have any evidence to support their absurdity. These two ideas if become the reality then they have potential to transform universe into most unpredictable place that means total anarchy.

Initially I have raised few question the essence of which was:

What is the source of that intelligent code that is controlling all the events in the universe in intelligent way?

Alas! No one has come up with a decent philosophical or scientific response.

Let me interpret my own premises in simple way for you who have problem in understanding them.

1. Everything in the universe is a created being

Science has not yet discovered anything in the universe that has created its own self. In other words, there is nothing that pops out from nowhere without any cause. Therefore, everything is the outcome of some cause or everything is a created being.

2. Universe is a created being

All objects of the universe are created beings. Universe is made of created objects therefore universe is a created being. For example: every single object in a galaxy is part of galaxy and if all objects of a galaxy are created beings then galaxy is a created being.

3. Every created being is a contingent being

All beings in the universe are reliant on the principles that cause them in first place.

4. Universe is a contingent being

All objects of the universe are created beings therefore all objects of the universe are contingent beings. When all objects of the universe are contingent beings then whole universe a contingent being.

5. If universe does not depend on God then whatever it depends upon is God

Whether genetic instructions produce specific proteins or gravitation controls cosmic balance, every event is controlled by some system of coding which cause all events to happen on specific and predictable pattern and thus making the universe predictable and intelligible for human intellect.

However, invention of any coding system always requires an intelligent origin and matter as such is unable to generate any code. Humans on the other side are the only agent who have the capacity to produce code however code of nature is not written by humans.

As matter cannot generate code on its own and human is not the author therefore there should be some author, a thinking being, who voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity in writing code for the conduct of every single object in the universe.

An intelligent activity always requires an intelligent source. Whoever or whatever is controlling all the activities through systematic coding system in the universe is God.

[paulpablo]

I don't think you understand the term "laws" when talking about physics.  The laws aren't driving anything.  They are predictions based on observations.  If a scientific law involves velocity, time, space and so on, the law isn't affecting time, space or velocity.

I said this earlier to you, the laws of science aren't like the laws of the government, it's not as if sound would be travelling faster than the speed of light but it can't or else god will give it a speeding ticket because it's prevented by laws.   It's how sound and light behave due to how they are formed, the way they travel, what they are and so on.

I'm not an expert on physics so sorry if it sounds like I'm pretending I am, but I'm pretty sure it's accurate to say that no laws of science are shaping or reshaping anything, please anyone feel free to correct anything I've said incorrect based on my lack of knowledge about this topic.

The primary function of any law is to control activities in procedural manner. Without having universal gravitational law, you cannot travel into space and without having civil law you cannot live in peace and harmony with other member of your community.

You don't understand the concept of the term law in this context, this is the third time I've told you. You seem to be ignoring me because you're still making incorrect statements about scientific laws.

[Harris]

The questions which I have imposed are in fact the answer to your question about the existence of God which you are trying to transform into a plead.

By providing a decent logical answer to my questions you can counter argue my point.

Can you give a proof that things that we use in our daily lives are popping out in reality from nothing merely as a consequence of our stream of thoughts which emerge out of our needs and desires?

Do you think there is anything in the known universe that has created its own being out from nothing and without any intervention of some intelligible cause?

You have no argument only special pleading. I get that god blanky may be comforting and belief in space wizard is something that helps you sleep but this means shit to those who don't share your delusion.

I'm still waiting for proof. I'm not interested in your fairy tales.

Why not you give a try to answer my questions instead of blaming and accusing in empty space?

1. Can you give a proof that things that we use in our daily lives are popping out in reality from nothing merely as a consequence of our stream of thoughts which emerge out of our needs and desires?

2. Do you think there is anything in the known universe that has created its own being out from nothing and without any intervention of some intelligible cause?

[Harris]

“A cause is the origin of an effect. No cause no effect.”

Define cause and effect.

You are relying on equivocation.

For the definition of cause and effect consult the following website where you will find abundant literature which may satisfy your understanding.

https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/cause-and-effect

[Harris]

No matter what you say but the Idea of God is innate.

What does that even mean??

That means you do not know philosophy.

[Harris]

It bothers me a little that Harris has posted a thread in the "Philosophy" section about natural order and science, and then proceeded not do deal with either of those things in any meaningful way.

If by the word “meaningful” you mean order is the outcome of randomness, then for sure you are correct in making your assessment.

[Harris]

Still waiting for an actual answer about why infinite regress is impossible.

Evolution never claims to have an infinite regress; it has a starting point, which is after abiogenesis has occured. It's only theist strawmen versions which have self-created apparent paradoxes.

The continual conflating of these two by theists who have been in this site for years is an indication of the lack of time they've spent reading credible scientific sources. Or listening to people who know stuff on here.

I will give you my view on “why infinite regress is impossible” but first you give me a proper definition of “Infinite Regress”

[paulpablo]

Harris I don't know much about scientific laws, but I know more than you after doing 5 minutes of research. I don't know how you can expect people to take you seriously in a philosophical discussion.

[Harris]

The primary function of any law is to control activities in procedural manner. Without having universal gravitational law, you cannot travel into space and without having civil law you cannot live in peace and harmony with other member of your community.

You don't understand the concept of the term law in this context, this is the third time I've told you.  You seem to be ignoring me because you're still making incorrect statements about scientific laws.

I never ignored you paulpablo. I would be happy if you educate me about law in the context that you favour.