Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Sam]

Interesting, why is there a limitation on the possible number of interactions? How could these interactions be anything but random?

In particle physics fundamental interactions or fundamental forces control how elementary particles interact with one another. The interactions of these elementary particles control the nature of matter and objects in the macroscopic universe.

The four fundamental non-contact forces are; electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and gravitation.

All interactions between elementary particles are governed by some combination of these forces. Without going too deep into the physics; these interactions take certain forms based on the relative strength of these forces and the particles involved. It follows from this that the number of possible outcomes of any given interaction must be necessarily limited. Additionally while predicting which specific particle might be involved in a reaction is difficult for several reasons the actual interactions are not random and can, in fact, be expressed mathematically as can the probability of any one particle being involved.

How do you know they will continue to be limited in the future? Just trying to be sure I understand your position.

I would hold that these fundamental forces are intrinsic properties of our reality. If these forces behaved differently we would simply not exist as we do. Additionally, there is no reason to suppose that such universal forces would or indeed could suddenly cease to function or change their behaviours.

I would suppose there is scholarly material on this subject which presents the idea much better than I have; unfortunately it is not something I have had the time to study.

I agree with this, but isn’t the real issue why there is any uniformity at all in nature? Rather than why is there some degree of non-uniformity?

Indeed, the point was to highlight that induction as a logical tool would still be useful without 100% uniformity in nature. I raised this because you disagreed with my proposition that induction could still be used in such circumstances.

Well because nobody can figure out where this uniformity comes from. Why don’t objects just pop in and out of existence? Why does a stone remain a stone? We can detail natural laws describing these interactions and properties but we really can’t explain why these interactions happen and properties are present. Philosophers like Hume recognized this problem, generalizations, cause/effect relationships, and essences do not make any sense in a purely chance unguided universe.

Okay, I think given the current understanding of Particle Physics, Big Bang Cosmology, General Relativity and numerous other extremely well evidenced theories we can suppose excellent grounds for this uniformity to exist. Some of which I have already tried to explain.

Obviously I appreciate the philosophical challenge of induction in the justification of the scientific method. However, what you seem to be trying to do is to project this too far. I don’t need to be able to tell you why the fundamental forces are there, sufficient that they are there. Your argument seems to be of the form;

As of yet, we cannot explain why some property of the universe exists as it does therefore God must exist to make it that way?

Correct me if I’m wrong there. As for why don’t objects just pop into and out of existence etc ... I assume you were just using that as rhetoric. I’m sure you don’t need me to explain that to you or point out that you yourself allow for things to be conjured into existence as long as you call it an axiomatic presupposition?

Well maybe you should…no?

Please don’t preach to me Statler. I appreciate your right to you own views and try to maintain a civilised and rational level of discussion with you and I don’t tell you that you should just accept my views, in return please do the same.

But so far, as best I can tell all of your justifications sneak the principle of induction in through the back door as a premise. You assume that the interactions at the microscopic level will remain a good explanation into the future because they have remained one in the past. This of course banks off of the assumption that the future will resemble the past. If I am not following your position please correct me, but that is what I am seeing.

I already said that ultimately the Uniformity in Nature is presupposed as constant in a naturalistic universe. I have then proceeded to demonstrate arguments which rationalise, justify and support this a posterior and therefore justify the use of the principle of induction as a method of gaining probabilistic knowledge.

I hope I have clarified my views above; that I hold that the fundamental interactive forces are constant and universal, that I see no valid reason, logical or evidential to believe that these forces would or could change and further I see no mechanism by which a universal constant might fluctuate.

The fact that my axiomatic assumptions provide a framework that solves the problem of induction actually makes them the opposite of dubious.

The result of your assumptions in this instance is no way an indication of their quality. I could just as easily say that I accept that reality is inherently uniform as an axiomatic assumption. This solves the problem of induction and is therefore a good assumption. When you make large assumptions that an entire belief system is correct it’s easy to craft it to solve any problem you want.

Harvest which involves seasonal changes in angle of sun to the earth, photosynthesis, respiration, the second law of thermodynamics, precipitation, constant gravitational forces, and moderated atmospheric pressures to just name a few necessary conditions could happen without uniformity in nature? I beg to differ. The things listed in the verse, although certainly not exhaustive, definitely point to God’s consistent upholding of His creation.

Are you suggesting then that God is in fact not omnipotent? That he could not cause these things without the Universe already providing for them? Hypothetically, is it not possible that God only maintains the bubble of space-time around our planet or solar system as uniform? That would satisfy your passage, no?

The point is, the passage you provided does nothing to justify a Universal uniformity of nature, unless you can provide this justification for your presupposition it becomes arbitrary.

Oh, seems you have been brushing up on Martin’s TANG. Well as Frame pointed out when he refuted Martin, miracles are by definition an extremely rare violation of the uniformity of nature or act of God. So a person can still make predictions without worrying about God suddenly breaking the rules (something He usually gives warning about doing before He does it, and something He is no longer actively doing on a great scale like in Biblical times). God can also use natural means to achieve a miraculous end such as the strong wind found in Exodus 14.

Okay. So you accept that miracles do in fact cause a problem for your argument? However, they’re quite rare and are sometimes achieved with natural means so you don’t have to worry too much.
I think your side-stepping the logical conclusion that whether you think he may or not God could alter how the universe works however I’d rather discuss something more substantive at the moment.

Regards

Sam