RE: Entropy, Kalam, and First Cause
March 19, 2015 at 11:17 am
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2015 at 11:36 am by Mister Agenda.)
(March 18, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Chuck Wrote: For any rules governing the universe to exhibit evidence both discernible and interpretable within the context of the rules are operating inside the universe,
I'm going to try to deduce what this sentence is supposed to mean. Please correct me if I am wrong. It sounds like you're trying to say that to gain evidence of the rules that govern the universe, the evidence would have to be within the universe and subject to the internal rules of the universe. If that is what you meant, I agree with that. I don't agree with the conclusion that it means we can find nothing out about conditions outside our universe unless the same rules apply without as within.
(March 18, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Chuck Wrote: The rules governing the universe must to a high degree be connected to and analogous with the rules inside the universe.
Must they? How do you know that? Maybe they're connected in a low degree. Anything can be analogized, so I can't argue with that.
(March 18, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Chuck Wrote: So To suppose rules governing the universe could be radically different from rules apply inside universe is to propose a scenario for which discernible and interpretable evidence is in principle not possible.
I did not suppose they are radically different, I supposed they are unknown. It IS actually fallacious to reason that a whole must share some property that applies to all of its parts (or the reverse). It's like arguing that water must not be wet because water molecules are not wet, or that people are colorless because atoms don't have color, or a team with great players must be a great team.
The multiple universe hypothesis makes predictions that can, in theory be tested. One such prediction was that we would be able to find indications in the cosmic microwave background radiation of collisions with other universes. Four such indications were found. They are not a sufficient test of the hypothesis to consider it confirmed, but it is a step in that direction. We can still make testable hypotheses about at least some of the rules governing the universe, which are accessible within the universe. That is far from justifying faith that the rules within and without the universe are the same.
(March 18, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Chuck Wrote: So so for the rules governing the universe to be extrapolatable based on evidence interpretable from within the context of tge rules governing inside the universe, the rules governing the universe must exhibit behaviors that can be predicted from rules governing within the universe.
In other words, they must be extrapolatable for us to extrapolate them. That is true. That has zero consequence for whether they are actually extrapolatable, and certainly doesn't mean that entropy must hold in the case of universes. Our wishing that the laws governing the universe be the same as the laws within it because then we could understand them won't make it so. The only thing that can justify belief that it is so is a testable hypothesis that comes to be supported by evidence.
If it does, we can consider the cyclic universe model refuted. That is over my pay grade, but cosmologists certainly don't currently have a consensus that it is refuted. We are not justified in concluding that a universe cannot phase back into a lower entropy state, because 'that's not what we observe within the universe'. If you think thermodynamics makes a cyclic model impossible, you still must do the hard work of figuring out a way to test that hypothesis.
(March 18, 2015 at 8:42 pm)GriffinHunter Wrote: My concern is that all of that sounds remarkably similar to what the theists tell me to believe- "God is real even if we cannot comprehend him.
What is it that you think we are telling you is real even if you cannot comprehend it? I think you may be misunderstanding us.
(March 18, 2015 at 8:42 pm)GriffinHunter Wrote: It may not all make sense but the fact that you can't wrap your mind around it logically or scientifically doesn't mean it is false."
Right, only one thing makes something false: it not being true.
(March 18, 2015 at 8:42 pm)GriffinHunter Wrote: And, to be honest, given all of the unknowns which you guys readily admit, shouldn't we seek the explanation which has the most explanatory power for the facts which we do have?
You say 'seek an explanation' but you seem to be going in the direction of 'make one up'.
(March 18, 2015 at 8:42 pm)GriffinHunter Wrote: As far as I can tell, the Christian understanding of God, creation, time, space, etc fits the available data very well and explains things better than all the shaky, unknown speculation atheists propose. (of course, either way it is shaky and unknown and you are going to be making guesses that can't be proven).
There's a very good reason for that. The 'Christian understanding' (at least the non-literalist version) has, ad hoc, been carefully retrofitted to be compatible with scientific discovery. There was none of this 'God is outside time and space' stuff before before a rudimentary understanding of space-time was achieved. It would have been impressive if it had been the other way around, and Christian consensus predicted the nature of the universe based on a Christian understanding of God in advance of the discoveries being made. Cosmic gnomes make an even better 'explanation' if one bases their magical antics on the latest scientific discoveries and just cover the remaining unknowns with 'gnomes did it'.
(March 18, 2015 at 8:42 pm)GriffinHunter Wrote: Another way of putting my point: it seems like some kind of "god"-explanation is the most reasonable conclusion; the only reason one would reject such an explanation is if he were already predisposed against the notion of god. (i.e. approaches the question with unwarranted naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions)
That would imply that only people who are already materialists would ever become materialists. Do you think that is true?
My rejection of the God hypothesis was based entirely on how badly it is supported. Reading the Bible twice moved me away from traditional Christianity, but who knows how long I would have remained an agnostic theist if I hadn't encountered modern apologetics? Watching my Orthodox religion professor twist his otherwise respectable mind into knots trying to rationally justify his belief is what made it click for me that the belief can't be justified rationally.
And it's not much of a hypothesis really, is it? What does it actually explain? It starts and stops with 'God did it', with no way for us to ever find out how it was done. It's not an explanation, it's a way of evading the question.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.