Entropy, Kalam, and First Cause

[AFTT47]

So, a recurring theme which I observe in the explanations here is the response to my admission that I can't wrap my mind around the issue. You guys say that it's natural to not be able to understand this stuff, there are a lot of unknowns and we really don't have answers, but reality is not constrained by our ability to grasp it; if something is true then it is true, whether we understand and acknowledge it or not.

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. 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."

The two are not remotely equivalent.

It should be very obvious that reality is not limited by anyone's ability to understand it. Even if it were, who's limitations are we talking about? The smartest person? The dumbest? Does each person get their own reality? In George W Bush's reality, the freaking can opener couldn't exist.

God is not limited by our comprehension either but where is the reason to believe in him? There's no reason at all.

[Esquilax]

So, a recurring theme which I observe in the explanations here is the response to my admission that I can't wrap my mind around the issue. You guys say that it's natural to not be able to understand this stuff, there are a lot of unknowns and we really don't have answers, but reality is not constrained by our ability to grasp it; if something is true then it is true, whether we understand and acknowledge it or not.

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. 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."

Do I really have to point out the obvious difference between those two sentiments? Okay... the former is discussing something demonstrably real, namely the universe. It's an acknowledgement that we don't understand everything about reality yet, which is true, but the topic under discussion has the advantage of being readily observable by all, meaning that the basic concept expressed is merely a statement about reality.

But when talking about god, there's no demonstration at all. God is not demonstrable, there is no evidence that supports his existence, and so what you're hearing from theists is a cover for that fact, rather than an observation of reality; after all, such an observation would require something to observe, rather than, you know, nothing at all.

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? 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)

The god idea has no explanatory power at all. No, really. Think about it: what do you actually want, out of an explanation? You want to know how what you're asking about happened, don't you?

But you don't get that from god. When people supply god as an answer, they don't know how he created the universe, they don't even try to explain the actual thing you're asking about. They give you the what, but act as though the how is of no consequence. Where's the explanatory power in that? There's no mechanism, no evidence, no justification, just "god did it."

If you asked me how hotdogs are made, and I answered back "meat," and stopped there, would you think that my answer had any explanatory power? Would you be at all satisfied with that? Would you go "oh, okay," and wander off as though I'd remotely answered the question you asked?

Chances are, you probably wouldn't. So why would you do that with regards to god, an answer with even less justification than the one to the hotdog question? At least the hotdog question is technically correct, you can't even show that a god is possible.

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)

For a conclusion to be reasonable, it first has to be possible. Nobody has been able to foster any evidence that a timeless, spaceless universe creator is even possible. Hell, nobody has been able to demonstrate that conscious universe creation is even a thing. The reason one should reject the god claim isn't a presupposition of naturalism- though thank you for engaging in the same presumptuous, offensive assumptions that so many theists do- but rather that the god claim has yet to fulfill even basic things that are required for claims to be reasonable, let alone true.

[Whateverist]

So, a recurring theme which I observe in the explanations here is the response to my admission that I can't wrap my mind around the issue. You guys say that it's natural to not be able to understand this stuff, there are a lot of unknowns and we really don't have answers, but reality is not constrained by our ability to grasp it; if something is true then it is true, whether we understand and acknowledge it or not.

As you say stuff can be true whether we grasp it or not. But unless we understand it, we don't have knowledge. The truth isn't knowledge just in case it is true. The truth only counts as knowledge if you hold it for the right reasons. Faith doesn't turn a hunch into knowledge, even if it were true.

[watchamadoodle]

So, a recurring theme which I observe in the explanations here is the response to my admission that I can't wrap my mind around the issue. You guys say that it's natural to not be able to understand this stuff, there are a lot of unknowns and we really don't have answers, but reality is not constrained by our ability to grasp it; if something is true then it is true, whether we understand and acknowledge it or not.

As you say stuff can be true whether we grasp it or not. But unless we understand it, we don't have knowledge. The truth isn't knowledge just in case it is true. The truth only counts as knowledge if you hold it for the right reasons. Faith doesn't turn a hunch into knowledge, even if it were true.

What are the right reasons that turn a hunch into knowledge? Can we look at society collectively, so that I can learn from a textbook and trust my teachers? For me, maybe reading from a book isn't the right reason, but somebody else had the right reason, and society is willing to revise the knowledge if somebody finds a problem?

[robvalue]

It's fine to say "I don't know". When we don't have enough information to draw a meaningful conclusion, that is the only honest answer. What benefit is there in making up scenarios, especially if they are unfalsifiable ones that can never be tested?

In fact, a fake answer is worse than no answer because it can stop people continuing the search for the real answer. Maybe we'll find it eventually, maybe we won't. But either way, assuming a made-up answer is the best solution is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. It may be wrong but untestable. And it doesn't actually explain anything at all.

To take this model seriously is to place 2000 year old superstitious ramblings higher than all science has achieved since then.

[watchamadoodle]

It's fine to say "I don't know". When we don't have enough information to draw a meaningful conclusion, that is the only honest answer. What benefit is there in making up scenarios, especially if they are unfalsifiable ones that can never be tested?

In fact, a fake answer is worse than no answer because it can stop people continuing the search for the real answer. Maybe we'll find it eventually, maybe we won't. But either way, assuming a made-up answer is the best solution is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. It may be wrong but untestable. And it doesn't actually explain anything at all.

To take this model seriously is to place 2000 year old superstitious ramblings higher than all science has achieved since then.

The falsifiability is probably the key.
- some things are theoretically impossible to falsify and cannot be knowledge
- some things are theoretically possible to falsify, but practically impossible today
- some things are possible to falsify - if you are an expert in the field
- some things are possible to falsify - even for laypeople like me

Of course Christianity doesn't make to many falsifiable claims that could be called knowledge IMO.
- the Kingdom of Heaven will come in the generation of Jesus (but don't take that literally)
- God answers prayers (but don't put God to the test)
- ... (hard to think of anything else)

[robvalue]

Something about sticking your nob in a snake and it won't bite you? Did I read that bit right?

Yeah, I can sit here all day long making unfalsifiable claims that "explain" things. They are utterly useless to anyone except as playthings for imagination.

[Aractus]

I shall quote the reply I sent you in your first thread:

How do you guys refute the "Kalaam" argument? (some kind of supernatural, transcendent force or "god" must exist because of the necessity for a First Cause which is beyond matter, space, and time)

Until the day we fully understand the universe, we may never have an answer to that question that will satisfy everyone. But not having an answer doesn't mean that we are expected to produce one.

All of our models of the universe are limited. For instance, there's no way to use quantum mechanics in order to successfully land a probe on Mars, no matter how "accurate" it is at describing the microverse.

Matter is presently theorised to exist due to gravity alone. Gravity causes matter and antimatter to separate, due to compressing and "curving" spacetime. That mechanism in conjunction with an expanding universe is what causes matter to exist. It doesn't cause the universe to exist, nor does it give it its properties, but it does fully explain the first part of the question.

[Anomalocaris]

So, a recurring theme which I observe in the explanations here is the response to my admission that I can't wrap my mind around the issue. You guys say that it's natural to not be able to understand this stuff, there are a lot of unknowns and we really don't have answers, but reality is not constrained by our ability to grasp it; if something is true then it is true, whether we understand and acknowledge it or not.

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. 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."

No, the difference is when we say we don't understand it, it is because there isn't as yet enough rigorously examined evidence for us to understand it. We attribute nothing to that which we don't understand that is not supported by rigorously examined evidence. This way we have the potential to attain ever greater understanding as evidences are gathered.

When theists say they don't comprehend, they nonetheless attribute a whole lot of made up (father, son, goodness, etc) utter bullshit to it, supported by nothing more than other made up bullshit (bible). So they have no interest in further understanding what they don't comprehend, only in protecting the sanctity of some bullshit which by chance they have become indoctrinated in.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

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'.

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'.

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.