The First Cause? Prime Mover Argument

[Longhorn]

All arguments for rejecting science that I have seen lead to some form of solipsism.

All arguments for rejecting science I've ever heard came from people who had a failing grade in it

[Alex K]

All arguments for rejecting science that I have seen lead to some form of solipsism.

All arguments for rejecting science I've ever heard came from people who had a failing grade in it

It goes like this: so you give me an F on my science test? Well, how about this: science doesn't exist! Take that, you stupid elitist. And you don't exist either, because it's all relative! So there.

[Pyrrho]

All arguments for rejecting science that I have seen lead to some form of solipsism.

I would expect you to say something like that, since you don't really exist and are just a product of my imagination.

[Alex K]

All arguments for rejecting science that I have seen lead to some form of solipsism.

I would expect you to say something like that, since you don't really exist and are just a product of my imagination.

I must commend you - you have quite the brilliant imagination

[Pyrrho]

I would expect you to say something like that, since you don't really exist and are just a product of my imagination.

I must commend you - you have quite the brilliant imagination

Thank you.


Aside from the merits (or lack thereof) of the opening post from a scientific perspective, it is not good from a philosophical one either.  

For a start:

...
Premise 1) Everything in the Universe is either impermanent, or depends upon something else for its existence. (things are born and they die, the universe tends towards entropy, nothing within the Universe lasts forever)

That is an unwarranted and unproven assumption.  That some things are impermanent does not prove that everything is impermanent.  Without any reason to believe that everything is impermanent, the argument is a nonstarter.


But this is much worse:

Premise 2) An infinite regress of finite, impermanent causes seems logically impossible.
...

One does not establish logical impossibility by how things seem to one.  And this is not logically impossible, as it does not entail a contradiction.  So this one is not merely unfounded, it is just false to state that an infinite regress of finite, impermanent causes is logically impossible.

There is nothing illogical about an infinite series.  For example, consider the set of whole numbers (....,-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...).  There is no first whole number and there is no last whole number.  In the sequence, one finds the next whole number by adding one to the previous one (or one can derive it that way).  Or one can derive the previous number in the sequence by subtracting 1 from the succeeding number.  There is nothing contradictory or illogical about this.

You flunk logic with premise 2.

[Hatshepsut]

The problem, however, for those that refuse to accept science's validity as the best source of knowledge is just how functional it is in the real world...

Only thing is, we are making attributive use of "the good" (in its superlative form) for science here, while rejecting the possibility of making such an attribution on objective grounds in another thread, "good and evil." Of course the functional value of science in explaining measurable natural phenomena is beyond dispute, as the various pills and potions forestalling my demise can attest. But can we conclude from this that science is the best way for getting at any kind of knowledge? My hackles rise at such an expansion of its purview. I'm not sure the origin, if any, of the cosmos is an observable event, which puts it outside science altogether.

The OP, however, must be careful to note that the existence of something which cannot be analyzed scientifically doesn't rescue the gods, who remain comfortably ensconced on their reed mats. We've admitted reason (logos), and an outgrowth which combines reason with observation and experiment (science), as ways of knowing. There is at least one other way of knowing, called faith. Lest I immediately fall beneath jackboots, I agree that faith ought never to be used as basis for involuntary impositions as so often it is. Yet rejected by modern positivism, it is making a comeback among the post-moderns.  

All arguments for rejecting science that I have seen lead to some form of solipsism.

Faith, directly accessible only within the self, nonetheless empowers community. While rejection of science might lead to solipsism, faith need not lead to rejection of science.  

[Alex K]

All arguments for rejecting science that I have seen lead to some form of solipsism.

Faith, directly accessible only within the self, nonetheless empowers community. While rejection of science might lead to solipsism, faith need not lead to rejection of science.  

Faith? What do you mean by that?

[LostLocke]

I'm not sure the origin, if any, of the cosmos is an observable event, which puts it outside science altogether.

And I think that will likely be proved wrong. And also likely in the very near future.
And if it is proved wrong, then what? Move the goalposts farther back?

[robvalue]

What happened to my reasonable counterpart? Did he philosophise and run?

[LostLocke]

I'm not sure the origin, if any, of the cosmos is an observable event, which puts it outside science altogether.

And I think that will likely be proved wrong. And also likely in the very near future.
And if it is proved wrong, then what? Move the goalposts farther back? Say something like "OK, we know the origin of the universe, but we don't know the origin of the origin of the universe. Checkmate!!11!1"


Ugh, I seemed to have borked my quoting and double replied .....