Insurmountable gap?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-04-2014, 06:59 AM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(16-04-2014 07:29 PM)lots2learn Wrote:  I was interested in knowing what folks thought about this idea: The uniformity in nature (or the laws of the universe) is an observable phenomenon who's cause is not a scientific subject. This is essentially embodied in the debate between Humeans (who argue that the uniformity has no discernible cause) vs the Necessitarians (who argue uniformities must have some intangible cause which explains their existence). This topic will forever remain a subject of philosophy because the scientific method cannot be applied to it. A theist can adopt a Necessitarian perspective, attributing the cause to God. Assume here that God has a limited meaning of "intangible cause for the existence-of/uniformity-in nature". In this way, it would be a theory to explain an observable phenomenon, but impossible to test. At the same time, it’s a “gap” which science can unquestionably never fill (because the scientific method cannot is not applicable to it). Conclusion: the classical “god of the gaps” is an irrelevant discourse because there is in actuality a permanent gap outside the reach of science.

Yet. Science can't answer that yet.

Now, I'm not saying science will answer it in the future, but it is also a possibility, one for which you did not account. Given that science has a pretty solid track record for learning new things and explaining things that used to be unexplained, and that we still don't have any evidence for any gods (that doesn't require you to assume them as part of the premise), I'm going to put my money on science in this case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RobbyPants's post
17-04-2014, 07:29 AM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
There is also the question of what the scientific method is theoretically capable of answering, and what will be practical to answer.

Human society has limited and finite resources and how we decide to use those resources now will determine what resources will be available to us in the future. This in turn means that certain questions may be beyond our practical reach in future because of the decisions being made today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
17-04-2014, 07:44 AM (This post was last modified: 17-04-2014 07:47 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(17-04-2014 04:36 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  
(16-04-2014 08:03 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Why should we do that? We all know what you really mean when you say "gawd". Equivocation and trying to sneak deities in through the back door is bullshit.

That is the definition I'm positing for my very specific proposition. I'm making my definition clear up front so that the conversation doesn't go off topic into personal gods or other logical contentions with godlike attributes.

You can use a different word if you like. My proposition stands either way.

No, disingenuous semantic prestidigitation doesn't stand here in the real world at all.

You can't have your special pleading and eat it too.

And no, your "definition" is not "clear"; it is deliberately vague as fuck.


Go fuck yourself, Mister Divide-By-Zero. In the ass. With a cactus.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
Look, that doesn't work with turtles, and it's not going to work here.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
17-04-2014, 09:46 AM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(16-04-2014 07:29 PM)lots2learn Wrote:  The uniformity in nature (or the laws of the universe) is an observable phenomenon who's cause is not a scientific subject.
This threw up a red flag for me. I finished reading your post and found that nothing changed that red flag. First, it's debatable whether there is any uniformity in nature. But, if we determined that to be objectively true, science is the only tool I would use to figure out its cause.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
17-04-2014, 02:01 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(16-04-2014 07:29 PM)lots2learn Wrote:  The uniformity in nature
What is meant by uniformity in nature?

(16-04-2014 07:29 PM)lots2learn Wrote:  Conclusion: the classical “god of the gaps” is an irrelevant discourse because there is in actuality a permanent gap outside the reach of science.
Permanent gaps and temporary gaps are both gaps.
Filling a gap with "God did it" is a god of the gaps argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
17-04-2014, 06:56 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
I call "NOTlookingforanswers" sock.

And BTW, I can attribute this non-issue of a "cause for uniformity in nature" -- which is bullshit semantic prestidigitation anyway -- to Monkeys Flying Out Of My Butt and my proposition is just as solid as this assclown's.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2014, 07:10 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(16-04-2014 07:29 PM)lots2learn Wrote:  In this way, it would be a theory to explain an observable phenomenon, but impossible to test.
Do you care to elaborate on how this "theory" explains anything? Consider

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2014, 07:37 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
How is "undetectable" by science or any other means of rational pursuit different than being "nonexistent?"

There is no "I" in "team" but there is a broken and mixed up "me."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheMrBillShow's post
18-04-2014, 04:41 AM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(17-04-2014 04:39 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(17-04-2014 04:27 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  Why? It's a proposition I'm making, and if it's wrong I'd like to hear why.

The problem is that we don't actually know what is and isn't outside of the reach of science, or even whether there is anything that cannot be ultimately explained using the scientific method. This is because we do not know what we do not yet know.

The scientific method entails positing a hypothesis concerning a (current or past) tangible phenomenon and providing a way to objectively test it. Science has a scope which is why a topic like ethics, for example, is typically outside of science's purview.

I'd like to posit that the observable phenomena of uniformity in nature is also outside of the purview of science. This is because there’s no way to conduct a test about any theoretical cause. If you were to discover something, it would only be smaller constituents of energy/matter which would subsequently only beg the question.

Elementary Particles and the energy governing how they interact described by the Standard Model is presently our best understanding of the most fundamental laws i.e. uniformity at its most basic level. But we don’t know what causes this uniformity. If we ever discover more granular elementary particles or forces, we could then ask the same question about the cause for their uniformity again (although there seems to be some evidence that it’s unlikely we’ll find anything smaller). So there are epistemic limitations to the subject of particle physics.

Simply: any type of existence or reality requires laws, the ultimate cause of which is outside the scope of human scientific inquiry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: