The "Two Causes" Solution to the Religion and Science Conflict

[Kuzcotopia]

I have already explained it. But I will explain it one more time. Science cannot explain how something came from nothing for that would clearly entail a supernatural event, namely, creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). If you don't agree with that assessment, then we will have to agree to disagree.

I don 't want to speak for the other gentleman, but I think he understands the conclusion of your argument.

Part of that conclusion is to suggest that there is the possibility of a metaphysical answer, the assumption that scientific inquiry will never figure it out, and the claim that there are causes that somehow affect physics, but then they somehow don't, which I don't feel has been discussed or explained to any real degree outside of a link and a quote.

 

[Gambit]

Second avenue of questioning then - why should religion and theology be given authority to make claims about the unknowable without having the precedent of data or fact to support their claims?

What exactly aren't you grasping here? It's a question for metaphysics, not physics. You are free to address it by making a metaphysical argument. Whether anyone will buy your argument is another issue. But what you are not free to do (free in an intellectual sense), is to address the question and present it as physics.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What exactly aren't you grasping here? It's a question for metaphysics, not physics. You are free to address it by making a metaphysical question. Whether anyone will buy your argument is another issue.

WTH are you talking about? You made these arbitrary rules about theology having say over things that are yet to be explained and limited science from the ability to make claims in that area.

Now I ask why anyone should lend authority to metaphysical claims made by theology and you come back with a retort about metaphysical questions being bought by people....

It's your silly rule. Just explain why you lend preference to magical guesses over estimation, suggestions, and answers based on observation and data.

 

[outhouse]

Science cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing

Science does not have to explain that.

It can be explained as easy as a supermassive black hole expanding.

and the argument I presented in the OP still stands. That's what.

No it does not stand. I see you refused and ignored the previous statement

There is no problem, only some theist refuse scientific education and knowledge.

 

[Gambit]

I don 't want to speak for the other gentleman, but I think he understands the conclusion of your argument.

Part of that conclusion is to suggest that there is the possibility of a metaphysical answer, the assumption that scientific inquiry will never figure it out, and the claim that there are causes that somehow affect physics, but then they somehow don't, which I don't feel has been discussed or explained to any real degree outside of a link and a quote.

Physics cannot transcend itself to account for itself. That's metaphysics (a term which quite literally means "beyond physics"), not physics.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Physics cannot transcend itself to account for itself. That's metaphysics (a term which quite literally means "beyond physics"), not physics.

Well, it's something, if only a tidbit.

I'm not sure what that means for physics to "account for itself." Can you explain it further?

 

[Gambit]

Well, it's something, if only a tidbit.

I'm not sure what that means for physics to "account for itself." Can you explain it further?

It means that the physical is not self-explanatory. It's not possible to give a complete explanation for the physical by only appealing to the physical.

 

[outhouse]

That's metaphysics

Its a weasel word

Your using as such that it is more philosophical in nature then its real function.

It means that the physical is not self-explanatory

NO it does not.

1. What is ultimately there?
2. What is it like?

1. 
   That is a physical statement. It is not the study of imagination and mythology

It is also difficult to frame any questions in a non-controversial manner. Meaning your choosing a position that cannot be refuted on purpose. Desperation mainly.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

It means that the physical is not self-explanatory. It's not possible to give a complete explanation for the physical by only appealing to the physical.

Why not?

 

[Gambit]

Why not?

The belief that the physical is self-explanatory is a materialistic position. Materialism is a metaphysical position, not a scientific one. IOW, the argument I made in the OP still stands.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

The belief that the physical is self-explanatory is a materialistic position. Materialism is a metaphysical position, not a scientific one. IOW, the argument I made in the OP still stands.

So does post #42, where I tried to interact with your position:

1. Deterministic incplications on the deity posited as a metaphysical cause.
2a. No coherent methodology to distinguish metaphysical from physical causes, making physical causes suspect.
2b. Occam's razor: Why is a metaphsyical system necessary?
3. Misuse of Aristotelian terminology.

In fairness, you are finally starting to adress point 2b.

I hope the brevity of my rhetorical style does not offend you this time,

 

[Gambit]

1. Deterministic incplications on the deity posited as a metaphysical cause.
2a. No coherent methodology to distinguish metaphysical from physical causes, making physical causes suspect.
2b. Occam's razor: Why is a metaphsyical system necessary?
3. Misuse of Aristotelian terminology.,

I have already explained the difference between efficient causation and final causation. Science attempts to determine efficient causes. It does not attempt to determine the final cause. (At least the physical sciences do not employ teleological language. But now I digress.)

 

[Unification]

Not having an explanation you do not have either is not a limitation of science, it is why we do science. The argument you presented in the OP depends upon misasumptions you refuse to address.

Science is not LIMITED to what we know, you have it backwards. Science is about how we explore what we do not know. Science BEGINS with the limits of our knowledge - it does not end there.

You said it well when you said "limits."
The human mind and science has to realize that it has "limitations."

 

[Unification]

You are stuck repeating the same empty claims. That science can not yet explain something does not demonstrate a limitation to science. You are trying to defend your indefensible claim simply by ignoring all questions and repeating it.

That science does not yet have an explanation for something is not a limitation of science, it is WHY WE DO SCIENCE.

"Can not yet" is essentially the same thing as a "theist" or "spiritual being" saying they "can not yet" prove the invisible "God" to anyone else. The only difference would be that the "spiritual being" already knows within themselves.

Where does knowledge or intelligence in motion derive from in the first place?

All infinite and never-ending things are beyond the mind, and the essence of everything is infinite and never-ending. Example: we cannot comprehend that the universe goes out forever, but we can understand that it has to. It is impossible for the universe to stop going out. Something has to keep going out, even if it is just empty space. This tells us infinity exists. We can understand infinity exists without understanding infinity. That is "truth" yet cannot be comprehended.

How can the human mind grasp the timeframe of "eternal" or "infinity" if they hypothetically live for 100 years?

 

[Unification]

Science does not have to explain that.

It can be explained as easy as a supermassive black hole expanding.



No it does not stand. I see you refused and ignored the previous statement

There is no problem, only some theist refuse scientific education and knowledge.

I'm fairly certain Gambit does not refuse scientific education and knowledge, he obides and has the same scientific knowledge as any other, is under the same force of control as any other human. Which essentially does not matter or change anything. "Some theist" is rather condescending, egotistical, and labeling. Perhaps one themselves may be refusing scientific education and knowledge oneself, in the sense that science and knowledge in itself is not physical...science, education, and knowledge does not condescend, have an ego, or labels, or needs knowledge and education of itself.

Perhaps also, regardless of how one was created and by what... Any knowledge one possesses wasn't their own doing or ability or circumstances they created for themselves, it was given NOT by their choice.

 

[Unification]

WTH are you talking about? You made these arbitrary rules about theology having say over things that are yet to be explained and limited science from the ability to make claims in that area.

Now I ask why anyone should lend authority to metaphysical claims made by theology and you come back with a retort about metaphysical questions being bought by people....

It's your silly rule. Just explain why you lend preference to magical guesses over estimation, suggestions, and answers based on observation and data.

My guess would be, that because the more knowledge, observation, and data the human mind accumulates, the even more incomprehensible and mysterious and magical things become.

Trying to explain the infinite with a limited, finite human mind is relatively pointless and can never work.

No sense can make sense when the two are combined.

Finite mind and infinite spirit are very compatible and essential.

The mind would chase things it does not understand forever. In the physical universe, every solution creates another problem, every answer raises another question. This will cause the mind to run around in circles forever, if one lets it. This, exactly, indirectly limits and hinders one extremely by relying soley upon the mind and science.

 

[Shad]

I have already explained the difference between efficient causation and final causation. Science attempts to determine efficient causes. It does not attempt to attempt to determine the final cause. (At least the physical sciences do not employ teleological language. But now I digress.)

Science does not deal with final causes. You are endorsing creationism and a rule, teleology, that you happen to require for a wide range of subjects which have nothing to do with teleology.

I'm fairly certain Gambit does not refuse scientific education and knowledge, he obides and has the same scientific knowledge as any other, is under the same force of control as any other human.
Perhaps also, regardless of how one was created and by what... Any knowledge one possesses wasn't their own doing or ability or circumstances they created for themselves, it was given NOT by their choice.

The above is an example of Gambit rejecting not only the scientific methodology but basic principles within the philosophy of science. All he has done is invoke intelligent design, aware of this or not, and demand his misunderstanding of principles be applied to science. No one is obligated to accept a flawed understanding of these points due to the fact that another is either confused or not knowledge of the subjects they attempt to use in an argument.

 

[Gambit]

Science does not deal with final causes.

Agreed. That's exactly what I stated in my post.

All he has done is invoke intelligent design, aware of this or not, and demand his misunderstanding of principles be applied to science.

Please do not misrepresent my views. I have never argued for creationism or intelligent design.

 

[Bunyip]

"Can not yet" is essentially the same thing as a "theist" or "spiritual being" saying they "can not yet" prove the invisible "God" to anyone else. The only difference would be that the "spiritual being" already knows within themselves.

What?

Where does knowledge or intelligence in motion derive from in the first place?

From brains. [ quote]

All infinite and never-ending things are beyond the mind, and the essence of everything is infinite and never-ending. Example: we cannot comprehend that the universe goes out forever, but we can understand that it has to. [/QUOTE] What? I can comprehend an infinite universe.

It is impossible for the universe to stop going out. Something has to keep going out, even if it is just empty space. This tells us infinity exists. We can understand infinity exists without understanding infinity. That is "truth" yet cannot be comprehended.

?

How can the human mind grasp the timeframe of "eternal" or "infinity" if they hypothetically live for 100 years?

Why would that be a problem?

 

[Bunyip]

You said it well when you said "limits."
The human mind and science has to realize that it has "limitations."

Why? Like what?