Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[KFunk]

But the whole point behind science and evidence is that it is quantitative, not qualitative. You can have philosophical "evidence" (which is always open to interpretation based on one's subjectivisms), certainly, but that can never prove the existence of a God, as much as it could prove the existence of a celestial teapot.

Before you bash the philosophical method of justifying beliefs too much think about where the scientific method comes from. The scientific method itself is not an object which can be empirically verified. As far as I can tell philosophy is the best forum for the justification of mathematics, logic and the scientific method.

 

[Kwayera]

Before you bash the philosophical method of justifying beliefs too much think about where the scientific method comes from. The scientific method itself is not an object which can be empirically verified. As far as I can tell philosophy is the best forum for the justification of mathematics, logic and the scientific method.

Well here I have to beg ignorance, because what I know of philosophy is purely scientific (if that makes sense).

I'm not bashing the philosophical method, but as a scientist I rely on facts, and philosophy, as far as I know, cannot be empirically examined. How, then, can philosophy be the "best forum for justification of mathematics, logic and the scientific method"? This is an honest question; I do not understand the necessity of the link.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Well here I have to beg ignorance, because what I know of philosophy is purely scientific (if that makes sense).

I'm not bashing the philosophical method, but as a scientist I rely on facts, and philosophy, as far as I know, cannot be empirically examined. How, then, can philosophy be the "best forum for justification of mathematics, logic and the scientific method"? This is an honest question; I do not understand the necessity of the link.

There's probably a subject you can do at USYD called 'philosophy of science' that might be somewhat interesting then.

 

[KFunk]

Science can explain why chemicals in a person can cause them to feel a certain way.

You've actually conceeded too much to science in saying this. Science can certainly make a very strong case that certain patterns of neurophysiological activity cause emotion. However, thus far no scientist has managed to explain why a given neurophysiological state causes a given sensory experience.

I've come across some studies recently which managed to establish startlingly strong isomorphisms between the geometry of neuronal excitation in the visual cortex and the geometry of certain hallucinatory experiences. However, while this makes a very strong case for the claim that the brain is the seat of such experiences, it fails to explain why this pattern of neural excitation should produce experience in the first place (that is, assuming that experiences are something which require explanation at all, as the eliminative materialist would deny).

 

[KFunk]

I'm not bashing the philosophical method, but as a scientist I rely on facts, and philosophy, as far as I know, cannot be empirically examined. How, then, can philosophy be the "best forum for justification of mathematics, logic and the scientific method"? This is an honest question; I do not understand the necessity of the link.

I geuss the assumption that I am making is that empiricism doesn't cut it when it comes to justifying the claims of mathematics and logic. A few reasons why I think this - (1) Much of the scientific method is based on mathematics and logic in the first place, (2) it is extremely difficult to establish claims involving infinite domains and/or universal quantifiers via empirical observation and (3) we make a lot of universal claims in logic with certainty despite the fact that empirical observation cannot provide this certainty.

The big problem, of course, is this. If, as a scientist, you assert that you can only believe in that which is empirically justifiable then you are unable to believe in those aspects of the scientific method which evade empirical justification, thus undermining your original assertion.

This is fairly similar to the central tenet of the early 20th century philosophical movement 'logical positivism' which was that 'in order for a sentence to be meaningful it must either be a logical theorem or empirically verifiable/falsifiable'. Note, though, that this sentence is neither a logical theorem nor empirically verifiable so it deems itself meaningless by its own standards (and, of course, if you cannot determine the meaning of a proposition you have little chance of determining whether it is true). Once this flaw was found logical positivism pretty much fell apart.

 

[Kwayera]

I geuss the assumption that I am making is that empiricism doesn't cut it when it comes to justifying the claims of mathematics and logic. A few reasons why I think this - (1) Much of the scientific method is based on mathematics and logic in the first place, (2) it is extremely difficult to establish claims involving infinite domains and/or universal quantifiers via empirical observation and (3) we make a lot of universal claims in logic with certainty despite the fact that empirical observation cannot provide this certainty.

The big problem, of course, is this. If, as a scientist, you assert that you can only believe in that which is empirically justifiable then you are unable to believe in those aspects of the scientific method which evade empirical justification, thus undermining your original assertion.

This is fairly similar to the central tenet of the early 20th century philosophical movement 'logical positivism' which was that 'in order for a sentence to be meaningful it must either be a logical theorem or empirically verifiable/falsifiable'. Note, though, that this sentence is neither a logical theorem nor empirically verifiable so it deems itself meaningless by its own standards (and, of course, if you cannot determine the meaning of a proposition you have little chance of determining whether it is true). Once this flaw was found logical positivism pretty much fell apart.

Put that way, it makes sense. Thanks for explaining it.

However, I still have trouble with the idea that philosophy is the sole theoretical framework of science and mathematics, and BradCube's idea that philosophical ideas alone can prove the existence of God. "Universal quantifiers", for example, may not be empirically proven themselves, but their effect is certainly quantifiable (and while I don't know what an infinite domain is, while we can't prove infinity we can certainly see its effect on equations that explain behaviours of mathematics or properties of the universe).

 

[KFunk]

I understand that you are not doing such a thing, but you can't discount the basic tenets of empirical peer review based on the fact that empiricism as a concept has no substantive background immediately after its conception to fall back onto.

WAIT I'VE MISUNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING.

Haha, well at a bare minimum I'd suggest that you've misunderstood my post. The point is not that empiricism is a load of bunk. I'm a medical student - I depend a great deal on science and hope one day to contribute to it. I think that it is the best tool we have for gaining knowledge about our world. However, I think people are mistaken if they believe that the scientific method is self-confirming. Read my earlier post: "philosophy [imo] is the best forum for the justification of... the scientific method." In other words, philosophy is, in my view, the substantive background upon which empiricism may fall back.

 

[boris]

Holy mother of smoke haven't I got a lot to catch up on.

 

[boris]

Science can explain why chemicals in a person can cause them to feel a certain way. Can science however explain the cause of certain chemicals based on situations. ie, can science explain why emotional feelings related to love cause the chemicals that they do?

First we must define what is love? If we had no word to describe what love is, would it just be another human emotion?
I know you asked about an evolutionary link between the chemicals involved with the feeling of love, and I think I can answer this, but first I’ll explain what love is on a cellular level.
It’s all based on the human’s primal need to procreate. At the root of every romance there is no other driving force as strong as a human’s primal need to have babies. Of course when you fall in lust or love with a person you’re probably not thinking about having babies, but the feeling is a throw back from evolution. This links into evolution because if you study other animals you will see that they all mate, some for life some not, but their desire to mate and to continue their species, in a lot of animals, is their sole purpose in life.

Now, what is love? Numerous studies have shown that it takes a human, on average, anywhere between 40 seconds to 4 minutes to decide if you’re attracted to a person.

If love didn’t feel good do you think humans would be going back for more? It’s quite a clever evolutionary imprint, if love has been made to feel extraordinary more people are likely to seek it and therefore they’re more likely to procreate which ensures the survival of the species.
So a common breakdown of the chemical activity when one falls in love;
You see an attractive man/woman. Automatically there is a sense of desire, of lust. This all comes down to testosterone in men and oestrogen in women; the two sex hormones. They’re both steroids. Oestrogen is produced in the follicles in the ovaries, as well as the placenta. What do these two have in common? (the production of BABIES!!). Oestrogen is also vital for menarche (menstruation) in women, another process involved with the production of babies.
Testosterone is a male sex hormone and is especially responsible for that crushing libido many men have. The presence of dihydrotestosterone, which is a metabolite of testosterone, is what forms male sex organs in the womb!

Anyway so we’ve covered oestrogen and testosterone as the driving forces behind lust.
Next comes adrenaline (or epinephrine), dopamine and serotonin. What happens when you see your ‘lust’ figure? You get sweaty, your pulse races, your blood pressure hits the roof? Adrenaline is responsible for this. Serotonin on the other hand is a complex neurotransmitter. When we are in love, our serotonin levels DROP and this is what allows us to perceive our potential partner differently than others. It impacts upon our impulse control mechanisms. That’s why you often hear the term ‘blinded by love’. And finally dopamine. Dopamine is what makes us warm and fuzzy on the inside, it makes our pleasure centres in the brain light up like a Christmas tree.

And finally comes sex!

Why do you think sex (providing you’ve had it) feels good (providing it’s being done properly)? If sex didn’t feel good people wouldn’t come back for more! It’s another evolutionary trait that has allowed humans to continue to reproduce. By making the act of sex pleasurable, the survival of the species continues.

 

[juggernaut]

How longs a peice of string ?

 

[boris]

Wow, I never thought I would come up against so much opposition to philosophy being used as a viable means of gaining knowledge. It surprises me very much since much of our proofs and statements we make in this very forum have roots in philosophy and it's truths. If we throw away philosophy we have thrown away all of our logic and reasoning along with it.

Now we know that science only tests what is quantitative but this presents us with a problem since a theory of God poses that he is beyond quantitative measure. So then how do we look for existence of God using only science? No matter which way you slice it, it's going to be pretty difficult but I would think that some observable scientific facts could lead us to question the cause of those facts.

For example the improbability of life existing in the universe borders on what I would reason to be closer to impossibility. This leads me to think that there must be a reason for this occurrence. As of yet, I haven't seen any reasonable reason given that makes more sense to me than the design argument.

The inability to explain the cause of the universe using scientific measures is a gaping hole in my opinion that demands a response. I am not content simply to ignore this on the belief that science could one day find an answer.

I don’t think there is opposition as such. This is my opinion on philosophy. I think science and philosophy are mutually inclusive. If scientists of the past hadn’t stood back and said what if, we probably wouldn’t have a lot of the answers or solutions to problems. Or we would have but it would have taken longer.

To me though philosophy can’t go much further than what if. We need to ask why and how and what if in order to advance ourselves as humans, but without science or the scientific method philosophy is always ever going to be what it. I couldn’t live in a world where everything was what it, but I can live in a world where there are why’s that may not be able to be definitively answered (like evolution) but they provide enough of a framework for me to believe in them.

 

[boris]

How longs a peice of string ?

7

 

[boris]

Ok, awesome. This was a sincere question and not really an attack so it is good to have an answer. Could anyone expand upon this idea more than just: evolution causes chemicals in situations to promote survivability?

This may have been answered. You cannot rely on evolution to show cause. Evolution is an ongoing process. It shows the results more than the cause. I think I’ve answered what causes chemicals to react to the situations they do.

 

[boris]

Well here I have to beg ignorance, because what I know of philosophy is purely scientific (if that makes sense).

I'm not bashing the philosophical method, but as a scientist I rely on facts, and philosophy, as far as I know, cannot be empirically examined. How, then, can philosophy be the "best forum for justification of mathematics, logic and the scientific method"? This is an honest question; I do not understand the necessity of the link.

Well this is where we'll disagree. I think philosophy has been significant in science. What made Newton decide to drop a ball? It was philosophy. He wants to know 'what if'.
What made Pasteur want to disprove the theory of spontaneous generation?

There had to be a question before they found the answers. They had to ask them selves why, and what if in order to find the how.

That is why I think philosophical thought and science are mutually inclusive in that sense, but to me without science, philosophy would just remain a series of unanswerable questions

 

[Slidey]

As I pointed out in my reply to Kwayera, I didn't mean to imply that I thought God was responsible for each emotion we feel. I was just asking a sincere question.

Thanks for your reply. Just ordered the book you recommended. Thanks

With that, I'm off to watch Prison Break for the rest of the night. Thanks everyone for the discussion today

OH, OK. Yeah, sorry.

The book is good. It will leave you with twice as many questions and at least some answers, along with hopefully a better understanding of how the universe fits together, on every level. If you seriously ordered it, and have questions while reading it one day, drop me a pm. I probably can't answer the really deep questions, but I can point you to research being done, examples of phenomena or related things in real life, or just a better explanation than the book gives.

Oh, and in case you thought I was making a case for determinism (e.g. we can know what somebody is thinking if we know the exact neural net of the brain as well as the inputs), I'm certainly not. I think even artifical neural nets are driven by statistics and chance, but in a biological one like the brain you've got all the unknowability of quantum mechanics to consider PLUS the stoachstic inputs generated by the environment.

For example the improbability of life existing in the universe borders on what I would reason to be closer to impossibility. This leads me to think that there must be a reason for this occurrence. As of yet, I haven't seen any reasonable reason given that makes more sense to me than the design argument.

It's not generally accepted by scientists that life on earth is particularly improbable.

Really, the only people claiming it is are: those with an agenda (the religious), or those who are short-sighted (I wasn't there, I can't think of how it happened, thus it was improbable it happened).

One of the cases against the improbability of life is a variation of the law of large numbers (but this should never be the only argument against the improbability of life). It's a theorem (in maths, theorems have been proven timelessly true) in statistics.

The events that lead to life are in stages, but in the case of the initial stage of the creation of a cell: probability any given planet has chemical soup necessary for self-assembling structures like DNA or proteins at any one time (this will be low since it's an average of all planets in the universe over the entire time the universe has and will exist for) * probability that self-assembling molecules become surrounded in an oil/fat bubble etc for the various processes that lead to the first proto-cell. Two things here: probability of conditions, then probability of formation. By my reckoning, probability of formation, GIVEN conditions is actually fairly high. What about probability of conditions? It's extremely low. Why? Because we're taking the probability it occurs at given time in the entire universe's existence. So does that mean the entire probability is thus low? No, because we haven't taken this probability over the timespan of the entire universe's existence. E.g. probability you get 10 heads in a row is 1/1024. Probability if you toss forever? 100%. This is because it is a limit. It actually involves series and stuff and gets complicated, but given sufficient time, the probability of any event approaches 100% (if you keep repeating the event). Improbable may seem small, but when you've got infinity on your hands, does that really matter?

See, what YOU are confusing this with is the improbability of your own existence. Yes, that's certainly improbable, and I don't think even the law of large numbers accounts for it; it's just too improbable. As is any one person's existence, or the human race's existence, or any specific species's existence. The trick to remember is that there was NO event that had an outcome of "no life exists" or "life exists and got to this exact form and point in time"; it was in fact the collection of a successive outcome of probabilistic events which were NOT particularly improbable.

E.g. What's the chance you flip a head on a coin? 1/2. Big probability. What's the chance you flip 6 heads on a coin tossed 6 times? 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/64. Can you see where this is going? But what's the probability that I get heads then tails then heads etc so I have 3 heads 3 tails? It's 1/64. Even the seemingly middle route, the 'average', is improbable; all possible outcomes are improbable, but some of them are extremely similar. Probability of ANY 3 heads? 50%. Probability life starts through to I get born? 1 in a google plex. Probability life starts and something that has social/familial groups gets born (fish, all mammals)? A hell of a lot larger.

The events that occurred to get life to any point (either its creation, the evolution of multi-cellular organism, etc) could have had massive probabilities and would still give us a very small probability today if stacked up together. In fact, in retrospect, the probability that ANYTHING got from one point to another on this earth is infinitesimal, isn't it? But improbable? The chance would be infinitesimal for any event on Earth, no matter what the outcome of events preceding it was. But something HAD to happen; there HAD to be an outcome, so it becomes almost inevitable that certain types of things will happen.

BUT, what about specific traits rather than events? Aha! See, some patterns emerge which are "CLEARLY" not subject to the laws of probability. E.g.: certain structures evolve on Earth many times independently, yet the probability of this is seemingly almost impossible. What's the reason? The reason is that the probability of certain events is influenced by the environment. Not all events have equal probability (e.g. the probability one species will evolve compared to any other in the list of all possible species IS NOT EQUAL). The probability that the structure of a cactus (spines, few leaves, decreased surface area exposed to sun, etc) would evolve independently in a few non-cactus species is driven by random mutation certainly, but ALSO selection. The environment is showing bias FOR protective structures and AGAINST easily eaten/destroyed structures.

If this seems like babble to much, try reading this Author's review of a book on the matter as well (just found it on google; I'm not telling you to read the actual book too, though it seems worthwhile and I might grab it): http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1298987


And and Brad, if you're further interested:

E: An observation that life exists is made.

E*: We make an observation that life exists.

Note that E doesn't imply E*. By making the conclusion that the existence of life in the universe was improbable, you're implying some sense of omniscience in the form of 'knowing' life doesn't, won't and hasn't existed elsewhere in the universe.

 

[Slidey]

what is love?

Oh baby, don't hurt me! Don't hurt me, no more.

 

[BradCube]

Sorry for the lack of replies tonight, I was out. As always, I'll try and get through the bulk of responses and questions that people have left for me (and I have actually read them all now ). Before I shoot off though I just wanted to mention a few things quickly.

First is that I am sorry for me asserting that evolution causes outcomes. Of course, I do not believe this. In all honesty it was closer to a typo than anything else. With that in mind, I will go back and edit the original post to avoid further confusion for other readers.

Look, Kfunk, I love your posts and all that, but leave the Philosophy to Jezzmo. His nonsensical syllable-laden rantings about what is objectively true about society have a high enough barrier to entry that we just accept it as canon.

I don't know who Jezzmo is but I absolutely love and appreciate everything Kfunk lays out on this board. I find his unbiased approach to all of these issues to be quite refreshing. So KFunk I sincerely thank you for continuing to post replies and spend time answering my questions

The book is good. It will leave you with twice as many questions and at least some answers, along with hopefully a better understanding of how the universe fits together, on every level. If you seriously ordered it, and have questions while reading it one day, drop me a pm. I probably can't answer the really deep questions, but I can point you to research being done, examples of phenomena or related things in real life, or just a better explanation than the book gives.

Yup, I did seriously order the book (although from Amazon instead of the site that you linked). If I remember by the time I read it, I will definitely drop you a message if I am struggling with any particular issues. If they are related they may even be worth posting up here to gauge responses from everyone else. Either way, thanks for the offer

 

[KFunk]

However, I still have trouble with the idea that philosophy is the sole theoretical framework of science and mathematics, and BradCube's idea that philosophical ideas alone can prove the existence of God. "Universal quantifiers", for example, may not be empirically proven themselves, but their effect is certainly quantifiable (and while I don't know what an infinite domain is, while we can't prove infinity we can certainly see its effect on equations that explain behaviours of mathematics or properties of the universe).

Something I thought I should point out is that you shouldn't necessarily view science and philosophy as entirely separate entities. The scientific method is essentially a philosophy in itself, much of which deals in epistemology (philosophy of knowledge) by recommending methods of acquiring knowledge and dictating what we are warranted in believing given the sensory data we have available to us. Science and philosophy needn't be seen as opposing forces.

Also, so you know what I was on about, the domain (of discourse) in logic is the set of things/entities you quantify over. If you want to make general statements about the natural numbers, for example, then you would likely take the infinite set {0, 1, 2, ...} as your domain. When you then use a universal quantifier - "For every x it is the case that..." - you are effectively be saying "for every x within the specified domain it is the case that" (i.e. 'for every natural number it is the case that'). I simply brought up infinite domains because the limited nature of observation makes it difficult to generalise over infinite domains in some cases (there will, of course, be exceptions where we may justifiably infer a universal claim, but this will partly depend on the domain of discourse etc... etc...).

 

[KFunk]

I don't know who Jezzmo is but I absolutely love and appreciate everything Kfunk lays out on this board. I find his unbiased approach to all of these issues to be quite refreshing. So KFunk I sincerely thank you for continuing to post replies and spend time answering my questions

Cheers mate, I too have enjoyed our discussions. It's good to have people about who are willing to engage with issues in depth.

 

[risole91]

this is like the deepest question known to man.

x10000 over wheres waldo.