It just doesn't work. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that if the universe were compressed to a singularity at some point in the past, it should've stayed that way. To put it in Newtonian terms (and I realize the dangers there) an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force, and "the universe" by definition precludes any force from outside, because there IS no "outside. " Entropy is always increasing in a closed system, and the universe is the ultimate closed system, so the suggestion it could naturally acquire kinetic energy when it had none initially is just bad science. Rebuttals of this come in two forms:
1) Concoct a hypothetical and unverifiable scheme wherein the known universe is just part of a larger one that supplies it energy, so that entropy decreases here while increasing at a greater rate in some other mystical place we can't perceive. Call it "the Flying Spaghetti Monsters pasta bowl. "
2) Vaguely and sagely assert that "we don't know much about the early universe; generally accepted laws of science may not apply. " Then, um, why are we trying to investigate it scientifically? If fundamental principles of physics are so deeply flawed, isn't that an argument AGAINST rather than FOR current physics models of the universes origins?
1) Concoct a hypothetical and unverifiable scheme wherein the known universe is just part of a larger one that supplies it energy, so that entropy decreases here while increasing at a greater rate in some other mystical place we can't perceive. Call it "the Flying Spaghetti Monsters pasta bowl. "
2) Vaguely and sagely assert that "we don't know much about the early universe; generally accepted laws of science may not apply. " Then, um, why are we trying to investigate it scientifically? If fundamental principles of physics are so deeply flawed, isn't that an argument AGAINST rather than FOR current physics models of the universes origins?
Why shouldn't we necessarily discontinue scientific investigation simply because any or all of our current laws may be stunted? Because the general philosophy of science assumes only that the ultimate answers will be rationally principled and theoretically observable. Within those bounds, science is a process of definition. The "laws of science" are not "the laws that encapsulate science" but merely "the best laws suggested through the conduct of science so far." Positively speaking, we necessarily should continue scientific investigation because the demonstrated accuracy of scientific laws correlates positively with changes to those laws over time, whereas the demonstrated accuracy of non-scientific ideas do not correlate positively with changes to those ideas over time.
I don't know that that's true within their respective realms. Non-scientific ideas are as bound to adapt to growing understanding and greater experience as science, just in different ways. That's why people who accept ancient pagan nature mythoi as legitimate are a fringe element, much like those who insist Christianity requires a 6000 year old Earth and that therefore the Earth is only 6000 years old.
But the point is if you're going to say a given scientific theory of the universe can be valid DESPITE direct and fundamental conflicts with basic scientific principles you need a better reason than "because that's the only way the theory works" or you're in the same boat. Sure, scientific laws are subject to change based on new data, just like we decided to modify the Laws of Conservation when it was theorized and then experimentally proven that energy can be converted to matter and vice versa. Of course, the modification only occurred AFTER the experimental proof, not because someone said, "but I need it for my theory!!!" Further, considering such a profound alteration of scientific principles as ignoring entropy is rather like convening a Constitutional Amendment Convention: You can do it if you really want to, but it opens the door to ANY revision up to and including the supernatural. Unless there's an observational reason for exempting the Big Bang from entropy there's no reason not to exempt it from other bedrock scientific principles (and if matter/energy can be converted, creation of either ex nihilo remains firmly in the realm of metaphysics rather than particle physics) and just say, "because God did it. "
Origins are, after all, the key problem, because thanks to entropy everything decays, all motion eventually ceases, and once that happens there's nothing possible to kick start it again. Not under a purely natural model, and there's the rub: The materialist view criticizes spiritual ones for not playing by the laws of physics, but supernatural theories by nature are not obligated to do so; natural ones very much are.
I don't agree with that last statement. The fundamental criticism is not that supernatural theories don't play by the laws of physics, but that supernatural theories don't play by the same meta-rules by which natural laws may be rationally accepted. If you wouldn't accept a natural law that asserts X, then why would you accept a supernatural theory that asserts X? And so if you are going to assert X, then you might as well accept it as a natural law, not a supernatural theory.
Say I owe you money and you ask me, "Where's the money you owe me?" And in reply, I suggest, "Maybe my bank has already paid you with supernatural coinage. It's not observable, so we can't prove it's not in your account now." You criticize me saying, "That's a ridiculous theory: it doesn't play by the laws of economics!" And I reply, "Maybe you're right, but it isn't obligated to do so. That's the beauty of supernatural money." When all and said and done, supernatural money is a cop-out. If I'm willing to assert a transaction at all, then I ought to be willing to back that assertion up with observable currency. Or, just because a theory is logically possible, that isn't sufficient to make it rationally acceptable.
As you conveniently pointed out above, the "meta-rules by which natural laws may be rationally accepted" ARE the only fixed laws of physics. Even seemingly unassailable ones remain subject to review based on observation which is arguably the only real meta-rule of physics. In terms of your analogy, credit is routinely accepted for debt based on the promise of future payment in the absence of "observable currency. " That's the distinction; the rules of physics require things be observable, verifiable and consistently reproducible, which is why it's OK to assert something that isn't, but NOT as a natural law; it's supernatural by definition, just as a meta-rule isn't a rule, it's a meta-rule. Physics has been increasingly moving in that direction for some time; we don't require DIRECT observation anymore, because the Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible: We rely on observed EFFECTS rather than directly observed phenomena (which is a core principle of the supernatural, but a recent development in natural science. ) The Big Bang takes it one step further; at least quantum physics experiments can be reproduced (though the nature of quantum mechanics is such guaranteeing the same experiment under the same conditions produces the same results is practically impossible; even if true, you can't verify all the starting conditions in the first place, and outcomes are ultimately a probability no matter what you do. ) No, the issue isn't that one approach requires us to take things on faith and the other doesn't, the issue is that both are conjectural but only one is internally consistent.
Beyond that logic most of my evidence is anecdotal, like the time a crackhead plunged a knife into my gut a dozen times or so and couldn't even put a hole in my shirt, about a week after my mom had a dream she was in a hospital being told I was stabbed, a dream so vivid she called to wake me up and tell me. Or the dreams she had as a teen about a relative dying, shortly before they unexpectedly did just that. Or the... thing... that showed up in my bedroom door one night as a very small child and started trying to talk to me, then promptly disappeared when my parents rushed out and hit the hall light. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. " To assume that because something can't be directly observed it doesn't exist is rather conceited, IMHO, particularly when purely natural models are so inadequate to full explanations of reality.
For me it's not about assuming that unobservable things can't exist, but rather about conceding our experiences will always be as if there were no unobservable things. Even if they do exist where they themselves are concerned, they don't exist where we are concerned. Whether or not Bob exists, if you know he'll never eat with you, then there's no point in setting a place for him at the table. (And in fact, to do so may be poor thing to do if it means paying less attention to Rita, who might or might not eat with you now, but at least you know she does so on occasion.)
The fact that you did observe all those anecdotal miracles and horrors is proof enough that they were natural, independent of meaning. We don't need to accommodate the supernatural to interpret those events as divine or demonic.
I observed the effects of things I can only classify as supernatural for the simple reason that no natural explanation is possible. Give me a natural explanation why a knife forcefully thrust at fabric won't penetrate it. Or why anyone would anticipate by a week the completely random encounter that produced that event. I would say my experience has NOT been "as if there were no unobservable things" because I and others have experienced the effects of things that can't be directly observed, consistently reproduced or independently verified.
Ultimately, even when I wasn't a Christian, I was a Deist simply because a First Cause is inescapable, an infinite regression as impossible by physical law as by logic (though on the latter point see The Metaphysics Book II, Part 2; it's short, but does away with infinite regression nicely) and because since entropy makes an eternal unbeginning physical realm impossible, well, as Doyle says, when we have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
But it does not follow from "the First Cause is inescapable" that the First Cause is of a different substance or higher plane than the First Effect. The entire cosmos may be God willing His body to dance. Divine creation is possible without supernatural separation.
In point of fact, it does, because the most critical quality of the First Cause is that, unlike the First Effect, it requires no antecedent cause. That makes it fundamentally of a different nature; the First Effect can never be without the First Cause, but the First Cause, by definition, requires no underlying cause. The cosmos may very well be God willing His body to dance; I often conceive the cosmos as a physical manifestation of God, but it does not follow from God assuming a convenient physical representation that He's restricted to the physical. Thus divine creation is NOT possible without supernatural separation because it posits finite material with a definite beginning arose from a non-material Source with NO beginning, neither of which are possible under natural law, since neither the non-material nor the eternal can be verified or consistently reproduced. That's why Aristotle rebutts an infinitely regressing series of causes in The Metaphysics rather than The Physics; he did write both, after all. Divinity is NOT a natural principle under generally accepted understandings of the term; the only arena in which natural law is asserted to be part and parcel with God is the one that rejects the generally understood meaning of "natural law" in favor of a religious one that rejects current cosmology on its face in favor of a 6000 year old Earth.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 07/10/2009 at 11:58:58 AM
Do you think there's some kind of spiritual substance in the universe?
14/09/2009 02:42:22 PM
- 812 Views
On a gut level, I think all substance is teleologically tied to one or more kinds of consciousness.
14/09/2009 04:03:31 PM
- 548 Views
aaah but who says we can percieve all there is to percieve in relation to our persons?
14/09/2009 04:14:08 PM
- 508 Views
But merely positing a soul (as a spiritual substance) doesn't actually explain anything.
14/09/2009 07:46:35 PM
- 486 Views
i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul"
14/09/2009 07:50:27 PM
- 544 Views
Re: i'm not saying that all inexplained qualities are due to "soul"
14/09/2009 08:05:41 PM
- 543 Views
I think there is definitely a spiritual force that underlies the unity of all things
14/09/2009 06:11:01 PM
- 558 Views
Rum.
14/09/2009 08:25:46 PM
- 547 Views
YES! *NM*
16/09/2009 02:10:55 PM
- 252 Views
How are we not married? *NM*
19/09/2009 04:10:13 AM
- 226 Views
Not the way I'd put it, as jh notes, but unquestionably.
15/09/2009 03:17:22 PM
- 534 Views
The material universe precludes a purely natural cause.
18/09/2009 12:04:16 PM
- 613 Views
One little correction
20/09/2009 12:34:13 AM
- 622 Views
That makes it more complex, but I agree the same basic problem persists.
07/10/2009 12:11:07 PM
- 651 Views