Is It Correct to Say There is “No” Evidence For the Supernatural Part 2

[sfmatheson (Stephen Matheson)]

@Jim

since your cause begins to exist at the moment of the first physical event, you now have to come up with what caused your cause to exist.

The whole point of most of this discussion is that this claim of yours is false.

@Jim

So all you’ve done is kicked the can down the road so to speak.

This is actually a devastating admission of how silly cosmological arguments are. One option we all have, which you note, is to say “no cause” or “brute fact.” You haven’t explained why these options don’t work, and that’s okay, because neither you nor anyone else can do that. Then, rather laughably, you identify this kind of conclusion as “kicking the can down the road,” oblivious to the fact that the “god solution” is nothing more than that.

Cosmological arguments help people psychologically and I’m all for that. As actual arguments for the supernatural, or anything else, they are a joke.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

I just don’t agree. We’re talking here about the certainty level of objective and verifiable observation vs abductive inference.

The problem I see is that you cast doubt on the ability to observe anything. Our sight works by quantum particles striking photosensitive molecules in our retinas. You have already deemed this process to not be an observation, so we can’t even count directly seeing something as an observation under your definition of evidence.

In the real world, if multiple people can get the same results in the same experiment then that is considered a verified observation. For example, we could all repeat Rutherford’s brilliant experiment that evidenced the existence of a small positively charged atomic nucleus:

Rutherford model

If those experiments are not evidence for an atomic nuclei, then your definition of evidence is meaningless as far as I can see.

@Jim

To say that a quantum particle exists as a wave function until it is measured has no scientific evidence (as defined in the op) to support it that I’m aware of.

The double slit experiment.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

OK. I will grant you that. But then, since your cause begins to exist at the moment of the first physical event, you now have to come up with what caused your cause to exist. Or else you have to say it has no cause, or it’s a brute fact.

Then what caused God?

[Jim]

@sfmatheson

This is actually a devastating admission of how silly cosmological arguments are. One option we all have, which you note, is to say “no cause” or “brute fact.” You haven’t explained why these options don’t work, and that’s okay, because neither you nor anyone else can do that.

Not a problem for my argument. All I’m arguing for is that it is warranted to make an abductive argument from scientific evidence for the supernatural. In order to affect that argument you have to show that my inference of a nonphysical cause for the first physical event is either logically, or metaphysically impossible. And as far as I know, neither you nor anyone else can do that.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Jim

All I’m arguing for is that it is warranted to make an abductive argument from scientific evidence for the supernatural. In order to affect that argument you have to show that my inference of a nonphysical cause for the first physical event is either logically, or metaphysically impossible. And as far as I know, neither you nor anyone else can do that.

Purple elephants with pink polka dots that shit solid gold coins are metaphysically possible. Metaphysical possibility is such a low bar that to say a claim exceeds it is practically meaningless.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Jim

In order to affect that argument you have to show that my inference of a nonphysical cause for the first physical event is either logically, or metaphysically impossible.

Or rests on unnecessary assumptions. Or commits some other fallacy, like exluded evidence. Which I have done.

[faded_Glory]

What is a “non-physical cause” anyway? Perhaps I might understand what it is not, but where can I find what it actually is? Are there any referents for this phrase? Got any examples?

[sfmatheson (Stephen Matheson)]

@Jim

All I’m arguing for is that it is warranted to make an abductive argument from scientific evidence for the supernatural.

And what everyone has told you is that this is vacuous drivel.

@Jim

In order to affect that argument you have to show that my inference of a nonphysical cause for the first physical event is either logically, or metaphysically impossible.

The absurdity of this sentence has been demonstrated repeatedly in this discussion. I don’t need to “affect that argument” because the argument is a fluffy card trick that assigns “supernatural” to what is unknown. Those who need cosmological arguments to sleep soundly should by all means try that remedy. No one should take the arguments seriously, and your failure to even grasp the dismantling of your various premises only makes cosmological arguments look more pitiful than they already do.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Jim

OK. I will grant you that. But then, since your cause begins to exist at the moment of the first physical event, you now have to come up with what caused your cause to exist. Or else you have to say it has no cause, or it’s a brute fact. So all you’ve done is kicked the can down the road so to speak.

I have already stated that we don’t need to assume that at some point the universe did not exist. Since there was not any point at which it did not exist, I do not need to invoke a cause to explain it’s coming into existence. It would be silly to posit causes for events that did not occur.

So instead of the first “physical event” being something coming into existence from nothing, it is instead a case of something physical(which exists) undergoing physical change. The cause of the physical change of the existing physical thing, could be something like a physical force, be it gravity, electromagnetism, dark energy, or what have you.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@faded_Glory

What is a “non-physical cause” anyway? Perhaps I might understand what it is not, but where can I find what it actually is ? Are there any referents for this phrase? Got any examples?

Very interesting that now you’re asking this question, given that you refused to “play” a few days ago:

@faded_Glory

@dga471

What is a rigorous definition of “physical reality”?

I’m not playing, sorry. If we can’t discuss the supernatural using the OP’s definition we really are better off leaving it well alone.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Jim

I’ve made the case already for why it’s logically impossible to have a physical cause for the first physical event

Why suppose that there was a first physical event?

[faded_Glory]

I’m not the one who introduced the term ‘non-physical’. I’m simply asking Jim to clarify what he means by a term he is using in his posts. For instance, I don’t know if he equates ‘non-physical’ with ‘supernatural’.

[Jim]

@Rumraket

I have already stated that we don’t need to assume that at some point the universe did not exist. Since there was not any point at which it did not exist, I do not need to invoke a cause to explain it’s coming into existence. It would be silly to posit causes for events that did not occur.

So instead of the first “physical event” being something coming into existence from nothing, it is instead a case of something physical(which exists) undergoing physical change. The cause of the physical change of the existing physical thing, could be something like a physical force, be it gravity, electromagnetism, dark energy, or what have you.

That’s a pretty tall claim when looking at the actual scientific evidence. What scientific evidence do you have to support the claim that the universe has always existed. Or if what you mean is that at any point in physical time it always existed, then what about where there were no points of physical time in existence?

[Faizal_Ali]

I don’t see how the claim that the universe has always existed is any taller than the claim that there was a point at which literally nothing existed, and then the universe began to exist. Can you justify your position?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Jim

That’s a pretty tall claim when looking at the actual scientific evidence.

What evidence is that? Be specific.

[Jim]

@T_aquaticus

The double slit experiment.

I think I’m correct to say that you cannot observe the existence of a quantum particle as a waive function. It is an unusual type of inference based on, as far as I can tell, the fact that we can’t measure both the velocity and position of quantum particles at the same time.

But to my knowledge, there is absolutely no actual observation of particles existing as as wave functions before being measured, nor any scientific evidence for the existence of a “wave function” other than as an abstract object.

Where is the scientific evidence that an abstract object can exist as a concrete object? My understanding is that this whole notion is an inference that was derived based on logical positivism; if it can’t be measured, in some odd way, it doesn’t exist.

Logical positivism has long been dismissed as a logically incoherent position. Unfortunately, I would argue, its effect on the scientific community is still present to this day, including the acceptance of the incredibly odd notion that a quantum particle can exist as a wave function until it is measured.

As for the double slit experiment, to me, all that shows is that measurement affects how quantum particles behave, which is understandable, since as I understand it, that’s what the uncertainty principle is founded on.

@Rumraket

What evidence is that? Be specific.

The redshift, the cmbr, and entropy are the main ones. At least those are the ones I’m familiar with. I imagine there’s more as well. But my understanding is that there is no scientific evidence at all for a universe without a beginning. I assume no one would object to that claim? If so then they would need to provide the scientific evidence that would show otherwise.

On top of that, there are several pretty compelling philosophical arguments for a universe with a beginning, i.e., the impossibility of an infinite regress of actual events. Besides objecting to those particular arguments for a beginning, I would imagine there must be some philosophical arguments for a beginningless universe, but I’m not familiar with any.

Probably someone else on the forum here knows some. Of course there’s always the brute fact argument. But that has no explanatory power to speak of at all. So to me, it’s a kind of lame argument.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Jim

Where is the scientific evidence that an abstract object can exist as a concrete object?

Can we close the thread now?

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

All I’m arguing for is that it is warranted to make an abductive argument from scientific evidence for the supernatural.

That seems rather subjective. It’s a bit like not knowing who committed a murder and then claiming it is warranted to suspect that Leprechauns did it simply because we are ignorant of the cause. There is no logical or reasoned argument that gets us from “I don’t know” to “God did it”, as far as I can see.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jim

I think I’m correct to say that you cannot observe the existence of a quantum particle as a waive function.

Results of experiments are consistent with particles having a wave function, and those observations are scientific evidence for those wave functions.

@Jim

Where is the scientific evidence that an abstract object can exist as a concrete object?

The double slit experiment.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Jim

I think I’m correct to say that you cannot observe the existence of a quantum particle as a waive function.

That is incorrect. Just how do you think we know it exists? Does some god have to tell us about it?