Reasoning faith

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by bob x

What in the world are you even trying to say there??? Thermodynamics most decidedly does NOT show that natural bodies have a sense of "purpose".

The natural bodies flow in one direction, and one direction only. Everything must use energy and produce entropy. Everything is thus recorded. Due to the design, evident in empirically measured thermodynamics, for everything physical there is necessarily a beginning and there is necessarily an end. I submit the purpose is to record everything.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Oh okay Chris, I see what you are saying. Am I correct in thinking that your definition of reason is a choice or action based on available data chosen through intuition?

Well, we'd have to define intuition. Many things feel like intuition even though there may be a significant amount of coercion involved.

Chris

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Cyberpi? Your name is Chris? . . . or has Tao simply confused you with China Cat Sunflower?

I meant Chris...CCS, I must have clicked quote on the wrong box when replying.

Sorry

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Rather that ALL empirically measured evidence shows both of these true... namely, thermodynamics. Not to say the rules or the scientific constants can not be altered by God, but then... Q.E.D.

Thermodynamics again....come on dude change the bleedin record.

The argument you pose Tao is essentially that gravity is not proven because it has not been empirically measured everywhere.

Correct. Is that not true?

Who makes the concept? Is perfection not found when reality is molded by the concept?

No it never exists. Except as an illusion for those who like to be poetic or vainly self-sure.

Empirically measured thermodynamics shows that they do. Is empirically measured thermodynamics wrong?

We have been through all this on other threads. You throw up thermodynamics and entropy and ignore everything I say so I really do not see the point of going there again. If you think either of your pet words is fully consistent with all science I cannot help you.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Thermodynamics again....come on dude change the bleedin record.

I can't ignore it... I make use of it. I am an engineer. It is involved in all aspects of engineering. Everything requires energy, including every measurement. If you know of another way then I submit that engineering schools all across the world and scientists would like to hear of it.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Correct. Is that not true?

As long as you see that you are then opposed to calling anything a proof or a scientific law, and that everything empirical including all of measured science favors those two statements. I agree with you that faith or blind hope is involved in all things simply for the fact that people do not and can not test everything and see everything at every time and at every place. However, for example Newton's measurement of laws have withstood many tests. Every day that I have woken up I have felt gravity. The laws measured by science have been upheld when they have been tested, or new theories are developed to account for differing observations. Nothing I have learned in college or tested on my own has defeated either one of those two statements. But I am quite certain that it is possible... by God.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

No it never exists. Except as an illusion for those who like to be poetic or vainly self-sure.

As an engineer I strive to design to perfection, which involves determining what a person wants or needs. They tell me the degree of perfection in the results and I compare it with my own measure.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

We have been through all this on other threads. You throw up thermodynamics and entropy and ignore everything I say so I really do not see the point of going there again. If you think either of your pet words is fully consistent with all science I cannot help you.

I did not ignore your words, "No they do not", but I am happy to if you wish. If there is ANY natural body in the world that does not act for ends, then I'd surely like to hear of it. Hopefully you have empirical evidence posited or possible to posit? I seek your evidence for your statement, "No they do not". Please provide.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I meant Chris...CCS, I must have clicked quote on the wrong box when replying.

Sorry

Thank you Tao, that was as fine a compliment as I've ever received! I thought maybe it was directed to Cyberpi because I didn't see what I wrote as inspirational. But heck yeah, I'll take the brownie- and thanks!

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.

We have observed that there is a stack of turtles which no one has ever seen the top or bottom of. Since there cannot be an infinite stack of turtles there must be a first turtle. This turtle we call God.

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.

The turtles cannot themselves move. Because of the way they're stacked the hump in the shell underneath makes it impossible for the turtles toes to touch anything. We have noticed that the turtles do move, so the movement must come from the first turtle. That's why we call him God.

3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.

Since all of the turtles are on the stack, the oldest turtle must have stacked the younger ones on top of themselves. Therefore, the first turtle must be self born because no other turtle is older than him. Another reason we call him God.

4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
* The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.

I don't know how to make the turtle analogy work for this one. How is it that varying degrees of perfection have been observed? What perfection? What degrees? Based on what?

5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
* All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
* This being we call God.

All the turtles seem to have a purpose, and that is...getting stacked. Since, as anyone knows, getting stacked is an unintelligent thing to do, but stacking is an intelligent activity, it can only be assumed that the first turtle himself came up with the idea of starting this stack and then forced the younger turtles to do his will.

Chris

[bob x]

I don't know how to make the turtle analogy work for this one

I'm Yertle the Turtle, oh marvellous me, for I am the Ruler of all I can see!

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by bob x

I'm Yertle the Turtle, oh marvellous me, for I am the Ruler of all I can see!

Sweet! The Tao of Seuss.

Chris

[Paladin]

You guys crack me up, and after the week Ive had I need that !

[cyberpi]

I sense something right and something wrong in that Tao of Babel and Tower of Yurtles.

[wil]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Thank you Tao, that was as fine a compliment as I've ever received! But heck yeah, I'll take the brownie- and thanks!

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

...We have observed that there is a stack of turtles ...All the turtles seem to have a purpose, and that is...getting stacked. ...
Chris

maybe a bit premature

[China Cat Sunflower]

The brownie?

Chris

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I can't ignore it... I make use of it. I am an engineer. It is involved in all aspects of engineering. Everything requires energy, including every measurement. If you know of another way then I submit that engineering schools all across the world and scientists would like to hear of it.

In the case of quantum particles that create mass and energy when they miraculously appear as pairs sharing the same information, then disappear without trace again, what laws of thermodynamics are you going to use to explain it? Or in the case of super-cooled fluids or super-dense supercooled matter like that a black hole is composed of as I understand it the laws of thermodynamics and gravity go to pot. So while in your field of engineering it may well be these 'laws' are important but they are not universal. Even in human endeavour we have found exceptions.

As long as you see that you are then opposed to calling anything a proof or a scientific law, and that everything empirical including all of measured science favors those two statements. I agree with you that faith or blind hope is involved in all things simply for the fact that people do not and can not test everything and see everything at every time and at every place. However, for example Newton's measurement of laws have withstood many tests. Every day that I have woken up I have felt gravity. The laws measured by science have been upheld when they have been tested, or new theories are developed to account for differing observations. Nothing I have learned in college or tested on my own has defeated either one of those two statements.

You see I am not a scientist, nor an engineer, nor a theologian. I am just me putting my own thoughts down on things based on the best, most logical ideas I see floated. I have no blanket reverence for what science says but I do see some of its ideas turned into practical experiments based on theories that evolve by generation. In our lifetimes we have seen amazing advances in almost every field and I think this is in large part due to us over the past 2 centuries removing theology from the equation.

Thomas seeks to reverse this, he attempts to regurgitate the long rejected, that simply never worked except by those committed to believe in supernatural dogmas.

The science I am most attracted to is that that tries to fathom the true nature of space/time. Because after all there is no bigger question. And in some senses it is a quest to disprove God. Science is a long way from doing this, currently our model is forced to invoke the existence into our universe of some 96% of dark matter and energy, as a percentage of total mass, to make any sense of gravity. Its the trendy theory but I think its crap and its about time they did away with the idea of the Big Bang being the cause of the universe. As I have stated elsewhere I tend toward the idea that the Big Bang event to be a local event causing local distortions (laws). And recent observational data supports certain things I have been saying for some time, such as basing size and velocity on type 1A supernovae and red shift readings to be a flawed method. I think the true nature, the underlying nature, of things cannot and will not be discovered by the study of local laws. Of course local laws are fundamental to our existence and we can measure them to great accuracy but increasingly we discover they are not universal. This is my point.

But I am quite certain that it is possible... by God.

Not the tooth fairy or santa ?

As an engineer I strive to design to perfection, which involves determining what a person wants or needs. They tell me the degree of perfection in the results and I compare it with my own measure.

This is not the definition of perfection Aquinas intended and you know it. Stop trying to move the goalposts to suit your need. Incidentally, you will never achieve perfection...agreed?

I did not ignore your words, "No they do not", but I am happy to if you wish. If there is ANY natural body in the world that does not act for ends, then I'd surely like to hear of it. Hopefully you have empirical evidence posited or possible to posit? I seek your evidence for your statement, "No they do not". Please provide.

A rock is a natural body. What is its ends? How does it act to achieve them? Given the level of understanding of basic local laws such as gravity that Aquinas had try and answer them in his flat Earth thinking. Good luck.

Tao

[flowperson]

Mmmmm...brownies ! Local or non-local ?