Epicurean cosmologocal argument

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

Jim B.
Posts:1445
Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am
Re: Epicurean cosmologocal argument

Post by Jim B. » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:51 pm

The Pixie wrote: Not quite. The laws of science model the laws of nature. The laws of science are descriptive, the laws of nature are (probably) prescriptive.
But how can anything be prescriptive absent intentionality and mind is what I'm asking.
Is that not because we are encompassing so much? Besides nature proceeding according to the laws of nature, and things happening because we make them do so, what else is there?
What would the scope of the explanation have to do with it? If prescriptiveness involves intention, purpose, a goal, that would fly in the face of the predominant scientific world picture which rejects those things.
Do atoms in a water molecule keep together because God is willing them to? Or because they are following a law? Note that that is not to say God did not devise the law in the first place, but in that case it is still a prescriptive law. I would say that the fact that we see such regularity and conistency in the laws of nature indicates a mind is not behind it all.
I would say they keep together not directly due to God's will. I think Sgt. Tomas would say different. They do so because they are following a prescriptive law. If reality is devoid of purpose, I don't see where the prescriptiveness would come from. The consistency and regularity, if they are prescriptive, would suggest a mind behind it all. If they are merely descriptive, that would not suggest a mind behind it all. If everything was in flux, the hypercontingency that met talks about, that would suggest to me the mere randomness of things happening, just brute contingency. If you hear static on the phone line, you assume no one is talking. You listen for order and structure in the noise to sift out an intelligent signal.
Remember, those atoms are wave functions - or at least are better modelled as wave functions rather than discrete particles. When they combine in a molecule of water, we get a new wave function that describe the whole molecule. My feeling is that the whole universe is one big wavefunction. it is not that atoms follow rules, but that the wavefunction is evolving over time.
But are the laws evolving along with the wave function or is the function evolving in accordance with the laws?

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Epicurean cosmologocal argument

Post by The Pixie » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:48 am

Jim, I have misunderstood your position, I think. Are you agreeing with me that there are prescriptive laws, but that you think a mind must be behind them?
Jim B. wrote:But how can anything be prescriptive absent intentionality and mind is what I'm asking.
I do not know. I do not think ignorance is a good reason to conclude God.
What would the scope of the explanation have to do with it? If prescriptiveness involves intention, purpose, a goal, that would fly in the face of the predominant scientific world picture which rejects those things.
Forget the scope; I misunderstood your point.

So to go back a bit, you said before:"Every other case of prescriptiveness I can think of involves mind or consciousness somehow."

What prescriptive laws are you thinking of here? Are these legal laws? Legal laws are very different to the laws of nature (and really are more like guidelines, in that people can and do ignore them sometimes).
I would say they keep together not directly due to God's will. I think Sgt. Tomas would say different. They do so because they are following a prescriptive law.
If reality is devoid of purpose, I don't see where the prescriptiveness would come from. The consistency and regularity, if they are prescriptive, would suggest a mind behind it all. If they are merely descriptive, that would not suggest a mind behind it all. If everything was in flux, the hypercontingency that met talks about, that would suggest to me the mere randomness of things happening, just brute contingency. If you hear static on the phone line, you assume no one is talking. You listen for order and structure in the noise to sift out an intelligent signal.
I think the consistency and regularity indicate that there are prescriptive laws. Whether there was a mind behind those laws is unknown. However, all the minds we know about are continent on matter, which in turn is continent on those laws, which suggests to me that mind cannot be behind it all.
But are the laws evolving along with the wave function or is the function evolving in accordance with the laws?
The latter. But I now realise this is consistent with your position, so is probably not relevant.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Epicurean cosmologocal argument

Post by Metacrock » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:45 am

I agree with you that there are prescriptive laws.I think that makes atheism a lot less tenable.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Epicurean cosmologocal argument

Post by The Pixie » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:16 pm

Metacrock wrote:...I think that makes atheism a lot less tenable.
Why?

Jim B.
Posts:1445
Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Epicurean cosmologocal argument

Post by Jim B. » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:45 pm

The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:...I think that makes atheism a lot less tenable.
Why?

Because you can't get prescriptiveness from purposelessness. If prescriptiveness is "written in" to the basic nature of things, it makes a purposeless universe much less likely. Doesn't necessarily mean there's a God in an anthropomorphic sense, but some kind of purpose(s) behind things is more likely than not. It could be a naturalisitic teleological principle, like Thomas Nagel proposes, but why would that necessarily be different from or any more plausible than some description of "God"?

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Epicurean cosmologocal argument

Post by Metacrock » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:04 am

The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:...I think that makes atheism a lot less tenable.
Why?
what makes them prescriptive? can't account for it as well by accident. as Jim says
Because you can't get prescriptiveness from purposelessness. If prescriptiveness is "written in" to the basic nature of things, it makes a purposeless universe much less likely. Doesn't necessarily mean there's a God in an anthropomorphic sense, but some kind of purpose(s) behind things is more likely than not. It could be a naturalisitic teleological principle, like Thomas Nagel proposes, but why would that necessarily be different from or any more plausible than some description of "God"?
well said Jim.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Epicurean cosmologocal argument

Post by The Pixie » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:08 am

Jim B. wrote:Because you can't get prescriptiveness from purposelessness. ...
Your argument is founded on this claim, but I see no reason to suppose it is true.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Epicurean cosmologocal argument

Post by Metacrock » Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:15 am

The Pixie wrote:
Jim B. wrote:Because you can't get prescriptiveness from purposelessness. ...
Your argument is founded on this claim, but I see no reason to suppose it is true.
how can you have prescription without purpose? let's definev its "the action of laying down authoritative rules or directions" what's the authority?


Definition of prescriptive
1
: serving to prescribe <prescriptive rules of usage>
2
: acquired by, founded on, or determined by prescription or by long-standing custom
prescriptively adverb

whois doing the prscriobing?
the Spanish-English Dictionary
© 2016 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Definition of prescription
1
a : the establishment of a claim of title to something under common law usually by use and enjoyment for a period fixed by statute
b : the right or title acquired under common law by such possession
2
: the process of making claim to something by long use and enjoyment
3
: the action of laying down authoritative rules or directions
4
a : a written direction for a therapeutic or corrective agent; specifically : one for the preparation and use of a medicine
b : a prescribed medicine
c : something (as a recommendation) resembling a doctor's prescription <prescriptions for economic recovery>
5
a : ancient or long continued custom
b : a claim founded upon ancient custom or long continued use
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

The Pixie
Posts:852
Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Epicurean cosmologocal argument

Post by The Pixie » Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:51 am

Metacrock wrote:how can you have prescription without purpose? let's definev its "the action of laying down authoritative rules or directions" what's the authority?
...
Arguing by dictionary definitions? I can find definitions that are neutral on the issue.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... escriptive
Relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method

What authority do you think is required here? Do you think God punishes naughts atoms who do not obey the rules? I think you are confusing the laws of nature with the laws of the land, Metacrock. There are important differences!

Jim B.
Posts:1445
Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Epicurean cosmologocal argument

Post by Jim B. » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:18 pm

The Pixie wrote:
Jim B. wrote:Because you can't get prescriptiveness from purposelessness. ...
Your argument is founded on this claim, but I see no reason to suppose it is true.
Prescriptive involves the idea of purpose. So "prescriptive" would be at odds with "purposeless."

Post Reply