note: this discussion has turned for the better;read pgs/Where do the laws come from?

I feel the same way actually.But it doesn't matter.

Yes, ti is invalid because it relies on making arbitrary assumptions to terminate the regress in the place you happen to want it. It's a cheat. You might as well say "'cos I say so!" is a valid argument - it would certainly be more honest.And if it is valid to arbitrarily terminate the regress then it is valid to terminate it with things we know to exist. Or to propsoe other non-God explanations and terminate there. So your claim that there is no other answer implcitly accepts that your answer is invalid. So either there are many possiblle answers or none. Either way, your argument fails.

I'm interested in a response to message 87.

I disagree completely with your assessment.Claiming a creator is far different from "cos I say so"There is no explanation for the nature of the universe and everything inside of it. It seems to exist along with everthing else with definitions. These "definitions" must be explained.I will think that one would agree that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes. If this is so there had to be a beginning and there had to be some defining.Now what would do this defining?

People have been answering your question. You just don't like the answers they are giving.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This is incorrect, dishonest and unsupported.I await a reply from Paulk and you may be dismissed if you wish to leave.

quote:

---

Claiming a creator is far different from "cos I say so"

---

Of course it is - the first is the content of the claim while the second is the "reason" for supporting it. Thus your statement here is not a valid objection. I simply point out that arbitrarily rejecting all answers but the one you want is equivalent to "'cos I say so". And that is true no matter what the content of that answer might be.

quote:

---

There is no explanation for the nature of the universe and everything inside of it. It seems to exist along with everthing else with definitions. These "definitions" must be explained.

---

Any explanation must be in terms of other things - whether simpler entities or other external entities. But those would equally demand explanation. Thus the regress. The only way to avoid it is to show that there is an entity which does not require explanation - and by "show" I do not mean simply declaring it to be so.

quote:

---

I will think that one would agree that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes. If this is so there had to be a beginning and there had to be some defining.

​

Now what would do this defining?

---

By definition. nothing would. The most basic level must simply be, requireing no external definition. The only "defining" to be done would be the after-the-fact definition used to construct scientific models.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

-mess this is uncalled for.

---

Sure, but there's been no experimental or observational verification of any of that. It's just mathematical musings, at this point. Nothing, as far as I can see. You're the one who brought Einstein into it. Why are you asking me? Believe it or not, I'm not an idiot; I did actually know about Einstein's famous quote that "God does not play dice with the universe." You haven't shown that it's possible for there not to be physical laws. If laws can't not exist, there need be no reason for their existence. That's the point, exactly. That's why it's the exactly appropriate analogy. The tea is simply conforming to the rules of the cup, which came first; life as we know it simply conforms to the rules of the universe that predate it. Life is shaped by the universe; the universe need not be shaped for life. But that doesn't make any sense. A teacup is designed for tea (or beverages in general), and the reason that's obvious is because a teacup holds a serving of tea without spilling it all over your lap. Teacups are very, very good at holding tea.A fork is not fine-tuned to hold tea, that should be obvious, although it's certainly true that a miniscule amount of tea can be held on a fork. If you pour hot tea onto a fork, though, it's going all over your nice linens. Forks are not fine-tuned to hold tea.So too, a universe fine-tuned to hold life would be teeming with life. Life would be all over the place. But what kind of universe do we live in? A universe that holds only a miniscule amount of life. Just as a fork is not tuned for tea, the universe is not tuned for life. Did you even read it? Here's what the abstract says:

quote:

---

We argue that if string theory as an approach to the fundamental laws of physics is correct, then there is almost no room for anthropic arguments in cosmology.

---

They've proven that, under string theory as it is understood currently, the universe is not fine-tuned for anything. Not even because a multiverse exists; that's not their argument. Rather, simply because the values that are held to be arbitrary variables that have to be "just so" for life are actually derived values from natural principles. You're free at any time to object to whatever language I've been using that you find condenscending. But I don't frame my personal spirituality in terms of what idiots people are for disagreeing with it. Unlike you, my initial reaction to the splendor of the natural world is not to say "man, this is all so beautiful; anybody who believes in God must be a total frickin' idiot."Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I'm wondering why you challenged me on this, but did not challenge Nutcase over Message 2. How could they not be invented. Perhaps you have not noticed, but science has given us a great deal of control over nature. That's likely. But I expect you have plenty of company in that.If I walk around, I might be able to pick up an apple. It will help, of course, if I am walking under an apple tree. However, no matter how much I walk around, I will never be able to pick up a length or a metre or a time or a second. These things (length, time, etc) are not themselves part of nature. They are abstractions that we find useful when describing nature. And if they are abstractions, then they are human invented abstractions.If you look carefully at the so-called "laws of nature", they are not laws of nature at all. They are statements of relations between human invented abstractions. So how could then not themselves be human inventions?Granted, we use these abstractions to talk about nature. That's why they were invented. It is pretty hard to talk about nature without having suitable abstractions such as length and time. But inventing abstractions is not enough. If we invent abstractions and make up rules about them, what we have is mathematics. In order for our abstractions to be useful for describing nature, we must connect those abstractions to the natural world. Although this may be poorly understood, connecting our abstractions to the natural world is one of the most important parts of science.We connect our abstractions with the natural world, by means of procedures we carry out. Incidently, science students learn how to use these procedures in their lab classes, and that is why lab time is such an important part of science education. These connecting procedures are often measuring procedures.Many of the most important laws of physics are just formalized statements of the procedures that we follow to connect our abstractions to nature.To summarize:In order to describe the world, we invent abstractions (philosophers might call them universals). As part of that invention, we develop (i.e. invent) procedures that connect our abstractions with the natural world. Many of our scientific laws are formalizations of these procedures, and hence are inventions.I hope that helps to clarify.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Just a heads up, Aquinas's Five Proves For Gods existance (which were written in 1200s) do not make sence in 21 century / can be refuted by science easily.^Just incase you didn't manage to catch up with the past 500 years of scientific research. Edited by Nutcase, : No reason given.

I will need time to discover where we were at again.Forgive me.

Have you in fact read the 5 proofs?This must be a prerequisite for judgement.I could of held back on this one....

quote:

---

By definition. nothing would. The most basic level must simply be, requireing no external definition. The only "defining" to be done would be the after-the-fact definition used to construct scientific models.

---

I was so wrenched from this discussion to where I may not be able to trust my own replies.It seems as though a couple questions must be addressed by you through what you have stipulated.What could possibly be "the most basic level"?In your argument, there is no reason for the existence and inherent nature of the most basic level?I find that in this question a flawed argument is exposed.Edited by -messenjah of one, : typo

quote:

---

What could possibly be "the most basic level"?

---

If there is no infinite regress there must be some basic level or reality which has no external explanation. I make no claim to know what it is but in my view it would be something very simple, with complexity produced by the interaction of simple elements.

quote:

---

In your argument, there is no reason for the existence and inherent nature of the most basic level?

​

I find that in this question a flawed argument is exposed.

---

You would only be correct if you mean your own argument. The most basic level of reality, by it's place as the most basic cannot have any external reason for it's own existence - because any such reason would be part of a MORE basic level.