Surely the laws of nature are descriptive laws, not proscriptive laws...Each one needs to be prefaced by "As far as we know".. There is no absolute reason why these descriptive laws should hold throughout the cosmos, and no reason why they should apply at the quantum level...Those would be assertions, that cannot, at present, be tested..
Correct, and that doesn't mean we should fill the gaps with a flying spaghetti monster people used to justify unaliving others who don't believed in him.
Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not. I'm just looking to find out more about the world and if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it; that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers and we're just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that's the way it is. ... My interest in science is to simply find out more about the world. RP Feynman There may not even be "laws" as you're thinking of them. In 100 years, we'll know they were only approximations under certain conditions or intrinsic symmetries or whatever. We know how poker hands are produced. We do not know how the universe is, exactly, or why it is how it is, or if there could even be an answer to such a "why". Why would we expect chaos? Why is what is in some sense surprising? It's literally the most natural and familiar thing in the world. So much like a theist to imagine the universe would collapse without a God to make it stand up. Give God something to do, so give him everything to do.
Your objection is literally the science of the gaps. Who knows one day we MAY find out. You don't know that for sure and we have to make decisions to the best inferences that we have now. The reason people choose theism is that it provides a superior explanatory power over naturalism or they feel naturalism can't explain consciousness, morality, or certain aspects of our experiences. There was a time the big bang theory was laughed at and now it is commonly accepted.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf"science of the gaps" works because it questions itself, you remind me of the people who believed in thor until we were able to explain how thunderstorms work. Plus, having a superstitious explantion doesn't make your answer superior to naturalism's ignorance. It just shows you're afraid and lack the integrity to accept you don't have enough evidence to make a conclusion. I'm glad the enlightenment age was more than three centuries ago, then we took the teeth out of religion and superstitious fools that could murder you for not sharing their superstition, now religious people are the antisocials under our secular governments.
A simple search for the title of this video "Nomological Argument" merely is another attempt to use God of the Gaps by the theists. Here is the simple search and see if anyone agrees... "According to the Nomological Argument, observed regularities in nature are best explained by an appeal to a supernatural being. A successful explanation must avoid two perils. Some explanations provide too little structure, predicting a universe without regularities. Others provide too much structure, thereby precluding an explanation of certain types of lawlike regularities featured in modern scientific theories. We argue that an explanation based in the creative, intentional action of a supernatural being avoids these two perils whereas leading competitors do not. Although our argument falls short of a full defense, it does suggest that the Nomological Argument is worthy of philosophical attention."
Inference to the best explanation isn't a god of the gaps style argument. That being said you could reject second premise and say laws of nature are necessary truths and not contingent like they claim or say the result doesn't follow that even if this is true that God is the best explanation instead of naturalism.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf "Best" , the word "best" makes it an opinion right there. It isn't necessarily best. It's only an opinion and in my opinion only an opinion held be few. When you're trying to explain something that is not explained by naturalism, but by using an unsupported supernaturalism explanation, it's a gap in reasoning. Known commonly as God of the gaps!
@@charlesdarwin180 if nothing can be slotted into the argument by the naturalist but theism can provide better explanation. Read swineburne either way. His work isn’t bad.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Not convinced. Again, "better" is an opinion. It's not a better explanation since it has no basis in the real world. Imaginary stuff doesn't cut it.
@@charlesdarwin180 Please stop being a midwit There are general principles that make certain explanations better than others, as well as specific pieces of evidence that confirm some explanations over others. It’s not “I like this the best so it is the best,” it’s “this explanation fits with all of the data in the simplest way possible.” The way you use “God of the gaps”would undermine any argument for any conclusion. The argument in the video is pretty clear. It moves from WHAT WE KNOW about laws of nature to arguments for why naturalistic theories do not/can not adequately account for what we know, while a theistic explanation (the foundation of reality is a single, simple minded being without any arbitrary limits) can. It’s not “we don’t know how laws therefore God.” You’re the one dogmatically asserting that “I don’t know how to account for these aspects of laws but naturalism (whatever that means) must’ve done it.” If your argument, in this case your mutilated version of God of the gaps, applies to God writing in the stars “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” it’s a bad argument. Not to mention how dogmatically circular your reasoning is.
Your fine tuning argument needs to be fine tuned. Your analogy to cards has no validity. In cards you know the total possible outcomes. In cards every outcome's probability is known before the cards are even dealt. In the universe, completely different in ALL ways, the total possible outcomes is UNKNOWN. In fact, since nobody knows how many other instances life is in the universe; there is no way a calculation on life can even be approximated. Fortunately or unfortunately none of these three characters thought of this argument independently. The fine tuning argument is a very general theist argument that has been around for ages.
I can tell you didn't watch even the first 5 minutes of the video. My guests explain how this is distinct from a fine-tuning argument, and this argument does not depend on the probability of life in the universe. You should listen to an argument before you critique it. Clearly, you haven't listened to this one.
I would like to see these guys talk to Oppy about the argument.
It feels like this argument is more powerful than the fine-tuning. As a physics post-grad I find this fascinating. Nice interview.
If you are a physics post grad , do you think it works ?
it's another form in a way. Also, robin collins has best ft argument imo
Under rated content🎉
Surely the laws of nature are descriptive laws, not proscriptive laws...Each one needs to be prefaced by "As far as we know".. There is no absolute reason why these descriptive laws should hold throughout the cosmos, and no reason why they should apply at the quantum level...Those would be assertions, that cannot, at present, be tested..
Correct, and that doesn't mean we should fill the gaps with a flying spaghetti monster people used to justify unaliving others who don't believed in him.
Very interesting video.
Why would you need an explanation for the laws
Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not. I'm just looking to find out more about the world and if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it; that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers and we're just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that's the way it is. ... My interest in science is to simply find out more about the world.
RP Feynman
There may not even be "laws" as you're thinking of them. In 100 years, we'll know they were only approximations under certain conditions or intrinsic symmetries or whatever.
We know how poker hands are produced. We do not know how the universe is, exactly, or why it is how it is, or if there could even be an answer to such a "why".
Why would we expect chaos? Why is what is in some sense surprising? It's literally the most natural and familiar thing in the world. So much like a theist to imagine the universe would collapse without a God to make it stand up. Give God something to do, so give him everything to do.
Your objection is literally the science of the gaps. Who knows one day we MAY find out. You don't know that for sure and we have to make decisions to the best inferences that we have now. The reason people choose theism is that it provides a superior explanatory power over naturalism or they feel naturalism can't explain consciousness, morality, or certain aspects of our experiences. There was a time the big bang theory was laughed at and now it is commonly accepted.
Nice desperation from you, hitchenite nadav...
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf"science of the gaps" works because it questions itself, you remind me of the people who believed in thor until we were able to explain how thunderstorms work.
Plus, having a superstitious explantion doesn't make your answer superior to naturalism's ignorance. It just shows you're afraid and lack the integrity to accept you don't have enough evidence to make a conclusion.
I'm glad the enlightenment age was more than three centuries ago, then we took the teeth out of religion and superstitious fools that could murder you for not sharing their superstition, now religious people are the antisocials under our secular governments.
A simple search for the title of this video "Nomological Argument" merely is another attempt to use God of the Gaps by the theists. Here is the simple search and see if anyone agrees...
"According to the Nomological Argument, observed regularities in nature are best explained by an appeal to a supernatural being. A successful explanation must avoid two perils. Some explanations provide too little structure, predicting a universe without regularities. Others provide too much structure, thereby precluding an explanation of certain types of lawlike regularities featured in modern scientific theories. We argue that an explanation based in the creative, intentional action of a supernatural being avoids these two perils whereas leading competitors do not. Although our argument falls short of a full defense, it does suggest that the Nomological Argument is worthy of philosophical attention."
Inference to the best explanation isn't a god of the gaps style argument. That being said you could reject second premise and say laws of nature are necessary truths and not contingent like they claim or say the result doesn't follow that even if this is true that God is the best explanation instead of naturalism.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf "Best" , the word "best" makes it an opinion right there. It isn't necessarily best. It's only an opinion and in my opinion only an opinion held be few. When you're trying to explain something that is not explained by naturalism, but by using an unsupported supernaturalism explanation, it's a gap in reasoning. Known commonly as God of the gaps!
@@charlesdarwin180 if nothing can be slotted into the argument by the naturalist but theism can provide better explanation. Read swineburne either way. His work isn’t bad.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Not convinced. Again, "better" is an opinion. It's not a better explanation since it has no basis in the real world. Imaginary stuff doesn't cut it.
@@charlesdarwin180
Please stop being a midwit
There are general principles that make certain explanations better than others, as well as specific pieces of evidence that confirm some explanations over others. It’s not “I like this the best so it is the best,” it’s “this explanation fits with all of the data in the simplest way possible.”
The way you use “God of the gaps”would undermine any argument for any conclusion. The argument in the video is pretty clear. It moves from WHAT WE KNOW about laws of nature to arguments for why naturalistic theories do not/can not adequately account for what we know, while a theistic explanation (the foundation of reality is a single, simple minded being without any arbitrary limits) can. It’s not “we don’t know how laws therefore God.” You’re the one dogmatically asserting that “I don’t know how to account for these aspects of laws but naturalism (whatever that means) must’ve done it.”
If your argument, in this case your mutilated version of God of the gaps, applies to God writing in the stars “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” it’s a bad argument. Not to mention how dogmatically circular your reasoning is.
Your fine tuning argument needs to be fine tuned. Your analogy to cards has no validity. In cards you know the total possible outcomes. In cards every outcome's probability is known before the cards are even dealt. In the universe, completely different in ALL ways, the total possible outcomes is UNKNOWN. In fact, since nobody knows how many other instances life is in the universe; there is no way a calculation on life can even be approximated.
Fortunately or unfortunately none of these three characters thought of this argument independently. The fine tuning argument is a very general theist argument that has been around for ages.
I can tell you didn't watch even the first 5 minutes of the video. My guests explain how this is distinct from a fine-tuning argument, and this argument does not depend on the probability of life in the universe. You should listen to an argument before you critique it. Clearly, you haven't listened to this one.
@@TheAnalyticChristian Clearly you didn't refute my objections.
@@TheAnalyticChristian This Charles Darwin guy is a troll, I’d say he’s safely ignored
@@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodnesslol ad hominem fallacy when you can't refute an argument, classic technique from superstitious fools