Comment from @PureJadeKid
OTHER comment by me:
@Birdieupon the universe could fail to be constrained by human logic yet science could still remain viable. It’s an unprovable inductive argument that science and mathematics have been successful in creating more and more accurate models of the behavior of the physical world, and we can expect this to continue, without being able to prove this. We just assume that this is true and it mostly keeps being shown to be a useful assumption so we keep building on that assumption. We don’t need to prove that the universe is entirely logical or even one-day completely understandable for the scientific enterprise to be worthwhile. In fact, the day that we find that the universe is finally completely logical and understandable is the day that we stop doing science.
@johndeighan2495 says: Just because something can't be refuted (say, the belief the universe popped into existence 2 minutes ago with the appearance of age), that doesn't mean we should waste our time taking it seriously. If for some reason you want to entertain the notion that everything is necessary & determined (despite what we know about chaos theory & the three body problem), you are free to do so. But at that point it looks less like a genuinely scientific motive and more like raising the standard of refutation to an unreachable height in order to insulate yourself from the obvious conclusion.
PJK says: @johndeighan2495 This is an interesting response: "if everything is necessary & determined (despite what we know about chaos theory & the three body problem)". I know what these ideas mean, in terms of numerical approximations to hairy closed-formed mathematical problems. Can you elaborate on the ramifications? (For example, maybe you are proposing a cool idea like determinism is broken by chaos theory / 3-body dynamics, and this is how God lets in free will?) Also, just to double check, is "the obvious conclusion" that you refer to, that the Kalam cosmological argument made by Al-Ghazali in the 11th century is correct, and thus Allah exists, and thus I should go to a mosque, and my motive as an unbeliever is to avoid being proven wrong so I don't feel guilty about not praying to Allah five times a day? You are at the edge of making a really interesting point but it's not clicking for me.I'm on the side of science and naturalism after being a believer decades ago in the past (I consider myself post-Mormon), but I want to understand the arguments for God and not mischaracterize them.
UNSENT:
Are you saying that a chaotic system like a fractal (Mandelbrot set) is not deterministic because the numerical computations are difficult?
Are you claiming God can do these computations, but we can't in practice even if we could in theory? Are you saying that scientists who do numerical approximations every day for a living and believe in determinism are confused about their worldview because they are guilty of resistant non-belief? I don't understand how God could build the universe and its deterministic laws and those laws (simplest example of a universe with three bodies attracted by force of gravity) are contingent going back to God, but that chaos theory and the three body problem eliminate determinism and let in free will? (It's actually a super cool idea if I'm not misunderstanding.) Are you saying that the laws of physics are not (in practice or in theory) deterministic? If those laws are not deterministic, does that risk breaking God's foreknowledge, or the chain of contingency, since an agent can freely do any action for any reason or no reason whatsoever? If their free will is contingent on God, then how free is their will really, is he let off the hook for their evil actions (they are made to be truly free, right?) but their souls still need to be contingent on him—perhaps precisely so believers can still make the Kalam cosmological argument? Could this introduction of free will also break the contingency on God? Can you explain better what you mean by bringing up chaos theory and the three-body problem to show everything can't be mutually necessary but must be contingent? (Am I mischaracterizing?)
FINAL???
This is an interesting response: "if everything is necessary & determined (despite what we know about chaos theory & the three body problem)". I know what these ideas mean, in terms of numerical approximations to hairy closed-formed mathematical problems. Can you elaborate on the ramifications? (For example, maybe you are proposing a cool idea like determinism is broken by chaos theory / 3-body dynamics, and this is how God lets in free will?) Also, just to double check, is "the obvious conclusion" that you refer to, that the Kalam cosmological argument made by Al-Ghazali in the 11th century is correct, and thus Allah exists, and thus I should go to a mosque, and my motive as an unbeliever is to avoid being proven wrong so I don't feel guilty about not praying to Allah five times a day? You are at the edge of making a really interesting point but it's not clicking for me.I'm on the side of science and naturalism after being a believer decades ago in the past (I consider myself post-Mormon), but I want to understand the arguments for God and not mischaracterize them. Believers seem to like the Kalam cosmological argument more than I would expect, but as a naturalist, is it unreasonable to find the argument unconvincing? You say I'm free to believe in determinism and everything being necessary but then my motives are not scientific at that point and insulating me from what? the love of Allah? Am I free to believe in determinism, or are my motives guilty? Should I feel guilty for trying to pick holes in the KalCosArg?Sometimes I feel like believers peace out right when conversation is finally getting interesting.
FINAL FINAL?
This is an interesting response: "if everything is necessary & determined (despite what we know about chaos theory & the three body problem)". I know what these ideas mean, in terms of numerical approximations to hairy closed-formed mathematical problems. Can you elaborate on the ramifications? For example, maybe you are proposing a cool idea like: determinism is broken by chaos theory / 3-body dynamics, and this is how God lets in free will? Or: do you believe that God created a deterministic universe? If not, do we know this empirically (did Einstein miss the memo when he said God throws no dice)? Or is your evidence chaos theory & 3-body problem? If the universe is not deterministic, to let in free will, could this possibly interfere with God's foreknowledge? Or are there levels of determinism (like: for God it's deterministic because he can do the computations, but for us it's not, in practice - which is also kind of a cool idea)?
Also, just to double check, is "the obvious conclusion" that you refer to, that the Kalam cosmological argument made by Al-Ghazali in the 11th century is sound and convincing, and thus Allah exists, and thus I should go to a mosque, and my motive as an unbeliever is to avoid being proven wrong so I don't feel guilty about not praying to Allah five times a day? You are at the edge of making a really interesting point but it's not clicking for me.
I'm on the side of science and naturalism after being a believer decades ago in the past (I consider myself post-Mormon, leaving Mormonism sharpened my skeptical edge, which is arguably not always a good thing?), but I want to understand the arguments for God and not mischaracterize them. Thoughtful believers such as yourself seem to like the Kalam cosmological argument more than I would expect, but as a naturalist, is it unreasonable to find the argument unconvincing? You say I'm free to believe in determinism and everything being necessary but then my motives are not scientific at that point and insulating me from what? the love of Allah? Am I free to believe in determinism, or are my motives guilty? Should I feel bad for trying to pick holes in the KalCosArg so we don't all have to yield to arguments for a Supreme Being, and all end up as Muslims?