It got me thinking about how reductionists claim everything ultimatley reduces to physics.
But what if our understanding of what is supposed to be the root of all explanation is wobbly?

There are faults to ontological reductionism(I nabbed the term from Massimo's blog), but I would check the arguments made for causal completeness before asserting that dark matter mean's it's "all wrong". How many various explanations do you think we could come up with for what dark matter is? It's a great exercise for science fiction plotting, I'd think.

Will the discovery turn out to be an entirely different set of atomic elements, made up of anti-matter and anti-energy? Or could there be even more than two full charts of a "type" of matter? Perhaps the answer is more mundane, perhaps an element we've not yet discovered exhibits properties we could never have predicted(an emergent property, if you will).

Perhaps the paradigm that will resolve dark matter is linked to the issue in harmonizing macro and micro physics. Or a revised understanding of Einstein's work.

It's fun to consider the possibilities. What would your idea be? Or do you think the matter of dark energy is forever insoluble? I think there's an explanation, seeing that the universe has had a history of reveals that match this very pattern. I'm not sure how long it will take, but we'll someday understand it. Then the home of god will move back another gap, as it always has.

youkrst perpetuates Dawkins' logical sin #1 as identified by Wittgenstein's logical proposition #7 from his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

You love to make up acronyms and rules that seem to support your position, Stahrwe. Being a former literalist himself, I'd say youkrst is qualified to speak about literalism. I pointed out in another thread that Wittgenstein's philosophy has problems of it's own. How do you justify using some of the man's philosophy as a rule that should apply to everyone? I also wonder if you read where Wittgenstein retracts his own propositions as nonsense?

Interbane wrote:

It got me thinking about how reductionists claim everything ultimatley reduces to physics.
But what if our understanding of what is supposed to be the root of all explanation is wobbly?

There are faults to ontological reductionism(I nabbed the term from Massimo's blog), but I would check the arguments made for causal completeness before asserting that dark matter mean's it's "all wrong". How many various explanations do you think we could come up with for what dark matter is? It's a great exercise for science fiction plotting, I'd think.

Will the discovery turn out to be an entirely different set of atomic elements, made up of anti-matter and anti-energy? Or could there be even more than two full charts of a "type" of matter? Perhaps the answer is more mundane, perhaps an element we've not yet discovered exhibits properties we could never have predicted(an emergent property, if you will).

Perhaps the paradigm that will resolve dark matter is linked to the issue in harmonizing macro and micro physics. Or a revised understanding of Einstein's work.

It's fun to consider the possibilities. What would your idea be? Or do you think the matter of dark energy is forever insoluble? I think there's an explanation, seeing that the universe has had a history of reveals that match this very pattern. I'm not sure how long it will take, but we'll someday understand it. Then the home of god will move back another gap, as it always has.

I didn't intend to assert that. Not in the least.
It may not mean we would have it all wrong. It may mean our theories are partially correct and need more work.

It may be that the expected explanatory beauty is not there. That may be a form of epistemic immodesty on our part.
My armchair guess would be an Einsteinian upgrade by our next Newton/Einstein scientist is needed. We either build on the past or leave the past completely (highly likely it is the former). If too much modification is needed then it would be a new paradigm.

I think the unthinkable (for some people) is possible - that there is a limit to our ability to obtain access to a realm that our finite abilities long to explore.

The home of god?
That's utter nonsense.
You're assuming that a god that might exist is a god that needs the shadows of mystery; like some game of hide-and-seek you call "game over" when you shed light into dark corners that prevent your friend from being seen by you.
I personally believe the unraveling of the intelligibility of the cosmos IS reason to believe. I don't look for god in the shadows.
Our understanding of the cosmos grows as does our understanding in other fields of study. Why not our understanding of a divine essence as well?
Those are personal opinions and nothing more

The home of god?
That's utter nonsense.

It's nonsense? What do you think Stahrwe's motive is for reading the book on dark matter? Where science is weakest, there is room to shoehorn supernatural beliefs. So educate yourself on where science is the weakest.

I personally believe the unraveling of the intelligibility of the cosmos IS reason to believe.

It boils down to the same thing. Accusations of "god in the gaps" is often rationalized away because those guilty of it don't connect their own epistemic motives to what the phrase actually means. Gaps in our knowledge, either by a lack of information, or 'unravelling of intelligibility', or a mischievous anomaly. When these things are used as a 'reason to believe', you're guilty of seeking god in the gaps.

When formalized into an argument(which you wouldn't be guilty of since you made it clear it is your opinion rather than an argument), it becomes the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Our understanding of the cosmos grows as does our understanding in other fields of study. Why not our understanding of a divine essence as well?

Because none of the information nor any of the gaps in information support the idea of a divine essence. If your understanding of a divine essence has increased, I'd ask how. What, specifically, is the understanding that you've gained? The only sense in which it works is that you have an increased understanding of what the divine essence "isn't", and what the divine essence isn't 'reponsible for', and where the divine essence may potentially have interacted with our universe. Note that each of these points, if formalized, are guilty of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. There is no 'positive' evidence for any of it; only 'negative' evidence against contrary worldviews.

It's nonsense? What do you think Stahrwe's motive is for reading the book on dark matter? Where science is weakest, there is room to shoehorn supernatural beliefs. So educate yourself on where science is the weakest.

Yes, it's actually stinky nonsense.
Belief in a universal intelligence is a personal not scientific matter. I've made that clear.
Take your beef up with Stahrwe.

It boils down to the same thing. Accusations of "god in the gaps" is often rationalized away because those guilty of it don't connect their own epistemic motives to what the phrase actually means. Gaps in our knowledge, either by a lack of information, or 'unravelling of intelligibility', or a mischievous anomaly. When these things are used as a 'reason to believe', you're guilty of seeking god in the gaps.

You've completely ignored what I've said and are creating a strawman here to take my place.
Beat on it till your blue in the face. It doesn't "boil down" to the same thing for MY personal worldview or experience.
You're being aggressive here for no reason.

You want to argue about God here when my comments had ZERO to do with justification of belief in God.

What this reduces to is your anger at something that you don't believe exists. And you are accusing someone who made it clear (me) that mystery does NOT prove to them the existence of a divinity.

You're going nuts about an absent god, aren't you?
It sure seems that way.

What you need is a militant agnostic in your life.

You want to argue about God here when my comments had ZERO to do with justification of belief in God.

Even though you said this...

I personally believe the unraveling of the intelligibility of the cosmos IS reason to believe.

That's not a straw man. I'm going off what you said. And what you said does in fact boil down to a god of the gaps argument(if you had the heart to formalize what you believe.) Leaving your belief informal and ambiguous is great as a defensive measure. I guess my advice would only come in to play if you want to believe your belief is true. We all believe a great deal of junk, the problem is we can't see it as such until we explore our beliefs further. But you really should avoid that, you may turn in to a militant agnostic.

What this reduces to is your anger at something that you don't believe exists.

Yes, I'm angry about it. How dare you believe stuff!

If there is such a thing as a militant agnostic, I'd be more than happy to assume that title. But I'd rather you picture me smiling as I type, rather than pounding my keyboard in a red faced rage.

My initial comments had nothing to do with justification of belief.
And I made it clear that that was MY personal belief, not a universal justifier. And it was very much peripherally said.

And you accuse what I said as being the same thing as a god of the gaps to start an argument about a god of gaps?
Are you freaking nuts or something?!

This is BS, bro.

I don't give a f what you're angry about.

My initial comments had nothing to do with justification of belief.

Actually, you intended for your initial comments to have nothing to do with the justification of belief. But right there in the sentence you typed, you claimed "the unravelling of intelligibility" is "reason to believe." That is justification, but apparently unintentional justification. Or unrecognized justification. That's what analyzing your beliefs does, and why it's important. You illuminate the various reasons you have for believing things, even if you previously didn't see the structure underlying said belief.

Do you think people engage in 'god of the gaps' style justification on purpose? I don't. I believe it's unintentional, which you're doing a good job exemplifying.

Are you freaking nuts or something?!

This is BS, bro.

I don't give a f what you're angry about.

My comment about being angry was sarcasm. It's fun writing what I think is a thoughtful reply, only to have you 'splode.

only to have you 'splode

lmao