by jw 111 Replies latest jw friends
I chopped up the responses because each deals with such a different subject.
He's always been there. The universe (or multiverse) has always been there.
This is provably false. Energy has always been there, from which the universe came into being, but the universe has not always been there. As you said, nice try.
Why does "God" have to be complex?
How much complexity does it take to throw the light switch?
AuldSoul,
My concept of "life" is a lot more philosophical than zoological. Perhaps my use of "life" stretches the bounds of discussion forums because of its basis.
My question is, how different is it from a metaphor, or a figurative sense?
A metaphor both relates to, and distinguishes itself from, a concrete signified. The figurative meaning of a word similarly refers to, and differentiates itself from, the proper meaning.
If I say "you're a gem" (metaphor), I mean approximately "you're precious like a gem" (comparison), but I don't imply I could buy you in a jeweller's shop.
Imo, when mythology or theology speak of living gods, it similarly uses an analogy based on the phenomenal description of "life" -- e.g. movement, responsiveness, awareness as you put it. Of course mythological or theological speech can then use the divine "life" as an etiology for phenomenal life (that's what all creation stories are about). But scientific speech has no such possibility. A metaphorical "life" is not a phenomenal one, and cannot account for any "other" phenomenal one. Or, tu put it differently: for God's "life" to count as a possible scientific cause for phenomenal ("carbon-based") life, it must (1) be moved from the metaphorical realm to the phenomenal one (iow, become an observable object, descriptible as "non-carbon-based life") and then (2) be inscribed in a possible causal relation to "carbon-based life". (That's what Biblical speech used to do with the notion of "spirit," but that was mythological talk: but afaik there's nothing corresponding to "spirit," or even to "life" as an independent "principle," in scientifical biology-zoology-anthropology).
On edit: from a theological standpoint, I don't see how this could be done without losing the notion of transcendance which is essential at least to monotheism: God as a "non-carbon-based life form" would become just another living being, and not the All-Other (Barth) or All-other-than-another (Panikkar) that faith relates to.I tend to agree with you that one can know more than one can one can tell. And that, in a sense, all we can know in a verbal way implies a departure from non-verbal "knowledge". But, for this very reason, I don't believe we can ever verbally elaborate, or thematise, non-verbal knowledge (that was the thrust of Pole's remark if I understood it correctly) -- other than in poetry which is the realm of metaphor.
AuldSoul: I've had a similar discussion with you before and it too devolved into a tedious issue of semantics. I find it too tiring to have to endlessly define every word I use. We're just not getting through to each other, and I'm not sure whether it's my fault or yours, but I don't really want to continue in this vein. LittleToe:
Why does "God" have to be complex?How much complexity does it take to throw the light switch?
Not much at all. Imagine a simplified toy universe that consists of nothing but a ball rolling and bouncing down an (apparently) infinitely long hill. We can make accurate predictions about where the ball will be at any time in the future, and make reasonable assumptions about where it was in the past. We may not know how this universe began, or even if it began at all, whether it's the only hill or one of many, and so on. But the ball and the hill seem to follow deterministic laws, so that we can accurately predict the path the ball takes. I see no reason to assume that in this universe that apparently consists of nothing but a ball and a hill, that there needs to be a person at the top of the hill to throw the ball. Gravity takes it down the hill, it would behave the same had it simply fallen. Inventing a person who's only job was to get the ball rolling seems completely pointless, and is at best on a par with any other fanciful explanation. Not knowing what's at the top of the hill does not justify assuming that one of these fanciful explanations is the correct one.
You put so much faith (yes faith!) in aballrollgenesis.
How about knowing how the hill and ball got there? If they've always been there, why did they start rolling? I think we add complexity, quite a lot of complexity, when we scratch just beneath the surface of your analogy.
funkyderek: "Known" does not equal "proven." There is more knowledge in each and every human than any human has the capacity to communicate to any other person. You and many other scientific types I converse with fall back on some imagined "semantic" escape hatch in debate on this issue. The meaning of words (i.e. "semantics") is what verbal communication derives from. We don't have to redefine words, just use the words you mean. "Known" doesn't mean "proven" even in the world of science.
Abiogenesis is not known or proven, neither is the existence of any additional universe. However, the existence of God is known, but not proven.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Jehovah's Witnesses "know" they have the truth, but of course can't articulate that truth (not when faced with logical counter-arguments). They also "know" the existance of God. How is the "knowing" that you speak of substantially different than JW "knowing", AuldSoul?
AuldSoul:
How about knowing how the hill and ball got there? If they've always been there, why did they start rolling? I think we add complexity, quite a lot of complexity, when we scratch just beneath the surface of your analogy.
Absolutely, but it's considerably less complex than our own universe which, hopefully, will allow us to ignore the irrelevancies. We don't know how the hill and the ball got there. We don't know, if, when, or why the ball started rolling. We don't know if there are other balls, other hills, other ball/hill universes. None of these gaps in our knowledge requires - or justifies - postulating a giant blue pig who made the hill and then threw the ball from the top.
funkyderek: "Known" does not equal "proven."
Mostly it does. What we know, as opposed to what we think, hope or believe, is that which has been proven. There are other meanings and nuances of both words that don't apply to each other, but I don't see them as relevant to what we're discussing.
There is more knowledge in each and every human than any human has the capacity to communicate to any other persn.
I guess there's no chance you'd be able to communicate an example of such knowledge to me then?
You and many other scientific types I converse with fall back on some imagined "semantic" escape hatch in debate on this issue.
No "escape hatch". I just don't want to argue in circles with you again. It's not fun.
The meaning of words (i.e. "semantics") is what verbal communication derives from. We don't have to redefine words, just use the words you mean.
I completely agree. You seem desperate to distinguish between essentially interchangeable words so you can use one of them in another context, and then equivocate. It strikes me you pulled the same sort of trick in our discussion on subjectivity and objectivity. (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/100295/1.ashx)
"Known" doesn't mean "proven" even in the world of science.
It normally does. We know the earth is round, inasmuch as the roundness of the earth has been proven. We can qualify each part of this statement, and dissect it till we've got nothing left but metaphysical hand-wringing. I really have no interest in going down that road.
Abiogenesis is not known or proven, neither is the existence of any additional universe.
Agreed.
However, the existence of God is known, but not proven.
No it isn't. People believe in the existence of God. They do not know that God exists, because God's existence hasn't been proven. You're using the word "known" when you really mean "believed". Clearly, this is why you don't want "known" and "proven" used interchangeably; you want "known" to mean something that's not proven, but still having the status of something that has been.
I'll repeat what I've oft said:
To me (subjectively) I know God exists with the same level of certainty that I know you exist. This isn't just mere belief or blind faith, unless you think your existance is such, to me.
Clearly, this is why you don't want "known" and "proven" used interchangeably; you want "known" to mean something that's not proven, but still having the status of something that has been.
Clearly, you do not understand the meaning and origin of the word you are talking about. Have you considered the simile of the line?
I can subjectively know that which is not objectively provable. Do you dispute that statement? If so, on what basis?
I can subjectively know that for which I do not possess capacity to communicate. Do you dispute that statement? If so, on what basis?
If I can subjectively know something (primarily through experience) that (1) which you do not subjectively know and (2) which I cannot communicate, I can know what you do not know and be unable to prove what I know. But don't feel badly, you can know what I don't know, too. In fact, you have quite a lot of experiential knowledge I do not have. Just because you can't prove all of it to me doesn't negate its worth and doesn't make it "unknown".
QED, "known" does not equal "proven". If you would like to provide me with some rationale whereby my logic in this construct is flawed I will happily consider it. This has been being shaped for some time, and may yet experience revisions, but it has traveled quite some distance away from equating "known" and "proven".
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
