Littletoe: LOL! I'm GLAD it's not over in a single moment!!
God and Man -- The Paradox....The Choice
by logansrun 41 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
LittleToe
Abaddon:Me too.
What's the name of that spoof Dracula movie where he says "With you, dear, never a quickie. Always a looongy!"?Then again, just imagine what pleasure could be experienced if the rate per hour of...
Sheesh, it's enough to bring on a head rush
-
heathen
Well ,of course there are religionists who want it both ways as well . It seems very popular these days to say that God used the big bang and evolution to create the universe and life . Personally I couldn't find it any harder to believe that there is a God than to belive in evolution . I think evolution just has too many assumptions and accidents that were believed to happen at one time but of course they stopped happening . Animals are not mutating and the only explosions are ones that destroy stars . Based on all these assumptions one could easily say that the earth is supported by a huge invisible turtle . I think the lab rat theory is also a very good assessment of the situation as far as the bible is conscerned .
-
logansrun
Abbadon,
I see nothing wrong with what you have said. I have related the same arguments you have many times; they are sound ones.
But, just think about something you said: 'the universe just might BE.' Does that really make any more or less sense than saying "God just IS"? I really cannot say so. Of course, Occam's Razor might imply that it is easier to justify a universe that just "is" as opposed to a God that just "is." I don't know. I don't know!
What I do know is this: the universe is organized, comprehensible. It makes sense. Sure, there are things in it that we don't like: suffering, death, etc. But I actually do believe that there are more happinesses than sorrows in life -- even if our few decades on this earth is all we get.
I made my post to serve as a reality check, somewhat. A reality check to show just how incomprehensible our existence is whether we are theists or atheists. From a scientific and philosophical level I do not believe the evidence points one way or the other. I, for one, prefer a form of teleology to the universe. Deism, pantheism -- I flirt with those ideas. Fortunately, I have good company. Spinoza, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, Carl Jung, E. O. Wilson, Paul Davies, Martin Gardner -- all have expressed a belief and longing for God, or meaning, or whatever. Even Charles Darwin leaned toward Deism on occassion!
The long and short of it is this: a belief in God and Ultimate Meaning for the universe need not be correct. But it remains a logically viable option -- scientifically, philosophically and, perhaps most importantly, psychologically.
Bradley
-
logansrun
Abbadon,
A couple other thoughts:
There IS an Ultimate Question to the universe. I just asked it.
I cannot say that an infinite number of universes -- infinite! -- is any less reasonable than just one infinitely powerful and wise mind. I cannot put a probability on either of these assumptions, but I feel confident to say that they must both be somewhere near each other in terms of their probability/improbability.
To say that the universe just "is" does not answer the question of why it exists.
If I come across as if I am mad or downgrading your thoughts, please reconsider! I'm not. Like I said before, you bring up very valid points, arguments which have their rightful place. But, I believe the arguments I -- I really should say others -- have made in opposition.
Bradley
-
Vita Nuova
"Without a universe already in existence, there could be NO God with a near infinite information density."
"The Big Bang and the resulant causative development of the universe, is the only way an evolutionary development of intelligence or information density is possible. "
Obviously, you're more comfortable dealing with things that you can grasp logically, systematically, scientifically. And so you frame God within terms open to your realm of experience. But the existence of God is not something to be necessarily grasped through observation. I think the most fitting statement on the observable aspect of this has already been described as illogical either way you go. But God is not in the realm of history, nor is he in the realm of explained phenomena. By definition, God is mystery. And so belief in God depends upon faith. When belief depends upon direct observable evidence that belief is NOT faith, it is fact. The question, then, that opens itself to observation is what the nature of faith really is. Unfortunately, this is a subjective matter. If you believe faith is nothing more than imagined credulity, so be it. If you believe faith is something less than apprehension, yet something more than imagination, you are equally justified. From a theological perspective, the ultimate question is either ignored, negated, or engaged. From a scientific historical perspective, the ultimate question is subjective at best.
-
Abaddon
logansrun:
But, just think about something you said: 'the universe just might BE.' Does that really make any more or less sense than saying "God just IS"? I really cannot say so. Of course, Occam's Razor might imply that it is easier to justify a universe that just "is" as opposed to a God that just "is." I don't know. I don't know!
The Universe just 'be'ing doesn't require a second set of theories. God just 'is'ing does, unless one postulates a god that could arrise by chance in the conditions that are thought to have proceeded the Big Bang (hereafter 'nothing'). Even then, as a god has higher level of complexity than an exploding singularity, as you note, Occam's Razor indicates were the explanation probably lies.
What I do know is this: the universe is organized, comprehensible. It makes sense. Sure, there are things in it that we don't like: suffering, death, etc. But I actually do believe that there are more happinesses than sorrows in life -- even if our few decades on this earth is all we get.
I made my post to serve as a reality check, somewhat. A reality check to show just how incomprehensible our existence is whether we are theists or atheists.
Again I feel you have a presupposition that the Universe should be comprehensible. The fact that it is arguably incomprehensible is of no more concequence than pie being 3.1415etc., or the gravity on Earth having an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s. Sometimes the way something is is just that; there is no other data in it.
From a scientific and philosophical level I do not believe the evidence points one way or the other.
Are you saying there is scientific evidence for god? This is news.
I, for one, prefer a form of teleology to the universe. Deism, pantheism -- I flirt with those ideas. Fortunately, I have good company. Spinoza, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, Carl Jung, E. O. Wilson, Paul Davies, Martin Gardner -- all have expressed a belief and longing for God, or meaning, or whatever. Even Charles Darwin leaned toward Deism on occassion!
Argument from authority; we both know that that is irrelevent.
The long and short of it is this: a belief in God and Ultimate Meaning for the universe need not be correct. But it remains a logically viable option -- scientifically, philosophically and, perhaps most importantly, psychologically.
That's a statement logan, and you know it, it's not an argument. The psychological value of a belief in a god-u-like entity is moot; maybe some people do need it, obviously others do not. Philosophically; I'd love to see your argument that a belief in a non-existence god is a logically viable option - sounds like a re-warmed Pascal's wager., and that's utter bunk. Scientifically you have got to be kidding me; explain your reasoning!
In broad terms I agree with;
"a belief in God and Ultimate Meaning for the universe need not be correct."
... provided one adds some caveat about such a belief being non-harmful to ones self or others. Maybe some people need to look at the Universe throguh god-coloured glasses, and good luck to them, provided they don't use such a belief structure as a platform for enforing compliance with their belief structure.
There IS an Ultimate Question to the universe. I just asked it.
Logan, you saying 'my invisable bunny rabbit' does not mean there IS an invisable bunny rabbit anymore than you asking an ultimate question indicates that there is either an ultimate question or answer. Presuppositionalism.
I cannot say that an infinite number of universes -- infinite! -- is any less reasonable than just one infinitely powerful and wise mind.
I would say you don't want to say it; your desire to believe in god still requires more of an explanation than a myriad Universes, as it requires systemised order rising from 'nothing' rather than an explosion of energy from 'nothing' which then organised itself according to constants that were either unavoidable or detrmined in the first few picoseconds.
I cannot put a probability on either of these assumptions, but I feel confident to say that they must both be somewhere near each other in terms of their probability/improbability.
Again, a statement, not an argument with valid data provided to support it.
To say that the universe just "is" does not answer the question of why it exists.
But there could well be NO question why it exists!! We are back to the begining and there are faults in your logic that have lead you in this circle as indicated above.
If I come across as if I am mad or downgrading your thoughts, please reconsider! I'm not. Like I said before, you bring up very valid points, arguments which have their rightful place. But, I believe the arguments I -- I really should say others -- have made in opposition.
You have made no argument in opposition, you made statements in opposition.
All the best Bradley
Gyles
-
logansrun
Abbadon I will get to a more detailed analysis of your response later as I don't have the time at this moment. I will say that you totally ignore all my provisional statements such as:
I cannot put a probability on either of these assumptions, but I feel confident to say that they must both be somewhere near each other in terms of their probability/improbability.
Again, a statement, not an argument with valid data provided to support it.
I did say "I cannot put a probability..." and yet you respond as if I did. I also did not say that it was an argument.
I could just as easily say that your statement that the "universe just IS" is not an argument either. It's a statement. We could go round and round like that, you know.
Here is another one:
From a scientific and philosophical level I do not believe the evidence points one way or the other.
Are you saying there is scientific evidence for god? This is news.
I didn't say there was scientific evidence for God or a telos to the universe. I simply said there is no scientific evidence against that notion either. Read carefully my sentences, please.
One more:
I, for one, prefer a form of teleology to the universe. Deism, pantheism -- I flirt with those ideas. Fortunately, I have good company. Spinoza, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, Carl Jung, E. O. Wilson, Paul Davies, Martin Gardner -- all have expressed a belief and longing for God, or meaning, or whatever. Even Charles Darwin leaned toward Deism on occassion!
Argument from authority; we both know that that is irrelevent.
As you would say, it's not an argument. (And I didn't say it was!) I made it well know that this was my subjective feelings by saying, "I, for one, prefer a form of teleology..." And that preference is still a live option, as William James masterfully made know in "The Will To Believe."
Bradley
-
Abaddon
logansrun:
I want your argument with supporting evidence, not your statements. Anyone can make statements which lack the support of evidence. It's easy and isn't that interesting in this context.
I could just as easily say that your statement that the "universe just IS" is not an argument either. It's a statement. We could go round and round like that, you know.
Actually, the thing is that under some theories of cosmology it IS a valid argument with evidence to support it. The reverse is not true re. God.
I didn't say there was scientific evidence for God or a telos to the universe. I simply said there is no scientific evidence against that notion either. Read carefully my sentences, please.
I did and do, you said:
From a scientific and philosophical level I do not believe the evidence points one way or the other.
This implies there are equal levels of evidence pointing different ways. This implies there is scientific evidence for god. If you didn't want to suggest this you should structure the sentence differently;
Philosophically I do not believe the evidence points one way or the other; there is no scientific evidence against the notion either.
See the difference?
And again, listing a load of people may not be a direct argument from authority, but doesn't serve to signify anything else in a debate; you can't post a list of people and say they were just mentioned in passing, they were embedded into your argument even if you were not conciously aware of it. Why else did you mention them if you weren't making a point?
frankiespeakin:
Anything you can use here to draw attention away from the fact you're not really addressing the issues on that other thread?
-
logansrun
Abbadon,
I could just as easily say that your statement that the "universe just IS" is not an argument either. It's a statement. We could go round and round like that, you know.
Actually, the thing is that under some theories of cosmology it IS a valid argument with evidence to support it. The reverse is not true re. God.
You're persuasive, Abbadon, but you need to hold yourself accountable to your own standards. You do not list any "evidence" which definitively signifies the universe "just IS." Such would be evidence there is no God or Higher Power. That would be almost as newsworthy as pronouncing God exists.
I'm well aware of hypotheses (I wouldn't call them theories, yet) which have no room for a First Cause, etc. Stephen Hawking's "no-boundry" universe is one of them. Again, these are respectible notions that are fascinating. All the same, the farther we go back to the Big Bang, the more and more speculative we get.
From a scientific and philosophical level I do not believe the evidence points one way or the other.
This implies there are equal levels of evidence pointing different ways. This implies there is scientific evidence for god. If you didn't want to suggest this you should structure the sentence differently;
Philosophically I do not believe the evidence points one way or the other; there is no scientific evidence against the notion either.
A subtlety I will grant you. All the same, there are some who would point to the Big Bang as being evidence of a creator. I'm not so sure they are correct. (It does beg the question as I stated in my original post) But, you cannot deny that it leaves open the possibility and even made some people with atheistic leanings very uncumfortable. Fred Hoyle for years proposed a "steady-state" model of the universe because a beginning to the universe seemed inadequate. We now can pretty definitively state that the universe DID have a beginning. Does this imply there is a creator, either personal or not? I'm not sure. I don't think there is any evidence against such an argument, nor is there any evidence for such, that is, evidence without the proponent taking a leap of faith.
Let me make something clear...I'm an agnostic with a feeling -- a hunch -- there is something more to the universe besides just quantum vacuums and mathematical equations, although I'm not dogmatic about it. You seem to be stating (I said seem) that there absolutely, unequivically is no god(s) or metaphysical order to the universe. Let's take off the gloves of a logician for a moment and just say that you are a strong atheist. Am I wrong?
And again, listing a load of people may not be a direct argument from authority, but doesn't serve to signify anything else in a debate; you can't post a list of people and say they were just mentioned in passing, they were embedded into your argument even if you were not conciously aware of it. Why else did you mention them if you weren't making a point?
The rules of formal logic are sound and helpful. But, there are always exceptions. For instance, one can point out countless ad hominem attacks on this forum. Some of these arguments do obfuscate the truth and are unneccessary. Some, I believe, are good ad hominem attacks. (If a person is truly a lunatic, is there anything wrong with calling him one?) Listing great minds of history who had a leaning the way I do is not going to win arguments in the arenal of formal logic, but I do believe it lends some credibility to what I say. At the very least, it should make one pause to think.
Bradley