posted
To clarify, the concept that some outside force set things in motion since the Big Bang and has been hands off, I find this umlikely. Maybe it did happen. But who/whatever did it, had to have us, or life in general, in mind. He set the trigger, the unviverse exploded into existence, and all the dials, so to speak, were set precisely so that our existence could come about. The multi-universe theorists propose that universes have come into existence many, perhaps infinite times, and finally one (at least) came about where we came into being. If you want to discuss usefulness, the only use this line of thinking has is to provide for the possibility that no God exists. It serves no other purpose.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I have repeatedly said that I don't propse to "know" anything ... I am careful to express that I am not discounting anything except a completely naturalistic explanation for existence. The farthest I will go is that some Creator ...
I'll quickly point out that by the second part, you "know" that a naturalistic explanation is impossible and you "know" that a Creator exists.
This is not only saying more than science (which can only prove that a God is as likely as a Baal or a Tezcatlipoca, which is to say pretty unlikely but not impossible) but it is in fact saying more than even religions such as branches of Buddhism which do not even propose a Creator.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You also seem to be suffering from the fine-tuning misconception. It is not necessary to fine-tune the parameters of physics to get life.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, KoM, if you read the highly recommended by OSC The Trouble With Physics, you will see that most physicists find it vitally important that an explanation for fine-tuning be established. It's the entire basis for string theory. The book argues that the theory is bunk, but that does not change the fact that the precise tuning of the universe does require explanation.
Mucas, I did nothing of the sort. I said I find it unlikely. Maybe the multi-verse theory is correct. But borrowing Tom's reasoning, it only serves the purpose of explaing what cannot be explained without a Creator.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have misunderstood completely what string theory's foundation is. It is supposed to solve the hierarchy problem, namely, why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces. This is compeltely separate from the "fine-tuning problem", which is a pseudo-problem invented by theists to justify needing a fine-tuner. In other words, you do not know whereof you speak. And by the way, I can assure you that while many physicists are concerned with the hierarchy problem, "fine-tuning" in the sense of what parameters are necessary for life is not an interesting issue for them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Mucas, I did nothing of the sort. I said I find it unlikely. Maybe the multi-verse theory is correct. But borrowing Tom's reasoning, it only serves the purpose of explaing what cannot be explained without a Creator.
I quoted the exact line where you discount a completely naturalistic explanation. I can quote it again if you wish:
quote: I am careful to express that I am not discounting anything except a completely naturalistic explanation for existence.
Again, not a physicist, but as for the many-worlds theory, it would actually have four advantages listed here., only one of which is to deal with the fine-tuning question. Additionally, it is my crude understanding of quantum computing that the many worlds theory would provides a simple explanation for why quantum computing works. Interestingly enough, it would not be required for it *to* work, but would be the leading explanation for *why* Quantuum computing in fact work (albeit, not on a large scale yet).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question of ultimate origins has only two basic possible answers.
(1) Those who insist on the naturalist view that everything came into existence through the random operation of natural laws, usually go on to say that the universe itself began in a Big Bang--again operating according to natural laws. The key feature here is the determination that no Divine Intelligence was involved or needed. This is the atheistic view, by definition. Some call it mechanistic materialism.
(2) The only logical alternative, of course, is that Divine Intelligence was involved and necessary in the creation of the universe, and ultimately life.
Now, many thoughtful people realize the weakness of the atheistic alternative, because then it is fair for their belief to be summaried as: "In the beginning was nothing, and then nothing suddenly exploded." The sheer foolishness of this drives many to feel the need to invoke God at least for initiating the existence of the universe--but then, they say, He just allowed the universe to run its course according to the natural laws set up at first. This is what constitutes the philosophy of Deism, where God is seen as an absentee landlord, who has no real concern for any of His creatures that just happened to evolve by chance. But the weakness of this is the question why God would have the power to start the universe going, but then would not care enough about it to continue to excercise creative power and involve Himself in the cares and concerns of His creatures. It seems like a contradiction. God is invoked as the prankster who set off the Big Bang, then is quickly dismissed as irrelevant one nanosecond after the Big Bang.
Any philosophical view that involves a fundamental inconsistency such as this is fatally flawed and vulnerable to decisive criticism.
The only logically consistent alternatuve is that God is Creator, and has not turned His back on His creation. He has not changed, and still is a supernatural miracle-worker. He cared enough to create the universe, and He has not changed and ceased caring about it. Furthermore, He is involved in the lives of His creatures. Surely it would be reasonable to expect that such a Creator-God would communicate with His creatures, especially when a problem develops that leads to the perfect goodness of His creation being marred. This in turn leads us to expect that such an account as the Genesis narrative of Creation should exist.
God is by definition a supernatural miracle-worker. No one claims that matter by itself is supernatural and miracle-working. Thus it is more reasonable to say that God miraculously created the universe, than to say that the material universe miraculously created itself. Either God worked a miracle, or matter worked a miracle.
There was some ultimate origin of everything. So which origin makes more sense--a supernatural mind first came into being, or matter? Is it not more reasonable to say that God came into being first, and then He imagined the universe, and by His creative word or imagination, matter and energy came into being?
Now, there are those who at this point will question the virtue of invoking God at all by asking, "Where did God come from?" But this does not help, because existence had to get started somewhere. And we have only these two choices--God came first, or the universe of matter and energy came first.
If we add to the mix the tenet many hold that God also created time when He created matter and energy, then the question of what came before the beginning of time is meaningless. Nothing can come before the beginning of time. God always existed--in an eternal, timeless sense. This would help explain why God can know the future, and cause to be placed in the Bible prophetic outlines of future history that provide a guide to the important events that God can see are coming, from His vantage point standing outside of time. By placing such prophecies in the Bible God verifies that the Bible is the one book that should be regarded as the authoritative source of information about Him, and what He considers His most important interactions with mankind.
Of course there are deep and challenging questions we can ask concerning the God of Genesis. But only the Biblical creationist alternative allows for the unending depth of philosophical possiblities that can offer some answers to those questions. The universe of mechanistic materialism is simplistic, foolish, and leads to no profound philosophical possibilities and insights. It just sinks into nihilism.
[ February 24, 2007, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The question of ultimate origins has only two basic possibile answers.
(1) Those who insist on the naturalist view that everything came into existence through the random operation of natural laws, usually go on to say that the universe itself began in a Big Bang...
(2) The only logical alternative, of course, is that Divine Intelligence was involved and necessary in the creation of the universe, and ultimately life.
Uh. This is false. First, science has many possible theories as to the origin of the universe. The Big Bang is only one theory, although it is currently the most popular and has the most proof. There is always the static theory (that the universe has always existed) but this theory is not consistent with other knowledge that we have. Nonetheless, this adds at least one possibility.
Second, as I have stated before, not all religions even believe in a creator. For example, some branches of Buddhism do not propose a Creator god. This adds at least one more.
Third, there are many possible Creator gods. The God of Genesis is just one. You would have to add one possibility for each of Baal, Zeus, Ra, etc.
It would be more correct to say that there are many scientific theories with the Big Bang being dominant and usually (but not always) associated with atheism or agnosticism and there are hundreds of possibilities involving each of the many and mutually exclusive gods, each with pretty much the same amount of proof.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a concrete example (from wiki), here is one depiction of the universe where a god is involved in creation but does not initiate creation.
quote: In the beginning there was nothing in the universe except a formless chaos. However this chaos began to coalesce into a cosmic egg for eighteen thousand years. Within it, the perfectly opposed principles of yin and yang became balanced and Pangu emerged (or woke up) from the egg. Pangu is usually depicted as a primitive, hairy giant with horns on his head (like the Greek Pan) and clad in furs. Pangu set about the task of creating the world: he separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang).
Ironically, if you take the "creating of the world" as an allegory for the whole of the universe, its actually not bad. The cosmic egg might as well be the universe before the Big Bang. In fact, I would find it an amusing exercise to prove that this theory is just as probable and has just about as much proof as creation involving the Christian God.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people believe that God used the Big Bang and evolution to create the world and life on earth (and probably on other planets). This is not necessarily a Deist point of view, since it's possible to believe in varying degrees of direct interference or indirect influence. Belief in the big bang does not equal atheism or agnosticism.
Or you know, God was just so good that it wasn't necessary to do anything more than wind the universe up and let it go. Which is cooler, this or pressing a magic button to get the same end effect?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucas' response to your post, Ron, is an illustration of the blindness caused by the paradigm in which he exists. Your dichotomy is irrelevant to him, not because it is effective, but becuase it contradicts his belief structure. He resorts to the static theory, which by his own admission, is conpletely contradicted by the evidence. No, there is no room for God in his world, because he has already decided that God does not exist.
KoM, you are either speaking out of your ass or being completely dishonest with your response about fine-tuning. The problem with the the weakness of gravity is specifically a "tuning problem." The entire field of quantum mechanics is mathematical, and quantum physicists are constantly trying to work out the levels so that everything fits together. It is entirely a matter of tuning. I'm done with you on this subject.
Shigosei, that video was awesome. When would that commercial air? It's two minutes long!
As for God just being so good that all he needs to do is just wind up the universe and let it go, sure. That is perfectly reasonable, especially if you take into account what Ron was saying about Him existing outside of time. He would have just included the Time portion along with everything else and then Boom, it all happens the way it has.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not even sure that I want to wade into this maelstrom, but I'll give it a shot for old time's sake...
quote:There was some ultimate origin of everything. So which origin makes more sense--a supernatural mind first came into being, or matter? Is it not more reasonable to say that God came into being first, and then He imagined the universe, and by His creative word or imagination, matter and energy came into being?
First, you continue to assume that everything has an origin. Well enough--most scientists presume that as well, though I think that if you showed them sufficient evidence (not sure what it would be...) they could be convinced to change their minds. Certainly there are some that believe in an infinite expansion and contraction of universes, or a string of alternating successful and unsuccessful (non-converging or "poorly tuned") universes.
But take this as a given, for the sake of discussion: Everything has a beginning.
Then you go on to break with biblical canon and state that even God had a beginning. There's an interesting non-J/C standard model God!
But given all that, you somehow believe that it's easier to believe (because, I guess, it's all about what's easier to believe...science being so hard to understand and all) in a God springing from nothingness, rather than inanimate matter springing from that very same nothingness.
Let's think about this...part of the whole anti-evolution argument is that nothing complicated can spring from something less complicated. Something, I recall, about the likelihood of a fully-functioning 747 springing up from a whirlwind in a junkyard.
Yet you are proposing just that. A fully formed, all-powerful God, replete with omniscience and omnipotence, not bound by the confines of time and space, and able to read all our minds simultaneously and forever, and full of love for us.
That's a hell of a 747 you've got there, buddy!
So, apparently, one of the advantages of a theist trying to claim his religion as a means to understand the materialistic nature of the world (the universe) is he can invoke and cancel whatever logical constructs he wants to in order to make his point and refute his opponents point.
Excellent!
--Steve
But, of course, if you're willing to state that some things may exist without a beginning, well then--you'll claim God, and I'll claim the universe. Then we can look for proof of existence of them both....
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Mucas' response to your post, Ron, is an illustration of the blindness caused by the paradigm in which he exists ... No, there is no room for God in his world, because he has already decided that God does not exist.
KoM, you are either speaking out of your ass or being completely dishonest with your response about fine-tuning. The problem with the the weakness of gravity is specifically a "tuning problem." The entire field of quantum mechanics is mathematical, and quantum physicists are constantly trying to work out the levels so that everything fits together. It is entirely a matter of tuning. I'm done with you on this subject.
First, you're completely mischaracterising what I said. I cannot tell if you are honestly mistaken or are maliciously skipping over it. I will quote myself again:
quote: It would be more correct to say that there are many scientific theories with the Big Bang being dominant and usually (but not always) associated with atheism or agnosticism and there are hundreds of possibilities involving each of the many and mutually exclusive gods, each with pretty much the same amount of proof.
This means that in *my* belief structure there are hundreds of possible theories, of which God is one very minute, though clearly nonzero possibility on par with Pangu.
Second, KoM is oversimplifying what he says. However, you are just plain 100% wrong. Quantum mechanics is far from just a field of mathematics. It is also a field of applied science that yields real-world applications. Quantum computing which as I have stated before yields real-world results. Furthermore, closer to home, the very computer you are using relies on modern semiconductor technology, the design of which requires understanding of quantum mechanics ( example ) Even modelling of biological molecules and design of pharmaceuticals is at a level where quantum mechanics has to be taken into account.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would I "maliciously" skip over it? I didn't mean to micharacterize what you say. But your minute, barely non-zero possibility for a Creator is essentially ruling out the possibility, much in the same way that the minute, barely non-zero possibility that there isn't a Creator does not fator into my belief structure.
And I don't think I am wrong about quantum mechanics. Show a single area of it where mathematics are not integral.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM, you are either speaking out of your ass or being completely dishonest with your response about fine-tuning. The problem with the the weakness of gravity is specifically a "tuning problem." The entire field of quantum mechanics is mathematical, and quantum physicists are constantly trying to work out the levels so that everything fits together. It is entirely a matter of tuning.
You are mistaken. Tuning problems arise when a parameter has to take a certain very precisely defined (relative to its possible space, which usually is all the real numbers) value for some theory to work. The theory is then said to be 'fine-tuned'; that is, the theorist has to insert the correct value by hand, instead of being able to say "Well, for value A, result B would happen, and for X, Y would happen, so now I leave it to experiment to find out." The hierarchy problem is not a problem of this kind. Gravity has a strength about 40 orders of magnitude less than that of the strong force, but it doesn't have to take that value for the universe to 'work'. It could perfectly well be a thousand times as strong as it is. You wouldn't get Earth-sized planets, but you could certainly get life.
As for quantum physicists working to 'fit things together', I have no idea where you got this description, but it's wrong. Perhaps you are thinking of the efforts to produce a theory that will unify gravity and the other three forces, but to describe this as 'tuning' is laughable; the point is rather to find a Hamiltonian which gives us the electroweak bosons, gluons, and the graviton through a nice symmetry breaking. This involves searching for a functional form of a potential energy; you cannot possibly describe this as 'tuning', it's more like building the instrument in the first place.
A final point: I was responding to your claim that the hierarchy problem is "the fine-tuning problem", that is, the belief that the physical parameters of our universe need to take extremely precise values to produce us. To show that this claim of yours is false, it is sufficient to show that there could be different physical parameters which would still produce life, which I can do trivially by just doubling all the values, keeping the ratios the same. (In SI units, that is, so we have a yardstick to measure against.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And I don't think I am wrong about quantum mechanics. Show a single area of it where mathematics are not integral.
That does not have anything to do with what you said, and is therefore a red herring.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why would I "maliciously" skip over it? I didn't mean to micharacterize what you say. But your minute, barely non-zero possibility for a Creator is essentially ruling out the possibility, much in the same way that the minute, barely non-zero possibility that there isn't a Creator does not fator into my belief structure.
And I don't think I am wrong about quantum mechanics. Show a single area of it where mathematics are not integral.
Again, you're still mischaracterising what I said. I only said that "God" is given a minute nonzero possibility (I should really use the word probability). However, as I have pointed out many many times, the Christian "God" is just one of hundreds of Creator gods. You cannot read my mind, so you have no idea what I have assigned as the probability for the sum of all their probabilities . Although by implication, you can assume from my statements that the sum is less than 50%.
The second one is easier. A quantum computer is in the field of quantum mechanics. The usage of it does not require math even though the design does. As a parallel, a designed pharmaceutical requires math in its design, but not in its testing or usage. Thus while both pharma and quantum mechanics use math, neither field is "entirely mathematical." A field that really IS entirely mathematical" is that of pure mathematics, which as an aside from my observations of students in the field is actually a pretty difficult field in terms of coursework.
Furthermore, you're missing the much more important point, the whole point of my many examples of real-world applications is to demonstrate that far from "constantly trying to work out levels", people working in the field are working on many other problems. Thus, your initial caricature of multi-world theorists as only working on their theory to provide for the possibility that no God exists is pretty wrong, they have many other "fish to fry."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jinx, Shigosei. It's nice to see that someone is on the same wavelength as me, even if we don't agree. Mucas and I are getting there though, I think.
KoM is just a dense as ever, though. You just have fun out there, dude.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, you didn't describe YOUR paradigm in your post. You simply attempted to describe what evolution looked like to someone outside "our" paradigm -- although I think most of us here actually operate from different paradigms altogether. What is YOUR paradigm?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Well, no. I know several atheists who do not believe in a Big Bang, or who have several causative theories for such a "bang." There is by no means any single "atheistic" explanation for the birth of the universe.
quote: If we add to the mix the tenet many hold that God also created time when He created matter and energy, then the question of what came before the beginning of time is meaningless. Nothing can come before the beginning of time.
Sure. In fact, that's pretty much what the Big Bang theory says, believe it or not. "For a timeless eternity, there was nothing. Then nothing exploded, and time -- along with matter -- was created."
You're absolutely free to postulate that before the nothing, there was a timeless and sentient God. But that adds nothing to the theory but unnecessary complexity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I'm a page behind, but I wanted to comment on this:
quote: Everyone on this board is perfectly aware of the fact that 150 years ago, every educated European was a Creationist.
That's not necessarily true. I didn't know until Intro to Archaeology about a year ago that everyone used to beleive in a static earth that was exactly the same since the Flood. Personally, I found Boucher de Perthes discovery that people existed before our written records to be most damaging to the mindset of the time. However, Darwin refuting the Great Chain of Being was pretty darn important to every science since then. Knowing the world could and did change is kind of the foundation of all the modern sciences.
Once again, I got to my 3000 level college courses without ever hearing that before. If I hadn't happened to take Archeology, I still wouldn't understand what the big deal was. So you can be intelligent, well educated and still not happen to know anything about why evolution was an important discovery or make the connection that it was almost heretical to everyone when it came out. All I ever heard was Darwin was important without ever hearing why.
A lot of us aren't ignorant on purpose. It just doesn't come up much. Not in basic Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Meterology, or Oceanography. I'm planning on majoring in one of the Earth sciences, and I only found it by accident.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, that is one of the defining characteristics of the paradigm that I am working from specifically for the purposes of this debate. That is to say, it is more important that my paradigm is not set within the one with the predominant feature being a foundation of naturalism. The most important feature of my paradigm right now is not what is, but what it is not.
Edit: Another feature it does not have is the assumption of being right. That would certainly hinder it's usefulness as a platform from which to have a discussion.
To clarify, while I may assume that I am right, the paradigm does not. It does not rule out naturalism. It simply does not assume a priori that naturalism is a fact, or as you would put it Tom, the only useful and relevant fact.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Resh, how is life different for someone who does not use naturalism as a foundation? Do you look for the supernatural in all parts of life? Just in the case of origins? Something in between?
Regardless of what my religious beliefs are, I generally live according to a naturalistic worldview. I don't, for instance, believe that prayer affects anyone but the person doing the praying (and maybe whoever's on the other end of the line). Which isn't to say that religious activities and rituals aren't meaningful to me. I just don't believe that they cause significant effects beyond what you might expect from the purely physical aspect. Which is why I avoid laying on of hands in my church. I don't think it will do anything useful, and it freaks me out to have people crowd around me and touch me.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:. The most important feature of my paradigm right now is not what is, but what it is not.
Edit: Another feature it does not have is the assumption of being right.
Can I call B.S. on this?
quote:It simply does not assume a priori that naturalism is a fact, or as you would put it Tom, the only useful and relevant fact.
How do you determine whether something is useful and relevant? What's the process you use to establish that a given method meets those criteria?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: KoM is just a dense as ever, though. You just have fun out there, dude.
You know, coming from you, that's a compliment. When such as you are reduced to nothing but plain insults, I know I've won. nothing could more plainly demonstrate how empty your side of the argument is.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: KoM is just a dense as ever, though. You just have fun out there, dude.
You know, coming from you, that's a compliment. When such as you are reduced to nothing but plain insults, I know I've won. nothing could more plainly demonstrate how empty your side of the argument is.
Exactly. Resh, for someone who constantly says his arguments are glossed over because of their tone and never responded to, and that you're often attacked ad hominem, you seem to be good at doing just that. Your earlier posts lacked such negative language; what happened?
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, what I said was: "Those who insist on the naturalist view that everything came into existence through the random operation of natural laws, usually go on to say that the universe itself began in a Big Bang." I was simply addressing the majority view.
Boothby171, it is somewhat amusing that you would accuse me of teaching that God had a beginning. I was saying that whatever beginning there was, it began either with God or with matter. (And the attempt some make to call it an amorphous "egg" of chaos does not change the fact that they are claiming everything began with matter).
You will also note that I suggested that God stands outside of time, because He Himself created time, so that the question what came before time was created by God is invalid because it is logically meaningless,
I cannot tell you much about the nature of God, because I do not know. I do believe that Christ is God, and the Bible identifies Him as an active agent in the creation of all things, and Jesus described Himself this way in Revelation 1:8: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
Now, you might say, "Aha, the Lord Himself declares that He had a beginning." But no, read more carefully. That is not what the statement says. Jesus does not say that He as Lord HAD a beginning, He said that He Himself IS the beginning.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it's just as valid to claim that the Universe is the beginning, so your whole argument collapses.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, KOM, try to be a little more careful in your thinking. The alternatives are more correctly framed this way: The material universe began with God, or the material universe began with the material universe. The latter is called a tautology (the thing is the same as itself), and it means, in other words, that the material universe created itself. Ultimately, you either believe that, or else you believe that God created the universe. Those are the only two alternatives logically possible.
Now, if you mean to imply that the material universe is God, then you are a bit confused about the nature of matter and energy.
[ February 26, 2007, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I already said I don't have anything more to say to you. Attribute to me whatever motivations you like, just keep in mind that I'm still having a conversation with the others. Hitoshi, If you want to get involved, you're more than welcome. Just don't take the route KoM is taking, or I'll ignore you too.
quote:originally posted by Shigosei Resh, how is life different for someone who does not use naturalism as a foundation? Do you look for the supernatural in all parts of life? Just in the case of origins? Something in between?
You're putting too much into it. If I am looking for the supernatural/God's hand in any or all parts of life, it is not because I don't use naturalism as a starting point. That's just a way of keeping an open mind, as far as I'm concerned. Not to say that you or anyone is more or less closed minded, just that when you start with naturalism, you are closed off to certain possibilities. For all I know, you are in fact more open to other possibilities that I am not open to. Unless you guys want to enlighten me, the only one I know of that you are open to that I am not is a completely natural origin of the universe and life here on Earth. In a word, naturalism. I know, I'm being redundant.
quote:Originally posted by Tom Davidson How do you determine whether something is useful and relevant? What's the process you use to establish that a given method meets those criteria?
That's a big question. I was only talking about what is relevant to this discussion. And in that case, I determined that the reason you think that I am misinformed, illogical, and just plain wrong is because of that particular feature of my paradigm; that it isn't based on naturalism. You can call B.S if you want, but I don't know why you would. I'm just telling you how I define my paradigm and what I think is the most relevant feature of it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, KoM is too smart for us to talk to. We might as well admit he's right. He obviously has nothing to learn from us, since he's got it all figured out. As a matter of fact, I'm just gonna start reffering to Him with capitalized pronouns.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shigosei, those are junior level classes. We use a four digit numbering system here in Florida.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The latter is called a tautology (the thing is the same as itself), and it means, in other words, that the material universe created itself.
And you'd rather believe that God created Himself?
quote:You can call B.S if you want, but I don't know why you would. I'm just telling you how I define my paradigm...
Well, no. You keep SAYING that you're telling me how you define your paradigm, but I've now asked you on three separate occasions to do so and you haven't.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And you'd rather believe that God created Himself?
to paraphrase Aquinas: "Something, somewhere, must be uncreated... and this something is what people commonly name 'God'"
my addition "and others call the sum total of matter and energy in the Universe."
You have to admit that if Energy cannot be created or destroyed, that it also fits most of Friar Tom's (and many other) definitions of God-- unmoved mover, uncaused efficient cause, etc. ...even to the point of being outside of time due to relativistic effects of propogating at the speed of light.
edit: "people" and "others" are not meant to be in opposition
quote:Well, get back to me when you read my posts, Tom.
I have. I still have no idea what your paradigm IS, since you've only defined what you believe it isn't. You could answer these three questions for me, and I'd find it very useful: 1) How do you acquire knowledge about the universe? 2) What are your starting assumptions? 3) How do you determine when something is correct?
------
quote:to paraphrase Aquinas: "Something, somewhere, must be uncreated... and this something is what people commonly name 'God'"
How do we get from asserting that something uncreated had to exist prior to the "start" of time to asserting that this pre-existing thing was sentient?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not everyone who believes in a God believes that God to have personality or will... I do, as, of course, did Aquinas, but that doesn't mean his "ways of knowing" prove personality.
As to how *I* get there... well, that's a long and probably uninteresting tangent best reserved for another discussion (which you and I may have had before, Tom... not sure) and definitely involves some mere choices of preference on questions where there is little direct evidence either way. I just find it fascinating that, even from a material standpoint, there is the presupposition of something uncreated... and that uncreated thing created and drives everything else. *shrugs*
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for your imput, Sam. Seriously though, I am pleased that you're interested. I defined my paradigm by what it is not, and maybe that was a mistake. I've repeatedly stated that I believe the most relevant feature as pertains to this discussion is something that it is not, inasmuch as it is that something that is the predominant distinction between the two. However, to define precisely what it is, besides being mostly irrelevant (and if you cannot see how that is, then maybe we aren't on the same page here) and probably very boring, well, I just don't know if I could do it without completely clouding the issue. I'm not trying to hide anything. I don't know what cartwheeling means, but I don't think I'm trying to do that either. At any rate, here are my quick answers to your questions, Tom.
1) Experience and learning. I file encounters with the supernatural (i.e; God) under "experience." 2) and 3) Descartes wrote five Meditations in an attempt to answer these very questions. I don't know if I would have arrived at the same conclusions as he, or if I did if I would have used the same line of reasoning, but I do know that my intelligence does not come close to approaching his. And so if you want to know what my starting assumptions are and how I come to know something is true, I would just suggest you read his Meditations instead. If you disagree with his methods and/or conclusions, then that pretty much just establishes that you will never be convinced that anything can be known at all.
edit, to add: I don't mean to imply that the Meditations are representative of what I think. I don't start from such an extreme level of skepticism, for one. I'm just saying that... well, basically I'm just saying that I can't answer your questions satisfactorily.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading some of these posts led me to a bit of an idea.
It seems that Biblical interpretation and translation is not an art or a career, but a science every bit as dedicated and demanding as any other.
So what we have in this debate is a question of who's science is correct--those of the biblical interpretor or those of the biologist, geologist, astronomer, and physicist.
Now most arguments I've heard for the "big humanist conspiracy" state that scientists can not get accredited, published, employed, or even graduated unless they adherently follow the rules of the conspiracy. Oh, you can be a creationist physicist, but nobody will publish your papers unless you tote the evolutionary line. All the big money, grants, positions go to only those scientists, engineers, theorists etc who follow the humanist manifesto.
But, I say the exact same thing can be said about every biblical theorist, translator, commentator and proponent. You can pass your theology classes, but you will never get the big book money, the touring contract, the TV spots, or even a good preaching position in a top mega-church unless you follow the Evangelical manifesto denouncing evolution.
Could there be a case for evolution in the Bible that is being overlooked for what is more galvanizing? for what is more profitable?
You see, the majority of the sciences out there do not directly contradict God or Jesus. They do, however, contradict some of the theories and dogma of human interpreters. Betraying Jesus could be forgiven, but betraying some of these wise men can not.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was some ultimate origin of everything. So which origin makes more sense--a supernatural mind first came into being, or matter? Is it not more reasonable to say that God came into being first, and then He imagined the universe, and by His creative word or imagination, matter and energy came into being?
I don't care whether you "teach" it or not, or even if you believe it. You proposed it as a way to understand God and the origins of the universe.
"God came into being"
Implying (rather strongly, I'd say) that there was a time when he was not in existence.
Oh, and if, as you say, "I cannot tell you much about the nature of God, because I do not know" then can you please stop trying to tell us about the nature of God. You know, things like "He created time," and "He stands outside of time" (though you only "suggest it") and "Christ is God" (though you only believe it).
Either you actually know something, or you're just parroting something someone else told you, or you're just making things up because they make you feel comfortable and loved.
Or maybe you've come from a few, commonly known and consistent, or (at least) verifiable root pieces of information, and have derived all the rest, then checked it against verifiable evidence, falsifiable tests, and the like (you know...like the scientists do)
posted
Boothby171, the things which the Bible reveals are more than my subjective opinion or suggestions. But the Bible does not reveal everything. As the Bible says, "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy 29:29)
As for the statement "God came into being," this is a reasonable human way of thinking, but as I acknowledged, I do not know if it applies to God. Even quantum physics suggests that there had to be an Ultimate Knower to collapse the probability wave of the universe. We can speculate about the nature of God in terms of our philosophies, but we always have to keep in mind the limitations of both our philosophies, and our finite minds, constrained ss they are by time and space.
I can put together the words, "God existed before time began," but how can any human possibly know what that means--what was God like before He created time? We might even ask, where was God before He created space? And there again, in both cases I am violating the logic of God creating time, therefore there can be no "before" that point of creation.
Fortunately for us, God has made things a lot more simple for us, by communicating with members of our race, and causing them to write down the ideas He inspired them with. He has gone even further than that, by extending Himself in the form of a Person who has become fully joined with humanity and human nature, and through Him living among us has shown to us Him who is too large to contain within all the universe, or even within all of time. This is sufficient, and it is worth paying attention to the ways God has revealed Himself to us. Nothing should interest us more.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, KOM, try to be a little more careful in your thinking. The alternatives are more correctly framed this way: The material universe began with God, or the material universe began with the material universe. The latter is called a tautology (the thing is the same as itself)
As I've already said, I really do love it when the likes of you resort to the insult direct. Now, why don't you try to be a bit more careful in your reading? The alternatives are "God began with God" or "the Universe began with the Universe", or alternatively "God existed forever and outside of time" and "the Universe existed forever and outside of time." These are exactly equivalent. If you reject the one you must reject the other.
And, by the way, you have completely misunderstood what quantum mechanics says about the need for an observer to collapse wave functions. It's admittedly not your fault, there are a lot of bad popularisations out there, but you really do need to study the math and not the literature to understand this. And even then you won't actually know what's going on, this being one of the major unsolved problems of physics: Nobody actually knows what happens in a wave-function collapse. If you really want to insert your god into this gap, go ahead, but expect it to be squeezed right out again in the next thirty years or so.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:basically I'm just saying that I can't answer your questions satisfactorily.
Just so we're clear on that.
One reason my paradigm's better: I can answer your questions satisfactorily.
Your "better" is subjective. I can follow a certain set of rules with certain premises and create an environment where all doubt can be eliminated. But since the nature of my paradigm does not allow that, I have to be honest when I say that I can't know anything for certain. For you, this indicates inferiority. For me, it indicates a more accurate view of the universe.
I tell you Tom, if you want to give off the impression that you are not a committed believer in the Faith of Naturalism, you might want to indicate some admittance that I might just have a point. You see, the whole purpose of all this is to show that it is possible to not automatically accept evolution as fact without being hopelessly ignorant, as Amanecer is worried about concerning his sister. You don't have to agree with my reasoning, but you should at least recognize that my belief system is sufficiently convincing that I can reject Naturalism, and evolution as it's byproduct, while remaining intellectually honest. I'm reasonably convinced by it, and I've examined it thoroughly. I know its limitations; and more importantly, I know my own. It would behoove you to do the same with your belief system.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
