An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[oriel36]

You're serious about this? Christianity maintains that we cannot possibly imagine the totality of God. Right? Yet we are compelled to absorb the idea of God, aren't we? In trying to argue against the Big Bang, you have constructed an argument that says it is "intellectual suicide" to believe in God!

Obviously you haven't come across Dionysius the Areopagite,an author beloved of many Christians through the centuries,for the simple reason that he does not set limits on the conception of God but often puts those conceptions in places where the human mind has to expand its views or take in a wider conception of joy and pain.

The great Christians in the era of St Francis and later started to develop a more encompassing view of 'God in all things' and if you haven't noticed,one of those Christians was the respected Nicolas Cusa,as these men started to give more focus to astronomical observations and get away from the geocentric view of man and the Earth at the center of things.You might even catch a glimpse of the absurdity of 'big bang' in Cusa's view,as he tries to extract the motions of the Earth out of stellar circumpolar motion or rather,presents why stellar circumpolar motion is an absurdity from the point of view of a stationary Earth -

"And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center. Thereupon you will see--through the intellect..that the world
and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the Universe]
will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its
center and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa

When John Flamsteed created the calendar based Equatorial Coordinate System in the late 17th century by linking daily rotation directly to right ascension,he unwittingly created a catastrophe that few could presently deal with but I fully expect you to as the paragraph above contains hints as to what happened with time,space and motion.It is a question of familiarity rather than intelligence to get to the bottom of this but you would be required to do your own thinking and rely less on others who have yet to see how science lost its bearings.The alternative is to dictate things to others who know no better as is the usual case and I would be surprised if you didn't take this route.

 

[quatona]

Hmm. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Which cake would that be?

From my perspective you seem to be saying "I don't know, but I have strong opinions on the topic".

The "strong" is superfluous. Apart from that this is a correct paraphrasing: You can feel you don´t know yet you can hold a belief (strong or weak or everything in between).

How is that any different than a series of preconceived beliefs (one way or the other)?

Well, of course making a statement of beliefs would be a statement of beliefs. And since beliefs aren´t required when you have knowledge, beliefs are preconceived.

 

[Doveaman]

As Eudomonist pointed out, the claim is that intelligence arose in living organisms by evolution.

And as I pointed out, my claim is that intelligence arose in living organisms by an intelligent God.

Some how I don't think you and I disagree here.

Can intelligence arise by evolution apart from the intelligent input from God?

Evolution itself is by intelligent design, is it not?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

And as I pointed out, my claim is that intelligence arose in living organisms by an intelligent God. Some how I don't think you and I disagree here.

Can intelligence arise by evolution apart from the intelligent input from God?

Um.... it did, so obviously it can.

 

[Michael]

Um.... it did, so obviously it can.

In order for you to demonstrate that statement is true, you must be able to disprove this specific theory of God. How were you able to do that?

 

[Doveaman]

Life from non-life has been done.

Does this mean the scientists who did the experiment were dead while they did the experiment.

 

[Michael]

Um.... it did, so obviously it can.

Um, that is a perfect example of a "statement of faith" (in atheism) by the way, and sort of a classic example of the "belief systems" that typically comes with an atheists "lack of belief" in God. You certainly can't demonstrate that statement empirically by the way.

 

[quatona]

Um, that is a perfect example of a "statement of faith" (in atheism) by the way, and sort of a classic example of the "belief systems" that typically comes with an atheists "lack of belief" in God. You certainly can't demonstrate that statement empirically by the way.

Just like you don´t believe that God was created by METAGOD. And that METAGOD was created by ORGNUMPH.
Isn´t it funny how we could force each other into countless states of negative faith by making positive statements of faith?
The burden of proof rule is there for a good reason, methinks.

 

[Michael]

Which cake would that be?

The "strong" is superfluous. Apart from that this is a correct paraphrasing: You can feel you don´t know yet you can hold a belief (strong or weak or everything in between).

But these "opinions" as you call them are simply 'shades of gray' toward belief or disbelief.

Well, of course making a statement of beliefs would be a statement of beliefs. And since beliefs aren´t required when you have knowledge, beliefs are preconceived.

I still do not believe or more accurately I don't agree with you that beliefs and knowledge are necessarily different, particularly when applied to the topic of astronomy or pantheism in any form.

 

[Michael]

Just like you don´t believe that God was created by METAGOD. And that METAGOD was created by ORGNUMPH.
Isn´t it funny how we could force each other into countless states of negative faith by making positive statements of faith?
The burden of proof rule is there for a good reason, methinks.

While it's true that I personally "lack belief" in a METAGOD, you've also stepped outside of the realm of empirical physics altogether. All I know or ever could know is what I observe in *THIS* Universe. I'm also willing to cop to the fact that my "lack of belief" is ultimately just an "opinion" that is more of a "statement of faith" than any sort of "knowledge" on my part. It's just that atheists don't like to accept the fact that their OPINIONS are in fact "beliefs".

 

[mzungu]

In order for you to demonstrate that statement is true, you must be able to disprove this specific theory of God. How were you able to do that?

The Theory of God

 

[quatona]

But these "opinions" as you call them are simply 'shades of gray' toward belief or disbelief.

Yes, that´s what I said. An exception, though, would be a complete lack of belief and disbelief.

I still do not believe or more accurately I don't agree with you that beliefs and knowledge are necessarily different, particularly when applied to the topic of astronomy or pantheism in any form.

Then don´t believe it.
Personally, I would like to be able to make a statement about what I (think I) know or don´t know, and I would like to be able to make a statement about what I believe, don´t believe or disbelieve. And I would like to make clear that these would be very different statements. If that´s not asked too much.

 

[quatona]

While it's true that I personally "lack belief" in a METAGOD, you've also stepped outside of the realm of empirical physics altogether.

Irrelevant to my point.

All I know or ever could know is what I observe in *THIS* Universe.

Irrelevant to my point.

I'm also willing to cop to the fact that my "lack of belief" is ultimately just an "opinion" that is more of a "statement of faith" than any sort of "knowledge" on my part.

So just by claiming whatever I can force you into certain beliefs. I find that a slightly unreasonable approach, but at least you are consistent here.

It's just that atheists don't like to accept the fact that their OPINIONS are in fact "beliefs".

You don´t happen to have a broader brush?
(As I said before, Michael: Sometimes you realy crack me up. I spend post upon post insisting on the difference between statements from knowledge and statements from belief, you keep contradicting me - and in the end you tell me that atheists don´t like to accept that difference. )

Anyway, my initial statement didn´t have to do with your pet peeve, so please play this game with someone else.

 

[quatona]

The Theory of God

I´m sure he doesn´t mean "theory" in the scientific sense, here.

 

[Michael]

The Theory of God

You would have to read the first few pages of the original thread to get the gist of the theory. I'm working on a musical, with song and dance routines and everything, but for now you'll probably have to peruse the original thread a bit.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

 

[Michael]

Yes, that´s what I said. An exception, though, would be a complete lack of belief and disbelief.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that "shades of gray" are the "norm" in both directions, and only the rarest of individuals can actually sit on the razor's edge.

Then don´t believe it.
Personally, I would like to be able to make a statement about what I (think I) know or don´t know, and I would like to be able to make a statement about what I believe, don´t believe or disbelieve. And I would like to make clear that these would be very different statements. If that´s not asked too much.

We all form opinions about specific topics based on what we've "learned/been taught/been told" about that idea. We may get conflicting views on the topic. We form opinions based on the input we've received and those opinions are a form of belief/disbelief that put us into the gray areas one direction or the other. I can't see how any true "fence sitter" would feel compelled to evangelize AGAINST any specific idea. Most "evangelicals" (myself included in many topics) typically have very STRONG opinions on these topics, particularly if one is willing to actually 'crusade against' a specific idea. In my experience with talking to atheists over the past decade, most atheists I've met in cyberspace are like myself towards Lambda-magic theory. They don't simply "lack belief" in a razor's edge sort of sense, they typically have VERY STRONG opinions/beliefs/what they think is "knowledge" on the topic.

 

[Michael]

Irrelevant to my point.

Irrelevant to my point.

Then we are CLEARLY outside the scope of this thread.

So just by claiming whatever I can force you into certain beliefs. I find that a slightly unreasonable approach, but at least you are consistent here.

You're forcing me to form "opinions" on a topic. I accept that those opinions constitute a subjective choice on my part that may or may not be true.

You don´t happen to have a broader brush?
(As I said before, Michael: Sometimes you realy crack me up. I spend post upon post insisting on the difference between statements from knowledge and statements from belief, you keep contradicting me - and in the end you tell me that atheists don´t like to accept that difference. )

Anyway, my initial statement didn´t have to do with your pet peeve, so please play this game with someone else.

Whatever. I think our basic disagreement has to do with your belief that there's some difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge'. I don't share that belief, particularly with anything related to the topic of astronomy and/or the topic of God. Because I don't share that "belief/opinion" with you, it seems we simply can't agree on this topic. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Michael]

Within Judeo-Christianity, God's intervention is an observation. Your proposed mechanism is not adequate to explain the intervention. The EM field can't do the things Judeo-Christians have observed God to do.

What specifically did you have in mind? Certainly the the phrase "Let there be light" can easily be explained with a little electricity.

Not that I can see. Those are 2 separate activities. Sustaining the chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to get water has nothing to do with Parting the Red Sea so the Hebrews can escape from Pharoah's army, does it? God can do the sustaining but never intervene in human history.

A "parting of the seas" event might be explained with a simple Earthquake/Tsunami type of event, where water recedes for awhile and then rushes back in with a vengeance. in other words it can be explained as an entirely 'natural', albeit well timed process.

What we consider "personality" is a product of our brain. And, within the brain, it is a product of the firing of neurons in specific sequences.

Yes, but I'm not sure exactly where the entire BRAIN of God might be located. Is it "spread out" over every sun in the cosmos? Is it centralized somewhere, with some sort of "localized awareness"? I have no idea.

My gastrocnemius muscle, for instance, doesn't have a personality. A bacterium doesn't have a personality. It's not funny, or moody, or brave, or considerate, etc. So being alive and having a personality are 2 separate things.

I'll buy the idea that personally and basic life functions are two separate things. Without the life component, the personality component is impossible.

First, I said quite clearly, "if pantheism is true". Panentheism pretty well forbids the universe being alive.

Well, yes and no. That assumes that computers cannot be "alive" and/or composed of organic (living) elements.

Now, panentheism is not "intelligent design", either.

I suppose that depends on how you define "intelligent design". IMO anything created with "intent", specifically with the intent to support human life would be an example of "intelligent design". It seems you're putting other constraints on the term.

"Intelligent design" is a very specific method of forming things in the universe. ID is the manufacture of certain things. For something to be "intelligently designed" it must be manufactured such that the first appearance of the thing is in the form that we presently see it.

That seems like a "given" in any empirical theory involving a lot of sophisticated circuitry.

Panentheism as in God sustains the universe does not have God directly manufacturing things. Instead, the processes God sustains form things.

Then wasn't there an intent to create an environment that "sustains things", in other words an "intelligently designed environment to support life"?

I think that I will try to pick apart your post today in "parts" so that we keep some ideas separate from one another. You and I can be a bit long winded and we're covering a couple of different topics in this thread, some philosophical in nature, and some that are physics oriented. I think I'll respond to the physics aspects in the next response. Be a bit patient with me today. Today seems to be very busy for some reason here at work. That's a good thing mind you, but it cuts into my board time.

 

[quatona]

Then we are CLEARLY outside the scope of this thread.

Certainly. I just responded to a certain post, and you asked me to elaborate.

Whatever. I think our basic disagreement has to do with your belief that there's some difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge'.
I don't share that belief,

Ok, so why didn´t you write "with your knowledge" in the above sentence?

 

[Michael]

Certainly. I just responded to a certain post, and you asked me to elaborate.

True. Thanks.

Ok, so why didn´t you write "with your knowledge" in the above sentence?

I used the term "belief" because I believe that the word "belief" more accurately represents all cosmology oriented theories and pretty much all theistic beliefs as well. Cosmology theories in general are not actually 'knowledge', they are theoretical "beliefs" about the cause of redshift and the cause of the background radiation observations. To call Lambda-CDM theory "knowledge" goes much too far IMO. It's simply a 'belief' that may or may not have any empirical merit. Certainly space never expands in the lab. It's therefore an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer".