The Dreaded Dichotomy?

[cvanwey]

First cause/prime mover/ID/God/other (or) infinite regress?

I'm torn... Can anyone make a solid case for either? If the later concept is proven, then I guess that may mean there exists no need for a God, yeah?

I am honest in stating, I don't know! Hence, the fundamental reason I label myself a 'skeptic'. I'm trying hard to not assume, but it's difficult sometimes

Okay, go....

And as always, thank you in advance!

 

[Steve Petersen]

First cause/prime mover/ID/God/other (or) infinite regress?

I'm torn... Can anyone make a solid case for either? If the later concept is proven, then I guess that may mean there exists no need for a God, yeah?

I am honest in stating, I don't know! Hence, the fundamental reason I label myself a 'skeptic'. I'm trying hard to not assume, but it's difficult sometimes

Okay, go....

And as always, thank you in advance!

'I don't know' works for me. I guess that makes me Agnostic.

 

[com7fy8]

Hi, Cvanwey I am Bill, pleased to meet you God bless you

One thing I go by, is simply my impression that things are so complicated and well-developed, that I don't think physical principles and atoms and molecules could have produced the universe, by themselves.

And the Bible does say things were not made from things which appear > Hebrews 11:3. To me, this means the Bible is saying things were made, and did not just bring themselves into existence.

And my opinion with this is that atoms and molecules and energy would need a high level of ability to get themselves to do what they have done. To form just one atom with electrons flying around something like 1,380 times a second is quite a feat. To get all of them, then, to become so formed with electrons all doing this, by their own selves, all through the universe is not what I would expect material stuff to get itself to do, alone. And then, to claim, they give rise to humans who are so self-destructive > if they were made from material stuff only, I can see that atoms and molecules and energy with such creative ability would not then do what is so destructive, by making humans the way humans can be.

So, I see how humans were made, but then fell in sin. For me, it all fits.

But ones claim the complexity argument has been debunked, but they did not say how or why. But someone might be able to explain this.

Another thing > God's ways are "past finding out" > Romans 11:33. And we see how humans have not figured out the ways of creation. Yet, if material stuff has the ability to produce such complex stuff, why can't material stuff make an organism which is capable of understanding what materials have formed?

But I can see that God is so more than we are; so words are not going to be able to explain God. And materials certainly have not made us able to understand Him.

But we can submit to Him in His peace and discover better than all which words and intelligence can tell us.

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

 

[cvanwey]

Hi, Cvanwey I am Bill, pleased to meet you God bless you

One thing I go by, is simply my impression that things are so complicated and well-developed, that I don't think physical principles and atoms and molecules could have produced the universe, by themselves.

And the Bible does say things were not made from things which appear > Hebrews 11:3. To me, this means the Bible is saying things were made, and did not just bring themselves into existence.

And my opinion with this is that atoms and molecules and energy would need a high level of ability to get themselves to do what they have done. To form just one atom with electrons flying around something like 1,380 times a second is quite a feat. To get all of them, then, to become so formed with electrons all doing this, by their own selves, all through the universe is not what I would expect material stuff to get itself to do, alone. And then, to claim, they give rise to humans who are so self-destructive > if they were made from material stuff only, I can see that atoms and molecules and energy with such creative ability would not then do what is so destructive, by making humans the way humans can be.

So, I see how humans were made, but then fell in sin. For me, it all fits.

But ones claim the complexity argument has been debunked, but they did not say how or why. But someone might be able to explain this.

Another thing > God's ways are "past finding out" > Romans 11:33. And we see how humans have not figured out the ways of creation. Yet, if material stuff has the ability to produce such complex stuff, why can't material stuff make an organism which is capable of understanding what materials have formed?

But I can see that God is so more than we are; so words are not going to be able to explain God. And materials certainly have not made us able to understand Him.

But we can submit to Him in His peace and discover better than all which words and intelligence can tell us.

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

Everything you just stated would be awesome questions to ponder, address, critique, IF the former of the OP reigns true. But what about if the later is 'proven'? Some form of infinite regress..?

Do we have evidence to suggest the former, excluding the later?

 

[com7fy8]

Do we have evidence to suggest the former, excluding the later?

Well, I am not sure if I have seen the evidence, even if it exists.

Hebrews 11:1 says faith is the evidence

And our Apostle Paul says we need "faith working through love," in Galatians 5:6. So, in God's love, I consider, we can know what He shares with us. And He is the One who knows.

 

[cvanwey]

Well, I am not sure if I have seen the evidence, even if it exists.

Hebrews 11:1 says faith is the evidence

And our Apostle Paul says we need "faith working through love," in Galatians 5:6. So, in God's love, I consider, we can know what He shares with us. And He is the One who knows.

Assurance and conviction is the best form of evidence? Does this work for all assurances and convictions, or just when applied to the assertion of Yahweh?

Saul said a lot of things. Why is his opinion better than anyone else's?

 

[bling]

Everything you just stated would be awesome questions to ponder, address, critique, IF the former of the OP reigns true. But what about if the later is 'proven'? Some form of infinite regress..?

Do we have evidence to suggest the former, excluding the later?

Infinite regress does eliminate the issue of something coming from nothing so the question is: does the something that has always existed include intelligence or only energy and/or matter?

You are an intelligent being and man has made some degree of intelligence in computers, so it appears intelligence can come from intelligence, matter and energy, but can intelligence come from only energy and/or matter?

Is it reasonable to conclude at least that intelligence would more likely come from intelligence, matter and energy than from just matter and energy alone?

You have already assumed the infinite existence of something (energy and matter) so why is it so much harder to believe in the infinite existence of Intelligence?

Even if energy and/or matter did create intelligence (like humans today) making super intelligence a possibility from energy and/or matter why is man the first time this has happened? Why would it not be more likely this previous super intelligence made humans? Could a super intelligent being exist an (not measurable time ago) made way back than by energy and/or matter?

The most likely alternatives is to believe intelligence was part of the cause for your creation, and the intelligence that has made Himself known says He has always existed.

 

[cloudyday2]

I think one problem with the "first cause" is time. "Cause" requires time, because there must be a "before" state and an "after" state so that one can cause the other.

The "arrow of time" in physics is related to reversible transformations and entropy and so forth. To be honest I don't understand those concepts as well as I would like. A key feature I think is the non-determinism in quantum mechanics. Entropy is a measure of free states (non-determinism) in the system (I believe).

If you imagine an equation where one parameter is time then there is no causality. The "future" could be said to "cause" the "past" just as easily as the "past" could be said to "cause" the future. There is really just an equation defining a completely deterministic system.

One of the explanations of quantum mechanics is to imagine hidden factors that eliminate the non-determinism. This would make "causality" disappear (IMO), so the cosmological question of "what caused/created the universe?" becomes meaningless.

(Not pretending to understand the physics thoroughly of course. Just some random thoughts.)

 

[durangodawood]

First cause/prime mover/ID/God/other (or) infinite regress?....

Either seems possible to me, with no current way to tell.

Plus, there may well be other possibilities we havent yet, or cant, imagine.

 

[cvanwey]

Either seems possible to me, with no current way to tell.

Plus, there may well be other possibilities we havent yet, or cant, imagine.

I'm kinda with you on this one. Just as there exists scientific principles in which, to this day, still leave me baffled - (gravitational theory, relativity, maybe some other(s). Just because I cannot fully understand them, or think of another plausibility, does not mean there isn't one.

But the reason I post this topic here on CF, aside from the fact that another poster was inferring about a topic like this, there also exists a very large community, whom assert they know the answer. I find this baffling. I feel I have now studied the Bible sufficiently, and find many inconsistencies, which do not appear to align with known and tested reality? So either these believers know something I still don't, or, maybe they are invoking wishful thinking, some form of faith due to wishful thinking, implying fallacious reasoning, are products of indoctrination, or maybe some other reason(s), in which I have yet to deduce.?.?.?

I'm more interested in hearing what the theist asserts they 'know', more than anything else....

Because at the end of the day, the theists here on CF ascribe to a conclusion that if the human does not believe in not only the former (i.e.) first cause, prime mover, other, but a very specific set of former principles, then the dichotomous alternative is eternal separation, torture, or other...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Either seems possible to me, with no current way to tell.

Plus, there may well be other possibilities we havent yet, or cant, imagine.

There may also be possibilities we're already smack-dab in the middle of, but no one wants to either hear about or consider.

I'm kinda with you on this one. Just as there exists scientific principles in which, to this day, still leave me baffled - (gravitational theory, relativity, maybe some other(s). Just because I cannot fully understand them, or think of another plausibility, does not mean there isn't one.

But the reason I post this topic here on CF, aside from the fact that another poster was inferring about a topic like this, there also exists a very large community, whom assert they know the answer. I find this baffling. I feel I have now studied the Bible sufficiently, and find many inconsistencies, which do not appear to align with known and tested reality? So either these believers know something I still don't, or, maybe they are invoking wishful thinking, some form of faith due to wishful thinking, implying fallacious reasoning, are products of indoctrination, or maybe some other reason(s), in which I have yet to deduce.?.?.?

I'm more interested in hearing what the theist asserts they 'know', more than anything else....

Because at the end of the day, the theists here on CF ascribe to a conclusion that if the human does not believe in not only the former (i.e.) first cause, prime mover, other, but a very specific set of former principles, then the dichotomous alternative is eternal separation, torture, or other...

I'm more interested in what you think "knowledge" and "truth" actually are.............and how you then "know" this!

 

[cvanwey]

Infinite regress does eliminate the issue of something coming from nothing so the question is: does the something that has always existed include intelligence or only energy and/or matter?

You are an intelligent being and man has made some degree of intelligence in computers, so it appears intelligence can come from intelligence, matter and energy, but can intelligence come from only energy and/or matter?

Is it reasonable to conclude at least that intelligence would more likely come from intelligence, matter and energy than from just matter and energy alone?

You have already assumed the infinite existence of something (energy and matter) so why is it so much harder to believe in the infinite existence of Intelligence?

Even if energy and/or matter did create intelligence (like humans today) making super intelligence a possibility from energy and/or matter why is man the first time this has happened? Why would it not be more likely this previous super intelligence made humans? Could a super intelligent being exist an (not measurable time ago) made way back than by energy and/or matter?

The most likely alternatives is to believe intelligence was part of the cause for your creation, and the intelligence that has made Himself known says He has always existed.

Interesting points to ponder. But doesn't then abiogenesis need to come into the equation? The reason I ask, is that you appear to be Christian? If this is the case, why would an intelligent creator start the process of life on earth in the ways abiogenesis studies appear to suggest, but then author a book, telling humans we were made in His image from the jump? Causes mass confusion, wouldn't you agree?

(Not that wikipedia is an academic source, but it at least paraphrases the concept)

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

This scientific endeavor basically states earliest life forms originate from putative fossilized microorganisms. Were these intelligent? Or did evolution go from no intelligence/less intelligence, to more intelligence???

Putative fossil life in a hydrothermal system of the Dellen impact structure, Sw

 

[durangodawood]

There may also be possibilities we're already smack-dab in the middle of, but no one wants to either hear about or consider.....

For example...?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For example...?

Like.....we're being confused and seduced by the Devil and by our wishful materialistic, thinking?

 

[cvanwey]

I'm more interested in what you think "knowledge" and "truth" actually are.............and how you then "know" this!

Great question! I don't know! I don't assert to know. But as I've stated prior, in other threads... Just because I do not know the answer to something, doesn't mean I cannot apply rational skepticism to other's assertions. If someone's asserted responses appears to apply evidence, in which I cannot refute, then I either ultimately accept the asserted concept, or tentatively consider it, or place it in the maybe pile, or flat out reject it; bases upon my own limited faculties.

I'll give you a simple example I've given in the past...

500 years ago, the majority would assert the world was flat. 100 years ago, the majority may have asserted the world was a perfect sphere. 25 years ago, the same contention asserts the globe is more of a pear-shaped sphere.

A 'flat-earther' comes up to me and states, I 'know' the earth is flat. Well, I may not know the 'actually true shape' (i.e.) pear-shaped, lemon shaped, other. However, based upon the evidence, it appears it is not flat

This is an analogy I've given to Christians in the past. I absolutely don't know where we 'came from.' "But 'your' assertion appears bogus." (Not you specifically, but you get the idea).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Great question! I don't know! I don't assert to know. But as I've stated prior, in other threads... Just because I do not know the answer to something, doesn't mean I cannot apply rational skepticism to other's assertions. If someone's asserted responses appears to apply evidence, in which I cannot refute, then I either ultimately accept the asserted concept, or tentatively consider it, or place it in the maybe pile, or flat out reject it; bases upon my own limited faculties.

I'll give you a simple example I've given in the past...

500 years ago, the majority would assert the world was flat. 100 years ago, the majority may have asserted the world was a perfect sphere. 25 years ago, the same contention asserts the globe is more of a pear-shaped sphere.

A 'flat-earther' comes up to me and states, I 'know' the earth is flat. Well, I may not know the 'actually true shape' (i.e.) pear-shaped, lemon shaped, other. However, based upon the evidence, it appears it is not flat

This is an analogy I've given to Christians in the past. I absolutely don't know where we 'came from.' "But 'your' assertion appears bogus." (Not you specifically, but you get the idea).

....those are astute insights, and I much agree with you that these kinds of instances pertain. And I would share your rejection of the flat-earther's confidence; and if I was in that same situation, I'd then press her with the same inquiry about how she "knows" what her "flat-earth knowledge" is, and I'm guessing, she'd think that she has it all figured out, but then (if she agrees to allow us to scrutinize) we'd find out together that within what she thought amounted to fully Justified True Belief according to her own epistemic scaffolding................................there were some epistemic weaknesses, weaknesses of the kind that we all, as human beings, share but often try to paper over.

 

[cvanwey]

Like.....we're being confused and seduced by the Devil and by our wishful materialistic, thinking?

Is this your conclusion after study, or just another one to place in the 'thought pile'?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is this your conclusion after study, or just another one to place in the 'thought pile'?

Both. ...which makes it a tentative conclusion.

 

[cvanwey]

Both. ...which makes it a tentative conclusion.

So are you saying your belief that the devil not only exists, but is interactive in human's lives, demonstrates there exists the former of this apparent dichotomy?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So are you saying your belief that the devil not only exists, but is interactive in human's lives, demonstrates there exists the former of this apparent dichotomy?

Yes, something like that. But don't ask me how I "know" this, because if I told you, then I'd have to .........................run and hide.

Let's just say that either God has given me a couple of helpful insights, OR......I've seen the movie, They Live (or movies like that), one too many times. And no, I don't know "where" you can get your own set of these special sunglasses; all I do know is that they're not Ray-Bans.