Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.
- Oct 10, 2004
- 51,745
- 421
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So let me ask you this.... This was also another question that got me thinking... Where do you think we came from? Earth had to start somewhere.. Someone or something created it. [...] Until I was asked Where did we come from? and who created the world then......??? It all makes sense..
I deal with some of the alternate opinions later in my post.
The reason I start with the assumption is to illustrate my reasoning. We all start with one assumption or another, whether we want to or not. But a common way people tackle these assumptions is by taking one at a time.
You're would probably start with the assumption that the world was not created, though you'd probably try to tell me that wouldn't be an assumption. If there are alternate possibilities, it is an assumption. This is true no matter how valuable you perceive that assumption to be.
Take the example of the Greek gods. Zeus and the others are not much different from people. They can be killed, they multiply, they wage wars, etc.. But the problem with these gods is that you cannot point to a specific point in time and say, "This is where it starts." There is no logical starting point with a god, or multiple gods, who change with time.
And if they're not completely infinite, even in respect to time, then they cannot exist in the period before time began.
God doesn't operate the same way we do. We live from past to present. We're finite, and so we rely on the world acting on us to make us move.
The way the Bible describes God, however, is as a being that exists from beginning to end simultaneously. Time does not flow for Him. Although He acts in respect to time, He is infinite and does not rely on the universe acting on Him to cause Him to move.
I deal with some of the alternate opinions later in my post.
The reason I start with the assumption is to illustrate my reasoning. We all start with one assumption or another, whether we want to or not. But a common way people tackle these assumptions is by taking one at a time.
You're would probably start with the assumption that the world was not created, though you'd probably try to tell me that wouldn't be an assumption. If there are alternate possibilities, it is an assumption. This is true no matter how valuable you perceive that assumption to be.
Take the example of the Greek gods. Zeus and the others are not much different from people. They can be killed, they multiply, they wage wars, etc.. But the problem with these gods is that you cannot point to a specific point in time and say, "This is where it starts." There is no logical starting point with a god, or multiple gods, who change with time.
And if they're not completely infinite, even in respect to time, then they cannot exist in the period before time began.
The way I figure it, we are beings which exist in the 3rd dimension, unable to see past and future, but only present. But God would be somewhere beyond that.
((I actually disagree with one point on the video it makes about "branching possibilities." I believe that the world is all cause and effect, no chance, though many of the causes are beyond our perception. But that's my opinion.))
I honestly cannot imagine a world that could exist without those requirements. They seem absolutely necessary to me. I cannot imagine any other god being responsible for the start of the whole universe, if we cannot find a logical starting point for that god as well.
And if the god is not infinite, then it would have no power or conception for being able to start the universe. A god limited by time cannot be responsible for getting things started. Partly because they cannot have a starting point being non-infinite, partly for reasons I have trouble finding the words to describe (dealing with infinites is confusing).
A god limited by time cannot be responsible for getting things started. Partly because they cannot have a starting point being non-infinite
Yeah, but why does the universe behave in such predictable ways? Why doesn't the universe have the ability to behave randomly, or even to not behave at all and just do nothing?
We know that electrons which are negatively charge are attracted to the nucleus, which is positively charged. We can say because we've seen it happen over and over again, that the electron will rotate around the nucleus because of this attraction. But who says it has do what it does? What prevents that electron from floating around freely?
You don't need to repeat yourself. I already understand what you're trying to say. But if you're going to claim that there exists some universe-creating-machine which created our reality, as well as countless other realities with more chaotic systems, is no more scientific than to say God created it. It's hypocritical to say one is more deserving of attention than another.
Logic is relative.
Logic can lead us to make almost any conclusion, even if we approach it with as little bias as possible.
All logic is dependent on our reactions to reality (interpretation), and the conclusions we make because of it (opinions). Even science relies on interpretation, though we have rules which prevent us from fudging the data.
You do realize that he was addressing your specific point, in which you were obviously begging the question?
Can't speak for anyone else, but the actual fact is, there is zero evidence that the universe is an artifact of any sort. Saying that it was created through an intelligent agency -- that may turn out to be true. Who knows? But the fact is that there is no actual evidence for this, regardless of how many people say silly things like "But it's so beautiful!" or "How could there not be?"
Actually, you'd be wrong. According to Greek myths, Chaos existed first (not disorder, Chaos was the great moving nothingness before all things), and from that proceeded Gaia and the Titans, who overthrew their primal originators, and were in turn overthrown by Zeus et al. And no, these gods were not infinite in anything, which is hardly surprising since the whole concept of infinity itself was a Greek advance -- and their mythology undoubtedly predated this.
But hold on, i keep getting told that he has very specific instructions for how we should live our lives -- how does that square with a superdimensional being? Short answer, it doesn't. If what you say is in any way true, there is zero possibility of us, in any meaningful way, understanding or interacting with such an entity, which kinda makes the whole thing moot.
Three spacial dimensions, one temporal, yes. But saying "God would be somewhere beyond that" is essentially meaningless.
So you're a determinst. That's problematic for the christian concept of free will, and besides that, it's a false belief. The universe does not act as a continual chain of cause and effect, that has been experimentally proven, many many times -- you cannot simply proceed back in time, to the very beginning (or even back at all) based on simple cause and effect. It doesn't work.
Incredulity is no argument.
There are plenty of relico-magical systems that do not posit a creator deity, the Greek example above being one.
And I think you confused yourself here, you said:
GrayAngel said:A god limited by time cannot be responsible for getting things started. Partly because they cannot have a starting point being non-infinite
I am not sure what type of "starting point" or infinity you're referring to here -- are you talking temporal, spacial, or something else? It's a bit of a garble, if something is finite (temporally) then it must have a point of first existence, if something is finite (spacially) then it must have a measurable extent, etc. I'm thinking that you are simply re-stating that your god is infinite in time, and that the universe is not, right?
It does behave randomly, constantly. That was one of the big wow moments for quantum theory. At the quantum level, it's totally unpredictable except in terms of probability, and causality becomes quite a tricky beast
Not "rotate" but "orbit" and even that is a misnomer. Electrons are not planets; they don't really orbit the nucleus in lovely ellipses. It's all about field probability in terms of possible position, momentum, and energy. Think of it more as a spheroid haze, defining probability plots in all three spacial dimensions, over time.
The question, "Who says it has to do what it does?" is also misleading. I may be wrong in terms of your meaning here, but this touches on something that I see quite often with western christians, the requirement that some comprehensible authority declares some rule, and therefore it is so. Universe doesn't work like that, according to all our observations and theory -- the Universe simply is.
And what prevents electrons from floating around freely are those laws of nature we have figured out. There isn't an ontological or metaphysical interpretation espoused by science here. The scientific viewpoint would be "Ok, this is how the universe works, and here is what we know, currently, about it." No metaphysics involved.
One is sollipsism the other is theism. Both are baseless speculation, at their core, as both end up with "well, if you believe, you believe", which essentially means nothing besides "I have my opinion and i won't change it no matter the facts."
Definte "relative" in your use here.
Totally, and provably false, though the "almost" you inserted there is a nice backdoor. Logic cannot lead you to "almost any conclusion" - logic can lead to logical conclusions only, and even then, not to every logical conclusion, as western logic is an axiomatic formal number system (at heart) and so is governed by Godel incompleteness.
But i think your statement boils down to "science is just opinion" which again, is false -- otherwise there would not be the reams of data and research on human psychology and it's influences in the investigative process, or the many levels of error-checking and peer input that are standard in scientific pursuits. As Harlan Ellison once said, "You do not have the right to your own opinion. You have the right to your informed opinion."
Apparently, everything I say is begging the question. I quote a definition from dictionary.com, I'm begging the question. I present my own point of view, I'm begging the question. Apparently, I should just throw God out the window, because I'm begging the question by just believing He exists.
So basically, you're going to make me prove scientifically that my God exists before you let me explain my reasoning?
Belief or unbelief, if you tell someone they have to provide the proof, it's called appealing to ignorance. Basically, you're telling me, I have no proof He exists, therefore we must assume that He doesn't. No one can prove one way or the other.
I understand that you don't want to believe in a God you have no reason to believe in, but that's not the way I choose to live.
Not a perfect analogy, I know. I was just trying to illustrate from example why non-infinite gods could not have a starting point, and why a creator would have to be infinite.
Say what?
Are you trying to say that if God is infinite, then He can't communicate with us?
And no, you just don't want to see any meaning in it. To say that God lives beyond the three dimensions which we're limited to, is to say three things:
- God sees the world differently than we do. He's able to be completely aware of what's going on from one end of the galaxy to the other.
- God is aware of the flow of time from the beginning to end, knowing (I'm sure) every possible outcome.
- If God is all-knowing, and unlimited in any way, then that means He is able to operate outside of the need for any outside influences.
You missed my contribution to the "Does Free Will Exist?" topic. I don't believe in free will. The Bible teaches Predestination: I think that romantic thinkers made up the idea of free will later on.
Well, I'll assume you have some reason to believe that everything cannot be explain to cause and effect, but I'm not going to take your word for it. I'm not so certain it's even possible to prove something like that. Our universe is extremely big. Every bit of energy, down to its simplest of form, is constantly moving, interacting with the rest of reality. We cannot possibly observe every single variable at once.
Okay, then why don't you try to explain to me why you don't think the criteria I made are reasonable?
Sure, but the problem is they don't tell us how things really began. If the Greek gods didn't make everything, then how did the ball get rolling?
I'm mostly concerned with time, but the kind of beginning I imagine would be one where nothing exists yet. Because there would be no energies interacting with one another, time would not exist, as time is simply the observable event of change from one point to another.
Spatially, there would be nothing, as well. Space is measurable distance from one thing to another. I guess this would make the beginning a zeroth dimension.
Yes, the nature of a finite entity is that it is always moving, always changing. It leaves people asking, how did it start? How could it start? It doesn't make sense to me that anything finite could have an infinite past.
Infinity, however, cannot change. If you add one to infinity, it's still the same. (You can have negative and positive infinities, or infinities starting from a point, but I'm not sure how this would apply here.)
God is infinite in all aspects. He exists everywhere (some even describe the universe as an extension of Himself), and He is infinite in time as well. Even every thought existed in Him from the beginning.
Or maybe it just seems random, and they haven't figured it out yet. If every bit of energy that exists is really attached to every other, if each is affecting the future reactions of all of existence in some degree, then we may never have any way of knowing that.
If everything at the quantum level is random, then how could anything above it behave so predictably?
If there are invisible connections beyond the three dimensions, then it follows that everything cannot appear orderly to us. We would call it "random" because it would be beyond anything we could comprehend.
Well, sure. I'm not ignorant enough to think that electrons move in perfect circles as illustrated on a piece of paper. Even the planets don't move in perfect circles.
I'm trying to ask this from the perspective of a naturalist, assuming that there is no deity whispering in the ear of an apple to give it the order to fall. But the laws seem like an authority to me.
What I don't understand is that if the laws are natural, why are they the way they are? They just happen to exist in a way that is convenient for us?
If the universe simple is, then the whys will forever haunt me. If there is no authority telling the universe how to move, then why does it?
The alternative is to believe nothing at all, which is something I can't do.
I mean it varies with respect to the person. There is no direct path, but many possible paths to take.
Even with two people with nearly identical ignorance (no one is completely equivalent to another), they can come to different conclusions from the same data, simply because their creative minds lead different directions. They evaluate and project different meanings on the same object.
I wouldn't say that science is just opinion. It's more like putting reigns on a horse. It limits creativity and opinions for the hope of gaining unbiased knowledge. After getting your data, you still have to put some meaning into it. But even if you could manage to completely remove bias, that makes the study more reliable, but not necessarily valid.
Science is good, but it's not perfect. If it were perfect, scientists would always come to the right conclusions every time. But this is not the case. There are debates, and science does often reverse itself.
First off, do you understand what "begging the question" means? When you were discussing that which I replied to, you were doing this. You were including your conclusion in your premises, which doesn't work. You can't prove something by assuming the proof itself.
No, it's not called appeal to ignorance. Appeals to ignorance go like this: "Well, it hasn't been proven false, so it's true." Telling someone that you require substantive proof is perfectly valid, in terms of logic, or really anything else. And yes, in lieu of massive, universal proof, making ultimate statements about the core and nature of all existence (i.e. deity), yeah, disbelief should be the default. You're making, effectively, an infinite (or just insanely high) value statement -- to really accept that, you would have to have proof of the same scale and nature as your assertion.
And that's fine. Live how you live, as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights. But you aren't getting it -- this stuff, it isn't a choice, not for me at least. It's not "don't want to believe" it's "cannot believe".
No. What I was saying is that you and I would have zero chance at interacting meaningfully, especially any sort of two-way communication. Best example from another myth system is Gran Maitre from voudoun. Too big, too far away.
Wow, really? I'd be interested in hearing more about that, honestly. The Bible teaches Free Will also, and unless Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Clement, or Tertullian were "romantic thinkers"... predestination has never been prevailing doctrine, either in Christianity, or in Judaism.
Why? Plus, when you're talking about the universe, we don't know that it is finite. It may just be really big, but really the math and the astrophysics at that point is very far beyond me! One of the things that really makes be doubt all human creation myths, none of them are weird enough to be in any way accurate. They all, each and every one, have way too much humanity in them.
Whoa, hold on, i'm not sure we are speaking of the same concept when we're saying "infinite". Infinity, and infinite sets, are a lot more complex than that. All infinite sets are not equal; take the set of all even integers. It's an unbounded set, it includes an infinity of numbers, in fact all even integers. But then you have the set of all odd integers -- also infinite, and totally exclusive of the first set. Add them together and you get a new infinite set -- the set of all odd integers with values higher than 1. Infinities can change.
Those statements bring up a ton of conflicts, both in and out of christian theology, and I think you need to qualify what you said also, as "God is infinite in all aspects" means that he has an infinite thirst for human blood
Ah, well what we know, experientially, theoretically, and mathematically, is that we cannot accurately predict, or measure, all states in any quantum system. You can only deal with that stuff in terms of probability. Randomness is everywhere in nature; so is order. I'm not sure that everything is really attached to everything else, can you explain?
I had that come up in two conversations in the last week, with nice, bright folks, and neither of them knew that
I would say that the perception that the laws of the universe are the way they are, "in a way that is convenient for us" is a reversal -- that they more appear that way since we a direct products of them. If the laws of the universe were different, then if it was a universe capable of sustaining life of some sort, those lifeforms would be making the same observation about their universe. The thing is though, the universe really isn't all that convenient for us. The vast, vast majority of it would be instant death to a human.
Why should that be the only alternative, and why do you think you can't do that?
No, not really. Logic is a formal system, there are rules, and you can reduce it to math. While there are things you can do within it, there are also things that you cannot do within it -- and you can do with it, but can never know you can do.
continued...
Are you just talking about decision making, when you're referring to logic? I'm talking about formal logic, not personal decision making. If you're talking about decision making in general, yeah it's totally relative to each person.
I have to disagree with you here. Science is more like giving that horse wings. What makes anything valid is if it works in the real world. Studies are just that -- studies -- and their job is to test ideas, concepts, inventions, etc. for their fitness in the real world. I'm not sure what you refer to by "put some meaning into it" but science doesn't deal in meaning, not in the terms that I think you're working with. That's for philosophers, poets, musicians, artists, and yes, prophets.
haha whoever said it was? anyone who believes that isn't a scientist. Scientists love to prove things wrong -- oftentimes over the kicking and screaming of those invested in previous theories. That's my favorite thing about science, and it lies at the core of it. the scientific method is the best tool, however imperfect, that humans have ever developed for investigating the universe, and acting upon the knowledge gained.
In any case, the scientific method, "science" itself, doesn't make statements about gods and religion and such things. Anyone who thinks that the two are incompatible is most likely one of those guys, kicking and screaming, with their old theories clenched in their hands.
All I was saying is that I'm not impressed by those who claim that their use of logic allows them to prove Christian doctrine incorrect.I won't for a second pretend I studied philosophy or logic beyond watching a few episodes of the atheist experience on youtube so you will have to excuse me if i am a bit slow on the uptake but what exactly were you asking if your answer was going to be "Logic isnt everything"?
In western philosophy there has traditionally been a dichotomy that places logical thought on one side and artistic, mystical, and so forth on the other side. It's clear enough when you consider a good example such as this one:On another note though I am not sure why poetry, art and music should be considered illogical?
Yeah, I know what begging the question is. It's basically answering a question without really answering it. The thing about logical fallacies is that they have a gray area. Knowing whether someone is violating a logical fallacy or giving a legitimate argument is not always clear.
In the American legal system, we have a system that puts the burden of proof on the accuser. A violation would be if the accuser says, "The defendant has no proof that he didn't kill the victim."
When it comes to the existence of God, though, who can say who has the right to be comfortable where they're at without proof. Does someone have to prove that God exists, or do they have to prove that He doesn't? Some would say that disbelief should be the default, but I could argue the opposite.
Lots, actually. Animists generally don't believe in any sort of deity, in the same terms that a monotheist would. It's pretty complicated though (and i'm trying to avoid writing another giant TL;DR here)How many ancient cultures do we know of that do not believe in some deity?
It seems, then, that belief in some kind of deity is the default. Atheism is more common in more advanced societies, where people suddenly begin to question the legends of their cultures. Even the word "atheism" means "not theism," implying that it came after, as something opposed to the earlier notion of theism.
If theism came first, then how could disbelief be default? If we already believed, shouldn't it be the atheist's job to prove us wrong?
Honestly, though, when it comes to God, I think it's really up to the individual to choose what position they want to take. If they want to believe, they should. If they don't, they shouldn't.
*Pulls out a shotgun*
Believe now!
I don't see why God could interact with us. The Christian God isn't a distant god. When He wants to get our attention, He'll use objects are means that we can understand. The burning bush, for example, caught Moses' eye. Then He heard a voice coming from the fire.
Nowadays, Christians have the Holy Spirit available to them. I don't know if you've heard my story before already, but I was given some insight from a picture in my mind, and one word which stuck in my head. This happened while I was praying, and I believe it was God's way of telling me He's available to me.
The early Catholic church really screwed up a lot of the original ideas of Christianity. Ever since then, many of us have been trying to fix what's been broken.
Yeah, I knew that. But I'm not too sure how it applies to real life. Infinities are difficult to understand. If you add one, or take away one from infinity in a formula, infinite is unaffected. But if you're talking sets of infinite numbers, you can limit infinity.
Mathematically, it makes sense, but I'm not sure if there is anything in natural that remotely resembles an infinite set of positive integers.
Now that I think about it, though, it may offer some insight on how God works. God is described as completely limitless, yet we see Him sometimes "depart" from someone or someplace. He seems to limit Himself to only places He could tolerate to be. Maybe in this sense, He's like an infinite set of positive integers.
Well, there are some things that God is not. He has limitless power, but I don't believe He can create a boulder big enough that He couldn't lift it. That's just illogical, because doing so would conflict with His limited power.
He doesn't have a thirst for human blood (I don't think), but He's different from people, though we share a lot in common. God has shows love and hate, mercy and wrath, happiness and anger. These things tend to make us think that God changes, but that's not true. He feels and acts in respect to time, but He's not changing.
The people He loves, He loves forever. Same with hate, because He sees people in all their history, not just the present.
I'm not exactly an expert in quantum stuff, but I've heard some theories. In one of the videos I provided earlier (the one with the kid and the chalkboard), he mentioned something about a theory that every single unit of energy has a "string" attaching it to every other unit of energy, like a web.
I haven't looked into it, but it seems to have to do with energy behaving in ways outside of the three dimensions. Also, if this were true, then every action, even me sitting at my desk, would have some degree of an affect on something seemingly unrelated, like the US President's speech writer. Maybe if I could go back in time and do something else, then the President's next speech would be different.
I've heard something else recently (though this may be a little off topic). One of my professors (he's a psychology professor, not a physics expert) said that it's been proven that time doesn't only flow from past to future, but also from future to past. Would you know anything about that?
I guess I've just had the benefit of having heard it before, then. I've also heard that the closeness portrayed on the paper representations are wrong, and that electrons actually give the nucleus quite a large gap of space. But I've always wandered how we are supposed to know this stuff. We can't even look at an electron without altering its position.
I'm not sure there is any other possible reality where life could exist. While our planet is the only known life-sustaining planet in existence, our universe was able to form this one planet. A universe with a different set of rules probably couldn't have.
What other choice is there? Either I believe in something, or a believe in nothing.
If we choose not to believe in anything that couldn't be proven, then we would have to hold no opinions on the origin of the universe. The local science museum would have to stop telling us that the Big Bang started everything, because that's just one of multiple possibilities (though creation might have looked something like the Big Bang. I don't know.).
The researcher is supposed to keep an open mind, letting the data speak for itself. But that doesn't always happen. And sometimes the data is misleading.
I agree that science is a useful tool, but too many people seem to trust it blindly, as if when something is proven scientifically, there's no way they could be wrong.
Scientists themselves often hold strong opinions. At least with a lot of the famous contributers, they tend to have a very narrow view of things. Sometimes the scientific community resembles a political battlefield, with two or more sides screaming at each other.
Other times, it seems to resemble a dictatorship, where only some ideas are accepted, and some are "excommunicated" for presenting ideas that are too threatening to them.
Right you essentially argue that reason and logic can take a hike if they conflict with your religious believes. You're not the first one but really then what is the point?All I was saying is that I'm not impressed by those who claim that their use of logic allows them to prove Christian doctrine incorrect.
In western philosophy there has traditionally been a dichotomy that places logical thought on one side and artistic, mystical, and so forth on the other side. It's clear enough when you consider a good example such as this one:
Oh, I wish I were an Oscar Mayer wiener.
Yes that is what I'd truly like to be.
'Cause if I were an Oscar Mayer wiener,
Then everyone would be in love with me.
Oh, I'm glad I'm not an Oscar Mayer wiener.
Yes that is what I'd never want to be.
'Cause if I were an Oscar Mayer wiener.
Then soon there would be nothing left of me!
That captures in poetic form a truth that can't be expressed in logic, specifically the simultaneous longing for and against being reduced to the purely material. It tells us that on the one hand, if we were material objects we'd have none of the mess of contradictions, complications, and exceptions that make human relations so difficult and often make humans dislike each other. On the other hand, we would also become purely temporal (and temporary!) and lose our chance and immortality. So it's an illogical statement when the singer asserts that he simultaneously does and doesn't want to be an Oscar Mayer wiener, but also a true one.
I've never said that nor anything that can plausibly be interpreted as meaning that. I think your post declares the discussion portion of the thread dead and I'll leave lest it become an insult-hurling match. Good day.Right you essentially argue that reason and logic can take a hike if they conflict with your religious believes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?