Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: An introduction
|
The sceptical Atheist
Shipmate
# 379
|
Posted
Okay,This is how it is at the moment. 1) There is no OF evidence for God. 2) The OF system is not amenable to an investigation of God. 3) Therefore I need a different system. Right, now what method is usable? BTW, I am not trying to convert anyone, and my webpage is aimed at fundies. If you notice, I have a section on the Biblical writers which actually answers some of the points I raise as problems. If one examines the Bible reasonably, my points will be seen as simplistic and irellevant. If one takes a fundamentalist stance, then they are lies and evil.
-------------------- "Faith in God and seventy-five cents will get you a cup of coffee." [Wayne Aiken]
Posts: 293 | From: Staffordshire | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Sceptical Atheist, I should probably point out that I used cosmology as an example (and incidently was talking more than Big Bang, which contains a number of possible models all of which produce the same observable consequences; red shift, helium abundance, cosmic background; although some differences in fine structure of CMB may occur beyond our current ability to detect) and although particle accelerators do generate high energies, they're never going to recreate (for example) inflation.I used cosmology since it's something I have some knowledge about while still being accessable to many people. I could've used biological evolution where much of the evidence is in a very fragmentary fossil record, but that's a bit outside my field of expertise. I tend to find that if I start talking of experimental tests of multi-body quantum mechanics through probes of the structure of nuclei I go way over peoples heads (incidentally, that is basically what I did my PhD in). My point was that these branches of science can pose questions of an objective falsifiable nature, but that absolutely objective falsifiable answers can not be given. That doesn't make these fields of study bad science. It does mean that good science requires more than objective falsifiable proofs. I just wish I could recall some more philosophy of science I should also brush up on my understanding of interpretations of quantum mechanics (my PhD was concerned with measuring things, not enough philosophy it seems ). But, the many-universes view of QM is not the only interpretation, or even one held by the majority of scientists. Multiple universes makes great science fiction, but there is *not* (at least at the moment) any objective falsifiable test that would prove the existance of multiple universes. I never claimed that scientific methods could be used in examining claims about the existance and nature (if he exists) of God. I do stand by the claim that, for me at least, I came to believe in God through a basically rational almost scientific route. I believe that God wants people to freely belive in and respond to Him. As I see it an OF proof that God exists would coerce people into belief in Him, and then make a response (whether to follow Him or rebel). Therefore, there can be no OF test that would prove the existance of the God I believe in. Alan [*not* added per Alan] [ 08 June 2001: Message edited by: RuthW ]
-------------------- Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote: There is an argument used amongst atheists, where an atheist asks a Christian if they believe in Zeus, Wotan, all the Hindu pantheon etc. They obviously say they don't. "Aha! Says the atheist, so of all the thousands of Gods that there are, you disbelieve in all but one. I just disbelieve in one more than you. You are nearly an atheist yourself"
IIRC, the Romans regarded Christians as atheists because they didn't believe in the Roman gods etc. The problem I see with this discussion is that we are treating God as we treat his creation. In science we are dealing with the created order (or the product of a series of random processes) whereas Theology we are talking about God - who we Christians claim created that created order and everything in it. A couple of friends and I were considering setting up a Theological society at Uni for discussing questions from a more academic position - getting away from the fundamentalism of CU. Unfortunately it didn't happen, because I never got around to it, of the three of us, two were in our final year and the third on a year out. But I did write a consitution for it, in which I wrote the following, "The Nature of Theology. This society exists to explore theology in the context of worship and prayer. For theology differs from other areas of human learning in that it is concerned with our Creator rather than the creation. Our attitude cannot be detached neutrality. The proper response of creature to Creator is worship." I went on to say "Revelation. We cannot know God through our reason alone, but he has revealed himself to us, first to Israel and then supremely in his Son. As the writer of the letter to the Hebrews says, ‘In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom he made the universe’. That revelation is recorded in the Bible, God’s word." It is on this revelation as much as on reason that I base my faith - God has provided evidence by speaking to his people down the years and supremely in his Son, our Saviour, Jesus. And this is why I do not accept Hindu gods, or Celtic gods, or Greek gods, but only YHWH, the Triune God, God of Abraham and Isaac, of the burning bush. Not some abstract, philosophical construct. However, I don't then dismiss reason as a tool. Sara Maitland has a wonderful phrase, she says that she doesn't look to the universe for 'evidence for the existence of God' but as 'evidence of the existence of God'. She already believes in God for a number of reasons and this is backed up by little things - like the fact that ice floats. Carys
-------------------- O Lord, you have searched me and know me You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yo SkepOccam's razor cuts both ways. If materialism is correct and 'it just happened', then uniformitarianism applies and for physics, energy, matter, stars, life and mind to arise entities must be infinitely, eternally proliferated in space-time and even then resident, undetected forces must be at work as even in eternal infinity the layers of complexity in creation are not necessarily inevitable, particularly as no mechanism exists to explain the origins of most on my list. For materialism to be right: 'We exist therefore we 'evolved' ultimately from causeless quantum perturbations.' induction is the only possible and forever inadequate response. Explaining the origin and diversity of life with chemistry and mutation alone is about as credible as invoking delocalization of cause and effect in quantum mechanics. Chemicals think because I think and I'm made of nothing but chemicals. I ask you! If Christians are right, Occam's razor is broken Upwards once (and then laterally thrice ... OK, OK ...).
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
I think possibly that what Alan was getting at is that cosmology isn't quite the same as say a chemical reaction under lab conditions.For instance if I predict that chlorine and sodium will react I can perform that experiment --with reference to safety regulations !!!! --in the lab It's more difficult with cosmology because the measurements are that more difficult.It has been surprisingly successful.The Steady STate theory made falsifiable predictions and paid for it with its own demise.It's interesting to reflect that 100 yearsago we didn't agree on whether there were galaxies external to our own.... Even now cosmology is at the cutting edge of science in a lot of ways.Although now respectable it is still I think speculative.And yes I accept the Standard Model....as an amateur I haven't got the detailed mathematical expertise to argue with the likes of Alan(!) but I wonder sometimes whether too that theory will be disproved.AT the moment unlikely but the best thing about astronomy is that it's full of surprises. The multiverse theory too seems difficult to falsify.As to that I've an open mind,I think I seem to have gone off at a tangent.But what I would say is that I think it's very difficult to invole science to support belief or disbelief....things change or are liable to change so quickly.... Hope I haven't bored the pants off people!
-------------------- Best Wishes Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
After a bit of thought about it, must disagree with the not testing God thing.Yes, we are all taught not to test God. Jesus refuses to cast himself off the pinnacle of the Temple to see if God will send angels to rescue him and thus prove he's the Son of God because it's wrong to test God. He quotes Deut. 6:16, which refers to Exodus 17 -- the Israelites challenge God when they first get thirsty in the desert, and Moses strikes the rock as God instructs him to do and gets water. But I think we need to look at the context. God has just delivered the Israelites from Egypt and is already providing manna, and within weeks they have decided he's not going to take care of them. Moreover, I don't think this model of not testing God is applicable to this discussion. We who have faith are not to test God -- but there's nothing wrong with asking the God in whom we place our faith to provide a little demonstration for unbelievers. God goes head to head with the prophets of Baal at Elijah's request after Israel forsakes God (1 Kings 18). Elijah appeals to God: "Lord God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known today that thou art God in Israel and that I am thy servant and have done all these things at thy command. Answer me, O Lord, answer me and let this people know that thou, Lord, art God and that it is thou that hast caused them to be backsliders" (New English Bible). God obliges, and the people of Israel are convinced. The way I've always interpreted this story is that Elijah didn't hesitate to invoke God because of his great faith and because he is sure he is acting at God's own command. So perhaps we should be saying to S.A., "You shall invoke your god by name and I will invoke the Lord by name; and the god who answers by fire, he is God." In other words, does your god (empirical reasoning) accept your worship, consume your offering, as it were?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Chemicals think because I think and I'm made of nothing but chemicals.That is a logical fallacy - thought is an emergent property. It's like saying that cats must be colourless because atoms are colourless and cats are made of atoms. It does not disprove materialism. The mistake is being made between methodological materialism - which is what science relies upon as a toolkit, and philosophical materialism, which says that the material world is all there is. Folk are right that SA's problem (and he agrees) is that his methodologically materialist toolkit is unsuitable for non-materialist realities and concepts. And I agree that an alternative toolkit has not been coherently proposed as yet. The 'seek Me and ye shall find Me' argument is all very well, but I've been seeking for years and cannot be sure I have found Him. Russell Stannard proposes a faith experiment (Science and the renewal of belief) where one sets aside a daily time to talk to this 'God' - if He exists, and see if anything happens. What do people think of that? [fixed code] [ 09 June 2001: Message edited by: RuthW ]
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Sounds good to me
-------------------- Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Will
Shipmate
# 356
|
Posted
Excellent idea, Karl. Though most of us do that already...right?
-------------------- Shalom, Will.
Posts: 60 | From: Tx. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Although, funily enough, whenever my prayer is "Dear God, please leave a million pounds in used notes under my bed tomorrow" I never get a satisfactory response. Now, when you think about it, this is proof positive that He doesn't really exist because if I were to ask any of you - fellow humble apprentices, esteemed shipmates, venerable hosts - you would, of course, all cough up instantly.
-------------------- Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Gill
Shipmate
# 102
|
Posted
I wasn't from a Christian family, and only prayed for the first time when I was ten.I sat in a dark room, lit candles, gazed at a crucifix I'd bought (dunno why!) and waited. Nothing happened, though I felt peaceful. This was my first prayer: "Umm.... God?" (Pause while I waited fror Him to reply. Well, I didn't know what you did!) "Um... I feel stupid." (Pause) "But... (light dawned) I don't need to, do I? Cos if you're not there, nobody can hear me... and if you are, you'll understand why I don't know how to pray..." And ran out of the room. It was a pretty effective prayer.
-------------------- Still hanging in there...
Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The lab is empty and the chemicals talk.Of course it's a logical fallacy Karl! Emergence is another post-hoc fairy story. Your example of colour being an emergent property of a scale larger than the atomic is hardly apropos or illuminating to me. I LIKE the metaphor of emergence, but can you show me the math? Can you show me a concrete, minimal, rigorous example? Not a rhetorical analogue? The human mind being an emergent property of cerebral folds in a high brain:body ratio organism is an inductionist fairy story. Nice and simple if it were true. Just like the diversity of life in and since the Cambrian being an emergent property of the archae(o?)zoic or proterozoic etc, etc. Materialist emergence is a cop out, a proliferation of suspiciously qualitative looking entities, just a synonym for 'resident forces' invoked a century ago to explain the absurd origin, punctuated equilibrium and diversity of life. 3/10 Must try harder! And I'm with Kierkegaard and the other recent contributors: the subjective is real. Prayer alters the prayor.
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The sceptical Atheist
Shipmate
# 379
|
Posted
So, the answer seems to be, talk to God as if he is there and if he is there, he will answer me.I like Moo's idea: If you think God isn't there…..say so. That means, I must assume that God is a real possibility, as I am not in the habit of talking to non-existent things, or assuming things without evcen the possibility of any objective evidence to back them up have the possibility of existence. So, I must necessarily drop my rational objections to the possibility. That leaves me open to irrational ideas that cannot be disproven. We are back in leprechaun/fairy land again.
I would like to propose another experiment for all of you. Talk to Allah (or Krishna, or Buddha) for two months as if he is there, and see what response you get. During this time, stop praying to God, but anything that you would have assigned to God assign to whatever you are praying to. Guess what? That will show the existence of whatever you prayed to. This is the problem, and if I drop the objective part of the OF test, we are left with non-falsifiability. David and others have said that they can trust God because he has never let them down. That is no big surprise, because if you accept something that is non-falsifiable, then it will be totally trustworthy, even if it doesn't actually mean anything. There is a non-falsifiable weather forecast that I trust 100% "Tomorrow, if its not wet, it will be dry." See that is totally trustworthy, but it doesn't mean anything. It is not capable of saying anything meaningful about the weather. Okay, let us consider how this compares to anything else. Is there anything else where to see evidence of it, one must first assume it exists in the first place. I am trying to help here. Show me where believing in something is the only way to discover its existence. I cannot think of anything. It is possible to have emotions, such as love, without first bellieving emotions exist. At the moment there is less evidence for God than there is for the Loch Ness Monster. I don't mean to be picky, but it seems like God isn't just not providing evidence which would deny faith (perosnally, I think a little evidence wouldn't do that as I explained with the 'cold'; analogy) but he is actively hiding himself. For a God that punishes those that don't accept him that has moral consequences. I still find it hard to believe that someone said I am out to convert people. I think now I can show it wouldn't be possible for me to do that. You all have an invisible friend, who, being non-falsifiable is totally trustworthy. A friend that can alter the laws of cause and effect (though not in any objectively measurable way) to help those that believe he can. All I can offer is a rational approach to the truth which necessarily entails doubt and uncertainty.
-------------------- "Faith in God and seventy-five cents will get you a cup of coffee." [Wayne Aiken]
Posts: 293 | From: Staffordshire | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Hey scep – I don’t believe in a God that alters the laws of cause and effect, either. But you must know that such laws of the physical universe are no longer as simple as Newton would have had us believe. You’re making a number of unjustified assumptions: I do talk to Allah – since, as far as I’m concerned, that’s just one more name for the experience/being known as ‘God’. And I’ve tried talking to Krishna, too, way back in my youth – got referred back to Jesus (though I like to think it wasn’t personal, just a little cultural difficulty ). Buddha isn’t quite the same.As for not talking to someone who isn’t there – imagine you’re a supply teacher taking the register of an unknown class – you call out a name – the kid may or may not be there. Someone might have added a fake name to the list – have you compromised your intellectual integrity by calling that name out? You could try Zen meditation, which doesn’t require you to posit the existence of a Divine Being. But it seems to me that you’re not really interested. Seems to me that you’re running around in circles and the rest of us are getting tired of chasing you. One Truth, One Light, One God – if you really wanna find, go seek. If not, might I suggest you take up a new hobby? Not that it hasn’t been fun. Thanks.
-------------------- Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
.... yes Ruth, but then a limited but relevant application of reason and evidence (in the natural sciences) then expanded to cover all realms of truth about reality. That was the mistake. You might as well weigh a fish with moonshine. Scientism is another form of fundamentalism. Newton (and Einstein for that matter) certainly didn't subscribe to it.
-------------------- Yours in Christ Fr. Gregory Find Your Way Around the Plot TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist: Is there anything else where to see evidence of it, one must first assume it exists in the first place. I am trying to help here. At the moment there is less evidence for God than there is for the Loch Ness Monster.
Here is an approach I have not seen here yet. It is easy to demonstrate that in the next 20 to 50 years virtually all of you will be dead. This fact adds an urgency to this discussion - because the question of whether or not there is a God is not inconsequential. I would compare it to people in free-fall debating whether or not they will ever hit the ground. They can examine all the evidence they want, but the real imperative is for them to strap on their parachutes and pull the cord. The use of the evidence, of course, is to make sense of that imperative, so that they can do it willingly and not just because someone is barking orders. Is there any evidence for life after death? There are a number of alternate explanations for near-death experiences, but the conclusion that there is existence after death is as good as any of them. Is evidence of life after death also evidence that God exists? The point is that it is not an idle question. Sooner or later we all find out the answer.
-------------------- "Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist (long ago in the opening post....): The problem I face when confronting a philosophy such as Christianity is that as a sceptic, I need to be shown evidence.But, I do not just accept anything as evidence. I accept objective, falsifiable(OF) evidence as showing that something exists, and without that, I feel I can safely ignore it.
Reflecting on this in light of other, newer, threads I've had a few more thoughts on the relevance of OF evidence to any area of life, let alone the Christian faith. The "Death of Darwinism" thread has included a lot of discussion on the difference between philosophical and methodological materialism, with the comment that scientists are (mostly) methodological materialists - the question of whether there is something more than the material is not relevant to science. This has raised a difference between philosophical views of science, and actual scientific practice. Most scientists would hold that OF theories and data are the gold standard of science, yet much of science is conducted by asking questions that can not (at least with current instruments) have OF answers. We can, for example, not devise an experiment to provide OF evidence for the conditions in the very earliest phases of the Big Bang. Beyond the ivory towers of academic science, OF evidence is even rarer. People get married every day without OF evidence of their love for each other. Children trust their parents to look after them without OF evidence that such trust has any foundation. Christians would continue to trust God, without OF evidence, even when faced with compulsive evidence of the existance of a (hypothetical) Charlie. So, a question for the Sceptical Atheist, are you still demanding OF evidence or are you considering other evidence now? Alan (and this is not just an excuse to stop a fascinating thread languishing at the bottom of the list )
-------------------- Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Willyburger
Ship's barber
# 658
|
Posted
Many thanks to Alan C. for attempting to revive this thread. Much of the discussion here reflects my own struggle.Like SA, I too....<snip> I just realized I was swinging into a lengthy intro of myself. I will save that for another post. Suffice it to say that I am a latecomer because I just found this place. I understand SA's reasoning and over the past several months my own opinions have taken a similar course as much of this thread. I've come to the point of being able to say that:
- The physical is not necessarily all there is, though it may be.
- If there is a non-material existence, methodological naturalism will not provide evidence.
From way back in the thread, SA said: quote: We then have the two world views: 1) It just happened. 2) God made it happen.
I think proposition two has an antecedant. Even more basic than "God made it happen" is that "God exists" and could be stated this way:
- 1') The Universe is an uncaused entity
- 2') God is an uncaused entity
(Not to ignore other worldviews. I am willing to consider those as well.)Now you have two propositions which both imply a necessary complexity.
- If 1a', then physical laws and constants are responsible for what we percieve as existence.
- If 1b', then there exists an infinite being possessing omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, plus perfect justice, mercy, love, etc., and He is responsible for existence.
These seem to me to possess equal complexity (or better, equally-incomprehensible complexity) and neither are testable by any OF means at our disposal. Here is where Occam's razor falls short, useful tool though it is. IMHO, here also is where Godel's theorem applies, that any self-referential systems will contain a set of basic propositions that are unprovable. Neither 1' and 1a', or 2' and 2a' have, by my present understanding, inherent qualities that make one overwhelmingly convincing over the other. These are the most basic of opposing presuppositions in the theism/atheism debate. One of these two premises, either of which must be taken on faith, dictate one's ultimate worldview, philosophy, theology and religion (or lack of religion). So. Which is true? I honestly don't know. I envy all of you who can say with certainty that they believe one or the other with all their heart. I mean that most sincerely. If this is the beginning of faith, I must ask how one gets there? I know that Fideism(sp?) is out of favor, but I see a basic honesty in Kierkegaard's "Leap of Faith." I could go on but I've gotten long-winded. I would like to say that I've been looking for people to discuss these issues with and I'm very grateful that I've found this place .
-------------------- Willy, Unix Bigot, Esq. -- Why is it that every time I go out to buy bookshelves, I come home with more books?
Posts: 835 | From: Arizona, US | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
Having spent the last week attempting to catch up with, and digest this thread, I have some questions remaining (apologies in advance to those more nimble-witted and eloquent posters to whom these may well be redundant or clumsy).Right, flame-proof pants on. I'm sure that ol' Axe of the Apostles was around here soewhere... ah. In the umbrella stand. OY, SA!!!!! Just how consistent are you in your morning shave with old Occam's then? quote: Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist: And yes, Occam's razor is just a methodological tool. It could very easily be wrong, but the general rule does work and is effective. This is why more evidence is required to separate the two possible viewpoints.
What further evidence do you have to separate the following two viewpoints? 1) Your mind + reason + the material world 2) Your mind. I notice that you have not answered Nightlamp on two occasions when he hinted at this...
-------------------- "...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Freehand
The sound of one hand clapping
# 144
|
Posted
Occam gives a good shave! (what does good mean? woops! off-track already) How can we best understand spirituality? 1. God 2. God + science It seems obvious that #1 works better. Is there any reason why this phrasing is any worse than SA's phrasing? SA would, I'm assuming, say that it opens the door to lunacy (UFO's, astrology, etc). Christians would say that SA's phrasing cuts out the meaning of life. I can't see any way to bring them together. We're really arguing about which should be the optional premise. Is God the optional premise or is science the optional premise. To be fair, the real options that we're talking about are: 1. God 2. God + science (order debatable) 3. Science In this context, Occam's razor isn't any help except to cut out some common ground that we may have. If we don't agree on authority, then we'll have a hard time coming to an consensus. Freehand ps - Willyburger, I really liked how you summed it up.
Posts: 673 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willyburger
Ship's barber
# 658
|
Posted
Thanks. I've been thinking about this for months. I wasn't sure I was even writing coherently. quote: In this context, Occam's razor isn't any help except to cut out some common ground that we may have. If we don't agree on authority, then we'll have a hard time coming to an consensus.
That's exactly my point. I've come to the conclusion that neither the theist nor the atheist is free of unprovable presupposition. For my purposes, I'd collapse "God" and "God + science" into one proposition because whether you're a Young Earth Creationist, an Intelligient Design adherent or a Theistic Evolutionist, in both cases the primary issue is God. (Occam's Razor, if you will.) Part of the 'Death of Darwinism' thread was mixing it up over YEC vs. ID vs. TE. I think that fight is a side issue. I think it's all about First Principles (presuppositions) and that either one is unprovable by any rational or empirical means. Earlier I said that either:
- The Universe is an uncaused entity.
or
- God is an uncaused entity.
From another thread here that I've lost track of, I was in a discussion about the unprovable assumptions of Material Monism. If the Universe is an uncaused entity, one must either believe it sprang into being ex nihilo or, as the discussion tentatively concluded, there is an infinite regress of whatever the Universe exists 'in.' One theory says that the Big Bang is the result of the random creation of a pair of virtual particles out of the quantum vacuum. Fine, I say. That's a fascinating theory, and I love to read about quantum mechanics, but where and when did the quantum vacuum come 'from?' I realize that is not quite a logical question because 'where' and 'when' are features implicit to our Universe. We don't know if they apply 'outside.' The point is, the assertion that the Universe 'just happened' is not testable. Believe me, I'm not advocating for theism here. I am presently agnostic cum atheist. I'm just saying that the presupposition that the Universe is an uncaused entity is as empirically unprovable as the presupposition of an infinite God possessing the 'Omni' qualities and perfect love, justice, mercy, etc. Both in the end depend on what you personally find acceptable to believe. So, maybe surprisingly, I don't find Theism irrational. At least no more irrational than Atheism. Maybe this should be the start of a new thread. I'm not quite familiar with that etiquette yet. Willy
-------------------- Willy, Unix Bigot, Esq. -- Why is it that every time I go out to buy bookshelves, I come home with more books?
Posts: 835 | From: Arizona, US | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Willyburger
Ship's barber
# 658
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Freddy: I think it just depends which is more important to you.
I think I was much more long-winded but came to the same conclusion. quote: It does seem strange that if reasoning and logic are important, it would be unimportant that life would have no cause, purpose or meaning beyond evolution. Why would logic be of value within a system that is ultimately absurd?
Yes, but aren't you defining absurd from the stance of a Theist? Without that frame of reference, it's not absurd or not absurd, it just 'is.' After all, just because we desire Life to have Meaning, doesn't necessarily mean that it does or will. quote: I love these arguments that depend on our intuitive sense of a pervasive self-similarity in creation.
I'm going to go away and try to figure out what that means. Willy
-------------------- Willy, Unix Bigot, Esq. -- Why is it that every time I go out to buy bookshelves, I come home with more books?
Posts: 835 | From: Arizona, US | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The sceptical Atheist
Shipmate
# 379
|
Posted
I have been asked to answer a specific topic here, so I have done. Reading this, I notice I left it with a lot of questions unanswered. I will return to this thread and answer them. In the meantime, this is my answer to this one point: quote:
What further evidence do you have to separate the following two viewpoints?1) Your mind + reason + the material world 2) Your mind.
H&E , I think you are asking the question "is it possible to seperate mind from mind+reason+reality" All I can think this means is how can we know that reality exists outside the mind. If all we know is what is in our minds i.e. knowledge of sense data, thoughts, feelings and reason, how do we know that the real world is there? I hope I am right, otherwise this will make no sense. The idea that everything is all in the mind is called sollipsism. One cheap point is that there cannot ever be two sollipsists! On a more serious point, I know that I have a mind (Cogito Ergo Sum et al). So, I have to decide if there is a real world that is not a part of that. In my mind I can imagine flying out of my window in the morning, but I cannot do that in actual reality. Reality conforms to rules that no matter how much I want to break, I would be unable to. I have two cats. When I am not watching them they move around. They seem to have their own motivation. If I leave them for a while and then return they become hungry at about the same rate all the time. It makes no difference if I am thinking of them or not they get hungry about the same rate, so that seems to be independant of my mind. This shows also that there seems to be a world that follows set rules independantly of me. I know hundreds of people, and each of them is different, but when I meet them they conform to my memories of them and how their character is but with modifications as if they really have a life separate from my own. All of this is evidence, but it does not say if there is a reality. What I have described could just be appearance in my mind. So, let us assume that reality is all in my mind. There are two parts to my mind. The 'internal' part where I can imagine flying and the 'external' one where it is impossible. I can distinguish between the two. I label the external part of my mind "reality" and the internal part of my mind "mind." This actually shows that there is a reality out there, separate from my mind. This is not a linguistic trick, just by labeling it "reality" doesn't make it so, but the fact that I can distinguish between the two and need separate labels to describe to others what I mean shows that, at some level, there is a necessary distinction. That means my mind is, while I am doing and thinking other things it is also controlling things which I would normally consider beyond my control. It does it in such a way as to make it appear that there is a reality and that there are many other people who seem to have minds like me. I think by this I have shown reality, at some level, exists. We can now go back to the original question. Either: 1. Reality exists 2. Reality is all in my mind. I can say that all the things that are reality do exist in themsleves, or I can say that they exist in some form but my mind controls their actions to appear to be independent. The first option is the one that rquires the least number of hypotheses, so I can use Occams razor and suddenly, as if by magic, Reality becomes real.
-------------------- "Faith in God and seventy-five cents will get you a cup of coffee." [Wayne Aiken]
Posts: 293 | From: Staffordshire | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
The sceptical Atheist
Shipmate
# 379
|
Posted
quote: Nightlamp hence your name you are skeptical or uncertain about your atheism hence is some respects you are an agnostic.
Being sceptical does not mean being uncertain, despite my soundbite. I cannot know I am right. Therefore I must admit the possibility of myself being wrong. I am as certain that atheism is the true world-view as I can be. quote:
If evidence is subjective as much of it is for the Loch ness monster then I would beg to differ that there is more evidence for God.
We have photo's of the Loch Ness monster. Not all have been proven to be fake. How many photo's of Jesus do you have? quote: Still this could all be part of my imagination since i can find no conclusive evidence that I nothing more than a passing thought in a greater being.
No. You will never find conclusive evidence, but there is a reasonable way around the sollipsist position, as I have detailed above. [UBB fixed] [ 29 July 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
-------------------- "Faith in God and seventy-five cents will get you a cup of coffee." [Wayne Aiken]
Posts: 293 | From: Staffordshire | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The sceptical Atheist
Shipmate
# 379
|
Posted
quote: Qlib Hey scep – I don’t believe in a God that alters the laws of cause and effect, either.
Walking on water? Water turning in to wine? A dead man rising? These are all alterations of the law of cause and effect. quote: You could try Zen meditation, which doesn’t require you to posit the existence of a Divine Being.
I have done years of Zen meditation. It was an enlightening experience. It showed me that it really is possible to be 'at one' with the universe and to see the divine in everything. I could tell some stories from that time in my life, that I doubt you would think came from me! Zen also talks about the leap of faith. It says enlightenment is like jumping from the top of a 100 ft flagpole. That flagpole symbolises the intellect. I then started questioning whether the intellect really needs to be overcome. I started trying to work out how one could tell if the fact that one was One whether it was illusion, samsara if you like, and that in fact one was more than One. I came to the conclusion that there is no way of fundamentally knowing. This is where the faith question comes in again. I decided to go on a search to find what knowledge I could know. After Carl Sagan died, his wife was asked "Didn't he want to believe?" Her answer is one that I can relate to "He didn't want to believe, he wanted to know" There is another quote (I think I got this from a Sagan book too) which says it is better to be right about a small thing than wrong about a big one. It comes down to the question "is it better to be unhappy and know the truth, or happy and possibly living in delusion." Well, I know which pill I would take given the option as in The Matrix. quote: But it seems to me that you’re not really interested. Seems to me that you’re running around in circles and the rest of us are getting tired of chasing you. One Truth, One Light, One God – if you really wanna find, go seek. If not, might I suggest you take up a new hobby? Not that it hasn’t been fun. Thanks.
Don't give up on me yet, Qlib. I am leraning a lot, and this won't keep going round in circles if somebody can give me a falsifiable test for God. Speaking to him and taking any experience that gives as God doesn't cut the mustard. There is no way of knowing that the experience you have is of God or of something other than God. It is only when put in cultural context that the explanation is found.
-------------------- "Faith in God and seventy-five cents will get you a cup of coffee." [Wayne Aiken]
Posts: 293 | From: Staffordshire | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The sceptical Atheist
Shipmate
# 379
|
Posted
quote:
Alan Cresswell Most scientists would hold that OF theories and data are the gold standard of science, yet much of science is conducted by asking questions that can not (at least with current instruments) have OF answers. We can, for example, not devise an experiment to provide OF evidence for the conditions in the very earliest phases of the Big Bang.
I would disagree strongly here. If there is anything non-falsifiable in science then it must be removed. We know exactly what happened at the first moments of the Big Bang and this is confirmed in theory, experiments and astronomical observations (I don't mean big ones ). Just the fact that there is 25% Helium in the universe as a whole tells us about the conditions near the time. quote:
Beyond the ivory towers of academic science, OF evidence is even rarer. People get married every day without OF evidence of their love for each other. Children trust their parents to look after them without OF evidence that such trust has any foundation. Christians would continue to trust God, without OF evidence, even when faced with compulsive evidence of the existance of a (hypothetical) Charlie.
Sorry, but there is OF evidence for a lot of this. People don't go around saying "But is it falsifiable?" all the time (not like my wife everytime I come up with anything controversial now!). There is falsifiable, objective evidence (not proof) that people love each other. The fact that they are getting married is objective. It is falsifiable, i.e. they might not have done. So, that is evidence. Children use a different system, based on experiments. I know my children push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. It is doing that which gives them the evidence that I am or am not trustworthy. quote:
So, a question for the Sceptical Atheist, are you still demanding OF evidence or are you considering other evidence now?
I will listen to other evidence. I will not dismiss it out of hand, but I may dismiss it. I guarantee that I will accept OF evidence, I do not guarantee I will accept any other kind.
-------------------- "Faith in God and seventy-five cents will get you a cup of coffee." [Wayne Aiken]
Posts: 293 | From: Staffordshire | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
The sceptical Atheist
Shipmate
# 379
|
Posted
quote:
Freddy: 1') The Universe is an uncaused entity 2') God is an uncaused entityIf 1a', then physical laws and constants are responsible for what we percieve as existence. If 1b', then there exists an infinite being possessing omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, plus perfect justice, mercy, love, etc., and He is responsible for existence. These seem to me to possess equal complexity (or better, equally-incomprehensible complexity)
No. In 1b' as well as the laws we have the added complexity of a God. You also can never know that he is omni everything (!?). You take that as a point of faith, which precludes it from this particular discussion. The same with mercy/justice/love. There is a materialistic explanation that, because the materialstic world is assumed in 1b' means adding a God to it makes it more complex. quote: and neither are testable by any OF means at our disposal. Here is where Occam's razor falls short, useful tool though it is. IMHO, here also is where Godel's theorem applies, that any self-referential systems will contain a set of basic propositions that are unprovable.
I admit that my system is not provable. What I am saying is that, without evidence, we cannot use the God hypothesis, so the two systems are not equal. quote: Neither 1' and 1a', or 2' and 2a' have, by my present understanding, inherent qualities that make one overwhelmingly convincing over the other. These are the most basic of opposing presuppositions in the theism/atheism debate. One of these two premises, either of which must be taken on faith, dictate one's ultimate worldview, philosophy, theology and religion (or lack of religion).
No. My system does not require faith. It does require reason and philosophy, but I do not need to prove a negative. The burden of proof lies on you to show that God exists. Until then, I can assume reasonably that he doesn't. That is not a faith based position at all! quote: I could go on but I've gotten long-winded. I would like to say that I've been looking for people to discuss these issues with and I'm very grateful that I've found this place.
Freddy, this has been a great post. I have enjoyed putting my alternative against it.
-------------------- "Faith in God and seventy-five cents will get you a cup of coffee." [Wayne Aiken]
Posts: 293 | From: Staffordshire | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|