homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » An Argument for Monotheism... (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: An Argument for Monotheism...
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I love this forum!

Best wishes, 2RM.

No explanation is necessary. With the possible exception, a la William Lane Craig's Kalam, for that creation is rational, coherent. Not seething instantaneously everywhere with everything.

I agree with you about rational and coherent. But consider also that the fact that a thing may not seem (to you) to stand in need of an explanation (like Paley's stone on the heath), does not necessarily mean it doesn't have one.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Meanwhile, our lack of understanding need not predispose us to a bias against faith.

Neither should it predispose us to a bias in favour of faith. "Science doesn't (currently) know how this happened, so God must have done it" is nothing more than God Of The Gaps.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I love this forum!

Best wishes, 2RM.

No explanation is necessary. With the possible exception, a la William Lane Craig's Kalam, for that creation is rational, coherent. Not seething instantaneously everywhere with everything.

I agree with you about rational and coherent. But consider also that the fact that a thing may not seem (to you) to stand in need of an explanation (like Paley's stone on the heath), does not necessarily mean it doesn't have one.

Best wishes, 2RM.

If no explanation is necessary, but there is one, it's not one we can apprehend.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bugger. ...but IF there...

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Bugger. ...but IF there...

Unbugger. Stet. As you were.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

If no explanation is necessary, but there is one, it's not one we can apprehend.

Don't give up too easily! If the universe is rational and coherent, an hypothesis all of scientific enterprise is based on, and has yet to let us down, that would suggest its creator is also rational and coherent. That's not to say there won't be the odd paradox and impossibility to resolve, but challenges are what make us grow.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 11. January 2018, 14:44: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
If the universe is rational and coherent, an hypothesis all of scientific enterprise is based on, and has yet to let us down, that would suggest its creator is also rational and coherent.

Or, alternatively, that any universe (regardless of whether there is a creator) that can be described by a rational and coherent scientific enterprise has to be rational and coherent. Or, rational and coherent scientific enterprise can only develop in a rational and coherent universe. Which is all very circular, and says nothing except both science and nature are rational and coherent.

An argument could be made that the rationality and coherence of the universe would argue against the existence of gods with the character of the Greek pantheon, throwing thunder-bolts around in a fit of pique. Or, equally a God who gets a hissy fit and destroys all he's made with a flood, decides to help his pals win a battle by extending the length of the day, or shows off to his mates by taking a stroll across the surface of a lake.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32411 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
nothing more than God Of The Gaps.

'God of the Gaps'
'Mind the Gap'
[Paranoid] [Eek!] [Ultra confused]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Craig's point is that a non-rational creator would make only non-rational creation.

Which feels right.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What seems obvious to me, after reading all of and comprehending only bits of the foregoing, is that universes create one or more gods, not the reverse.

Humans form part of the flotsam and jetsam which comprise the universe, and one of the things that happens in human groups over time is the development of goddidit explanations for the intimidatingly vast array of Stuff We Do Not Understand.

We also develop notions about Black Holes, gravity, natural selection, virus mutation, probability, etc. etc., occasionally in advance of measurable evidence that these do, however incredibly, exist.

I can only conclude that the universe creates god(s), and am inclined to wonder if we are in fact making this particular universe up as we go along.

--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free

Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I can only conclude that the universe creates god(s), and am inclined to wonder if we are in fact making this particular universe up as we go along.

Whether we create our universe, or discover it, is actually quite a profound question, despite the common sense view. My own suspicion is that our subjective perceptions limit the extent of the objective discoveries we can make.

But, I'm going to be busy for the next few days, and may not be able to respond further to this thread for a time. Whatever, it has been a most engaging discussion, and I look forward to debating other matters with you all in due course.

Best wishes, to everyone, 2RM.

Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
My own suspicion is that our subjective perceptions limit the extent of the objective discoveries we can make.

Nonsense. We are not limited to our perceptions, but to our imaginations.

--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free

Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
My own suspicion is that our subjective perceptions limit the extent of the objective discoveries we can make.

Nonsense. We are not limited to our perceptions, but to our imaginations.
Except our imaginations are informed by our perceptions.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We're limited by physics and psychology.

Perfect lilBuddha.

[ 11. January 2018, 18:33: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
My own suspicion is that our subjective perceptions limit the extent of the objective discoveries we can make.

Nonsense. We are not limited to our perceptions, but to our imaginations.
Hmmm. If I perceive there to be no God, that might limit my objective discoveries in Theology, wouldn't you say?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In order to explain the universe adequately something has not to require further explanation itself. If there could be one or more of something it's the kind of thing that requires explanation.

If one god can exist without explanation, why can't two?
One way of looking at it is to say that if there are two gods not requiring explanation then there must be some logical relationship between them. And if there's a logical relationship between them it's difficult to see why you'd say there are two separate entities there. (See the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.)

Another way of looking at it is to say that if there's one god rather than two or three, that does need explanation.
However, there are situations where the word 'one' is used where there isn't an option of two or three. For example, two multiverses just add together to give a bigger more complicated multiverse. In that case, if you say that there's only one multiverse, the word 'one' is being used merely to rule out the applicability of there being two or more. You can't count the multiverse and decide that there's only one. The whole concept of number isn't really applicable, but since linguistically number words keep creeping in, the word 'one' is more appropriate than any other number word.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
My own suspicion is that our subjective perceptions limit the extent of the objective discoveries we can make.

Nonsense. We are not limited to our perceptions, but to our imaginations.
Hmmm. If I perceive there to be no God, that might limit my objective discoveries in Theology, wouldn't you say?

Best wishes, 2RM.

There doesn't need to be a God to do that.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607

 - Posted      Profile for Ohher   Author's homepage   Email Ohher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect there's some daylight to be found between "informed by" and "limited to." I have never perceived an actual living, breathing unicorn. Personally, I don't believe such creatures exist, or have ever existed (though I have, of course, seen images of these as conceived by an assortment of visual artists).

I do have the ability, based on perceptions of other creatures, to develop a mental construct of a unicorn. I can imagine it to be 4-legged, rather horselike in head and body, possessing a mane, and sprouting the all-important single horn out of the middle of its forehead.

Further, I can embellish the (Western)culturally-established unicorn-construct (the white, maned, horned, horselike creature) with further details. I can imagine it having fangs, or clawed, three-toed feet rather than paws or hooves. I can suppose it answers solely to female virgins' voices because female virgins are all it dines upon (no doubt contributing substantially to their famous rarity).

None of this will produce a unicorn I can take tissue samples from or weigh or measure or examine in any way. What it does have the power to do, though -- depending on my skill/influence/charisma in promoting this construct -- is to persuade a sufficient number of other imaginative humans to begin behaving as though this construct might be or likely is objectively (whatever that means) real, and encourage all sorts of activities designed to:

* locate evidence for its past or present existence or at least activity;

* re-consider our current taxonomy of the animal kingdom to create the necessary plausible "space" within this system for including it once evidence is found of its existence;

* mount much-needed campaigns for the protection of nubile-but-not-yet-sexually active human females to prevent their decimation by this hungry, elusive beast . . .

. . . and so on.

Which leads us to a rather different question: What's the difference (from a human perspective) between a universe actually created by a god and one in which hundreds of millions of human beings act as though they live in a universe created by a god?

--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free

Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Hmmm. If I perceive there to be no God, that might limit my objective discoveries in Theology, wouldn't you say?

Just out of curiosity, how does one make "objective discoveries" in theology? God is notoriously averse to direct observation, except in the rarest of circumstances.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ohher. None. For now.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Croesos--

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Hmmm. If I perceive there to be no God, that might limit my objective discoveries in Theology, wouldn't you say?

Just out of curiosity, how does one make "objective discoveries" in theology? God is notoriously averse to direct observation, except in the rarest of circumstances.
Thank you for this! I get rather irritated with the idea that academic theologians necessarily know more about God than anyone else. They might well know more about biblical languages and culture; about dying and resurrecting god motifs in other faiths and myths; and what the name of the shepherd's lost sheep was.

But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether God is, what God is like, having a relationship with God, or trying to live the way God wants.

Every human being has the birthright of thinking (or not!) about God, deities, how to live, and whether any of that matters. (And...who knows? Maybe every living being has that birthright, too. See the books "Creatures Choir" and "Prayers From The Ark", by Carmen Bernos de Gaztold.)

Personally, my favorite theologian is Terry Pratchett. His Disc World novels show that he got just about *everything*, agnostic though he was.
[Overused]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18595 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Hmmm. If I perceive there to be no God, that might limit my objective discoveries in Theology, wouldn't you say?

Just out of curiosity, how does one make "objective discoveries" in theology? God is notoriously averse to direct observation, except in the rarest of circumstances.
It's nowt ter do wi' God. Theology. It's to do with critical thinking. As in mathematics, logic itself, objective discoveries can therefore be made.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We're limited by physics and psychology.

We are, if that is what we believe in.

Maybe something never did get created out of nothing.
It could be that we are the nothing.
God has provided this illusion for us to do with it what we will.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We're limited by physics and psychology.

We are, if that is what we believe in.

Maybe something never did get created out of nothing.
It could be that we are the nothing.
God has provided this illusion for us to do with it what we will.

If we don't believe in physics and psychology then we're even more limited. But not in kindness. I'm found wanting in all of them.

As for creatio ex nihilo, like nearly all theistic concepts it's meaningless. God ain't nuthin'.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
As for creatio ex nihilo, like nearly all theistic concepts it's meaningless. God ain't nuthin'.

... And God Laughed.
Had a chuckle myself too [Smile]

If God thought Her/Himself meaningless then I guess we'd be be in trouble from immediate effect, as in *phut*. No more, never was, never will be.

For me it is the meaningless of an infinite Cosmos, made up of fusion balls and cratered spheres sparsely populated with a variety of Carbon forms which gives God meaning, even if (S)He does turn out to be Steve H's single Atom.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools