Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why must the cause be God?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 6:16:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lets say one was to grant that the universe had a cause for the sake of argument, why must the cause be God, and nothing something else?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 6:36:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 6:32:23 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
What do you got in mind lol?

Presumably he means there are possible naturalistic causes to the Big Bang which would make God unnecessary.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 7:09:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 6:32:23 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
What do you got in mind lol?

Excuse the past tense with regards to that which is timeless, but there are plenty of different possible causes. Perhaps there existed a pre-universe which was timeless and spaceless, containing everything that is needed for a universe to exist, but existing in a static unchanging state until time exists. Maybe, it's in this pre-universe's nature to spontaneously create a symmetry break, starting time and space, and the naturalistic world. This hypothetical scenario needs no God. Basically, the point I'm making is that first cause arguments don't do anything do show a God exists, just a cause.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 9:34:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem of a first cause is simply irreducible by the methods of science; it needs to be ascertained by a process of synthesis, from looking at the whole and building up an all-encompassing worldview that meaningfully postulates a fist cause. Humans have a sense of wonder; and it is in our nature to ponder that first cause I think.

All science can say about it is that any prior existence you did postulate would have to be postulated as a given, it would defy description since it would necessarily transcend the frame of reference of science, you could not apply the dimensions of time and space to it, and consequently, it would be rationally incomprehensible. Belief in it would require faith, and it would not be in any way subject to a logical "proof" within a scientific frame of reference. This existence could only be described by analogy because words are relative things that can't adequately describe absolute or unconditional concepts, and the "ultimate reality" being described would necessarily have to be timeless rather than everlasting, universally present rather than infinite in space, uncaused and therefore eternally changeless. This would all have to fall completely outside the realm of science because objective knowledge of it would be impossible, it could not be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference, and therefore it could never be fully grasped in any fixed form. This is not to say it cannot be conceived of, or that it does not exist, and it is a fact that the vast majority of mankind has postulated just such a transcendent entity as existing, in general they have in described it in much the same way, and many have and continue to postulate its existence with conviction.

Many call it God, but many others use different words, the One, the void, the primordial deep, my Grandmother called it Unetlanvhi, I don"t really think a lot of people say it "must" go by the name God. If calling it God gets you all bunged up, then don"t call it that, if pre-universe suits you, go with it.

If none of the traditional creation stories work for you, try this one.

In the beginning, the pre-universe was formless and empty, there was only a deep mathematical structure that is true by definition and which necessarily existed. The spirit of relativity and quantum theory was hovering over the primordial mathematics and it came to pass that a cosmic loophole big enough for all creation to jump through came about. In a kind of mathematical transubstantiation, there was a quantum fluctuation that separated the something from the nothing whereby the timeless mathematical formulas took on substance and became physically real.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 9:38:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, I'm not a big fan of the KCA and such, but Thomistic arguments deduce Actus Purus, which St. Thomas spent hundreds of pages over his lifetime demonstrating was God.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 10:03:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 9:34:44 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
The problem of a first cause is simply irreducible by the methods of science; it needs to be ascertained by a process of synthesis, from looking at the whole and building up an all-encompassing worldview that meaningfully postulates a fist cause. Humans have a sense of wonder; and it is in our nature to ponder that first cause I think.

All science can say about it is that any prior existence you did postulate would have to be postulated as a given, it would defy description since it would necessarily transcend the frame of reference of science, you could not apply the dimensions of time and space to it, and consequently, it would be rationally incomprehensible. Belief in it would require faith, and it would not be in any way subject to a logical "proof" within a scientific frame of reference. This existence could only be described by analogy because words are relative things that can't adequately describe absolute or unconditional concepts, and the "ultimate reality" being described would necessarily have to be timeless rather than everlasting, universally present rather than infinite in space, uncaused and therefore eternally changeless. This would all have to fall completely outside the realm of science because objective knowledge of it would be impossible, it could not be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference, and therefore it could never be fully grasped in any fixed form. This is not to say it cannot be conceived of, or that it does not exist, and it is a fact that the vast majority of mankind has postulated just such a transcendent entity as existing, in general they have in described it in much the same way, and many have and continue to postulate its existence with conviction.

Many call it God, but many others use different words, the One, the void, the primordial deep, my Grandmother called it Unetlanvhi, I don"t really think a lot of people say it "must" go by the name God. If calling it God gets you all bunged up, then don"t call it that, if pre-universe suits you, go with it.

If none of the traditional creation stories work for you, try this one.

In the beginning, the pre-universe was formless and empty, there was only a deep mathematical structure that is true by definition and which necessarily existed. The spirit of relativity and quantum theory was hovering over the primordial mathematics and it came to pass that a cosmic loophole big enough for all creation to jump through came about. In a kind of mathematical transubstantiation, there was a quantum fluctuation that separated the something from the nothing whereby the timeless mathematical formulas took on substance and became physically real.

I never said the cause could be explained by science. I just simply pointed out that there are plenty of other explanations which have nothing to do with a conscious being. It's clear why humans want to lean in that direction, because we are conscious beings (clear bias), it's more comfortable to think that reality is rooted in a conscious being. However, if you look at the situation objectively, there is no reason why this has to be the case.

Like I said in my previous post, the Big Bang could have just been a transition, instead of a beginning from nothing (there is no evidence, that the universe came from nothing). What was there "pre" Big Bang? Perhaps a timeless, static, pre-universe, which contained everything needed for nature to exist, but isn't yet nature itself. It could be in this pre-universe's nature, to break symmetry and cause a finite universe to exist spontaneously. If that was the case, the universe could be all that exists, with the pre-universe now converted to the expanding universe. Do I believe this? No. I'm just making a point that there could be mechanisms that science cannot explain responsible for our universe, but there is no reason to think a conscious being is responsible. It's possible science can explain our universe, if we ever get a unified theory. However, I see no reason to give a leg up to the God hypothesis.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 1:50:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 10:03:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I never said the cause could be explained by science. I just simply pointed out that there are plenty of other explanations which have nothing to do with a conscious being.

Yeah, that"s what I was pointing out too, it"s why I said it could "only be described by analogy", and that "it could not be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference, and therefore it could never be fully grasped in any fixed form". Not everybody thinks of God as a conscious being, "Unetlanvhi" roughly translates to "Creator", but my Grandmother certainly didn"t think of it as a conscious being, some of my maternal relatives do, others don"t.

It's clear why humans want to lean in that direction, because we are conscious beings (clear bias), it's more comfortable to think that reality is rooted in a conscious being. However, if you look at the situation objectively, there is no reason why this has to be the case.

There are a lot of people who look at the situation objectively and do see reasons why this has to be the case. Some scientists are trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and others are trying to reduce consciousness to matter, we seem to be caught in one big loop. Quantum physics tells us that particles exist as probability waves that only collapse into physically reality when a measurement is taken or when an observation is made. This certainly raises the question of where possibilities exist; the only place we know of possibilities existing is in a mind. If possibility waves require an observer to collapse into a physically reality, then quantum physics can certainly be understood to imply that consciousness is fundamental to the existence of physical reality, this raises the possibility that some sort of consciousness is needed to make the universe actual, as it relates to a universal beginning, that would necessitate some kind of cosmic consciousness, a consciousness without a body. John Wheeler and Henry Stapp are two quantum physicists that believe consciousness is a fundamental aspect of physical reality that must have been present for there to be an actual physical universe.

The fact is, reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions being raised here, the "God hypothesis" as you call it, is not logically coercive, it"s a matter of faith, but for those who choose it, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose. The theistic conclusion in no way seeks to be a rival to scientific explanation but rather it aims to complement that explanation by setting it within a wider and more profound context and understanding.

I think it all comes down to whether or not you think that consciousness is primary or not, and I look at the situation objectively and find that it is. Everything we know is appropriated mentally; the only thing we know with certainty is that we are conscious beings, Cogito Ergo Sum, so to speak. The thing we call objective reality is secondary. All knowledge of anything outside of mind is contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there"; our only evidence that there even is a universe or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of an objective reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what is out there. What we take as the reality outside of us, outside of consciousness, the so-called objective reality, is a construct that is the "presumed" cause of our sensations. We can only presume that something is "out there" causing these sensations that we are having "in here". The only knowledge that is immediate is "in here", in our consciousness, that is the only thing we know directly.

Maybe the inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly, unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

I"m not trying to convince you, that"s not my gig, but your style of posting about theism seems to attempt to put theists on the defensive, and that is my defense of the position. I do in fact look at the situation objectively, and I will agree that there is no reason why this has to be the case, but that is not to say that there are no reason for it to be the case, I do have my reasons. Both positions are a matter of faith, the theistic conclusion may not be logically coercive, but that does not mean it isn"t logical, there are indeed logical reasons to arrive at the theistic conclusion and they are consistent with an understanding of science.

Like I said in my previous post, the Big Bang could have just been a transition, instead of a beginning from nothing (there is no evidence, that the universe came from nothing).

I think there"s evidence that nothing can"t exist actually, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it physically impossible. As a tool of cognition, "nothing" can be useful, but it doesn't, and never has existed.

What was there "pre" Big Bang? Perhaps a timeless, static, pre-universe, which contained everything needed for nature to exist, but isn't yet nature itself. It could be in this pre-universe's nature, to break symmetry and cause a finite universe to exist spontaneously. If that was the case, the universe could be all that exists, with the pre-universe now converted to the expanding universe. Do I believe this? No. I'm just making a point that there could be mechanisms that science cannot explain responsible for our universe, but there is no reason to think a conscious being is responsible.

There are plenty of reasons to think a conscious being is responsible and most people do.

It's possible science can explain our universe, if we ever get a unified theory.

Don"t hold your breath on that one.

However, I see no reason to give a leg up to the God hypothesis.

I guess it comes down to how you define the "God Hypothesis", it"s pretty clear that science is telling us that we live in a contingent reality, it resolutely points to a transcendent dimension of some sort in which this reality is embedded, but our ideas about that transcendent reality will necessarily be speculative, provisional, and inadequate. Whether or not you call it God is a choice, but for those who do think in those terms, it will reflect our ideas about value, meaning, and purpose in our speculation about the nature of a self-existent source of the universe as we see that universe in the light of the best available scientific knowledge. The choice is not between science and theism; I think it is a choice to align that speculation with an experiential reality that includes the discernment of values, meaning, and purpose.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 2:01:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

^we're not arguing that it's wholly and completely God, a maximally great being revealed in Christ. What is being said is that it's more plausible that the cause of the universe is personal, along with other attributes.

It's part of a grand cumulative case. One I think intellectual atheists start recognizing.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 2:21:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 1:54:30 AM, FREEDO wrote:


I guess you expected folks to be enlightened from that but all I heard was a brilliant scientist muddling up philosophy in a politically correct way.

"These are deep mysteries"

... and when unanswered questions of suffering appeal to the same reasoning theists are called deluded.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 2:24:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, I just really enjoy it and it was relevant.

But I suppose the "enlightening" bit would be the part about "saving a step". Which essentially just Occam's Razor.

Creating an idea of God to explain the universe is an unnecessary step when the cause for such a God could just as easily be applied to the universe itself in the first place.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 2:46:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 2:24:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Actually, I just really enjoy it and it was relevant.

But I suppose the "enlightening" bit would be the part about "saving a step". Which essentially just Occam's Razor.

Well then it's a misapplication of Occam's Razor, which says not to posit causes beyond necessity. But if we have an absolute origin from nothing, which is what Sagan periodically affirms (Big Bang), then we would seem to require a first cause. His only reservation here is the toe-curling question of what caused the first cause, which is a meaningless question! It's a first cause! Der.

Creating an idea of God to explain the universe is an unnecessary step when the cause for such a God could just as easily be applied to the universe itself in the first place.

Then the universe came into being from nothing.. right, I don't think atheists can call theists deluded any longer with such reasoning. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 3:13:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 2:46:42 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Well then it's a misapplication of Occam's Razor, which says not to posit causes beyond necessity. But if we have an absolute origin from nothing, which is what Sagan periodically affirms (Big Bang), then we would seem to require a first cause. His only reservation here is the toe-curling question of what caused the first cause, which is a meaningless question! It's a first cause! Der.

Creating an idea of God to explain the universe is an unnecessary step when the cause for such a God could just as easily be applied to the universe itself in the first place.

Then the universe came into being from nothing.. right, I don't think atheists can call theists deluded any longer with such reasoning. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.

I don't recall Sagan ever making such an affirmation. He was an agnostic who simply begged the question. He openly admitted at the beginning of that very video that there were astronomers who questioned the big bang.

The modern consensus among astro-physicists today is actually that the big bang may have been the beginning of space and time as we know it but not truly a beginning in a ful sense. That there is more to reality than our own universe. And that it is only one within a multiverse.

Another idea that our big bang is actually a part of a reoccurring cycle. The universe is perpetually destroying and recreating itself and there is no beginning.

Another idea, more so from those who focus on philosophy, is actually that "nothing" is more of an incoherent concept. We only know what we mean by nothing in comparison with what we call something. For there to only be nothing is a meaningless idea. And perhaps the substance of reality is actually limitless possibility--everything exists. And our own universe is only one manifestation of that.

But, of course, this is all just guess work. No assertions. But I think that further shows the problem with Theism. It attempts to create a solution out a situation that is utterly unsolvable. Isn't that a bit arrogant? To say that we know how things came to be? Isn't that already assuming one's self with god-like powers of knowledge? You have no such knowledge. You are completely in the dark.

I find it funny how people have, historically, had such a striving need to subscribe a supernatural explanation for things they don't understand. Lightening strikes. How did that happen? Must have been the lightening God. But now we know how lightening works. So that idea is ridiculous. As it turns out...throughout history...ever mystery...ever solved...has turned out to be...not magic. Yet we still find the need to create these supernatural entities to explain the gaps in our knowledge. To reassure us. To make us feel like we are in control. To make us feel like we actually have any idea what's going on.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 7:36:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 2:24:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Actually, I just really enjoy it and it was relevant.

But I suppose the "enlightening" bit would be the part about "saving a step". Which essentially just Occam's Razor.

Creating an idea of God to explain the universe is an unnecessary step when the cause for such a God could just as easily be applied to the universe itself in the first place.

That's not Occam's Razor by any stretch of the imagination, creating an idea to explain something is what science does, Occam's Razor oesn't say explanations are an unnessary step. The first cause argument is that to avoid an infinite regress, logically there must be an uncaused cause, asking what caused that is incoherent.

The point of my posts above was to demonstrate that the search for such an answer transcends our frame of reference, the answer will necessarily be speculative, provisional, and inadequate. If calling it God is a problem then don't call it that, if others calling it God is a problem, then get over it. If you reject the attributes people apply to thier speculations then you need to state why and be prepared to defend your position. If you reject the childish image of God as a bearded man in the sky then good for you, you get to be right, nobody believes in the God you don't believe in.

Asking pointless and incoherent questions doesn't make a point. If you want to debate the issue then put something on the table. Tell us what your conception of the first cause is and why, we'll probably have some questions for you.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 8:40:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 3:13:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/6/2013 2:46:42 AM, Apeiron wrote:
Well then it's a misapplication of Occam's Razor, which says not to posit causes beyond necessity. But if we have an absolute origin from nothing, which is what Sagan periodically affirms (Big Bang), then we would seem to require a first cause. His only reservation here is the toe-curling question of what caused the first cause, which is a meaningless question! It's a first cause! Der.

Creating an idea of God to explain the universe is an unnecessary step when the cause for such a God could just as easily be applied to the universe itself in the first place.

Then the universe came into being from nothing.. right, I don't think atheists can call theists deluded any longer with such reasoning. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.

I don't recall Sagan ever making such an affirmation. He was an agnostic who simply begged the question. He openly admitted at the beginning of that very video that there were astronomers who questioned the big bang.

Nope, Occam"s Razor isn"t about begging the question either.

The modern consensus among astro-physicists today is actually that the big bang may have been the beginning of space and time as we know it but not truly a beginning in a ful sense.

Well duh, that is what the first cause argument says.

That there is more to reality than our own universe.

Well duh, a lot of people postulate that, and most of them refer to it with the word God.

And that it is only one within a multiverse.

That is soley a matter of faith, and it is not the least bit scientific, the so called "God hypothesis" is more logical and scientific.

Another idea that our big bang is actually a part of a reoccurring cycle. The universe is perpetually destroying and recreating itself and there is no beginning.

That isn"t a new idea, it"s the dance of Shiva.

Another idea, more so from those who focus on philosophy, is actually that "nothing" is more of an incoherent concept. We only know what we mean by nothing in comparison with what we call something. For there to only be nothing is a meaningless idea. And perhaps the substance of reality is actually limitless possibility--everything exists. And our own universe is only one manifestation of that.

That sounds like the God hypothesis.

But, of course, this is all just guess work. No assertions. But I think that further shows the problem with Theism. It attempts to create a solution out a situation that is utterly unsolvable. Isn't that a bit arrogant?

Guess work is arrogant? I don"t think speculation is arrogant, I think its human nature to wonder and postulate answers, and it"s why we have science. No, what is arrogant is to assert that the situation is utterly unsolvable. It happens to be the primary thrust of physics today, are you saying it is arrogant of physics to seek answers to such questions? I"d say declaring the fundamental problems of cosmology unsolvable and posturing that you are in some way above both theists and the scientific community is astoundingly arrogant.

To say that we know how things came to be? Isn't that already assuming one's self with god-like powers of knowledge? You have no such knowledge. You are completely in the dark.

No, unfounded and dogmatic declarations that the fundamental problems of physics are unsolvable is what is already assuming one"s self with God-like powers of knowledge. You have no such knowledge. You are completely in the dark.

I find it funny how people have, historically, had such a striving need to subscribe a supernatural explanation for things they don't understand. Lightening strikes. How did that happen? Must have been the lightening God. But now we know how lightening works. So that idea is ridiculous. As it turns out...throughout history...ever mystery...ever solved...has turned out to be...not magic. Yet we still find the need to create these supernatural entities to explain the gaps in our knowledge. To reassure us. To make us feel like we are in control. To make us feel like we actually have any idea what's going on.

LOL, the God of the gaps argument again, why do you guys always fall back on the God of the gaps argument?

That argument is based on an ad hoc assumption that has nothing to do with an intellectual evaluation of faith or religion, the premise is solely based on a "dumbing down" of faith to an uninformed "God of the gaps" characterization, and so the argument is incoherent and meaningless.

No serious scholar of religion has ever found the "God of the gaps" theory to be even loosely correlated with the evidence, nor has it ever been considered to be analytically useful in the intellectual study of religion or faith. Perhaps the concept is ideologically useful in places like internet debate forums, but no real scholar of religion, faith, or theology takes it seriously, it really only indicates a lack of scholarship regarding the subject matter.

"God of the gaps", "evolutionary advantage of the gaps", "complexity of the gaps", "hidden variables of the gaps", "emergent property of the gaps", are all one and the same argument in principle. They are only different forms of the argument from ignorance, illogical attempts to say that the lack of information supports my presumptions, and not yours, which is a logically invalid argument. All are fundamentally religious beliefs, with a subtext of omniscience, the certainty with which spiritual detractors invoke the belief that these gaps will be filled in as science progresses is based on a belief in the eventual omniscience of science, and that is astoundingly arrogant. Logically Godel proved it just isn"t going to happen; and physically Heisenberg proved it isn"t going to happen.

I find it funny how the same people that have, historically, wanted to argue that God cannot be omniscient seem to be the same ones that argue that given time, man can be omniscient. Neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate Sir John Eccles and philosopher of science Karl Popper have both referred to it as "promissory materialism", Sir John Eccles stated, "Promissory materialism is a superstition without a rational foundation. It is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists who confuse their religion with their science. It has all the features of a messianic prophecy".

Perhaps this explains why you see these pseudoscientific "gaps" explanations most often invoked by the dogmatic spiritual detractors debating their religious opponents, both sides of the argument are defending their faith from what they see as essentially, a competing religious belief.

It"s OK to dogmatically assert your faith here, if religious one-upmanship is your thing, that"s fine, just don"t try to tell us that isn"t what it is because we know better.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 9:04:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 3:13:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:
But, of course, this is all just guess work. No assertions. But I think that further shows the problem with Theism. It attempts to create a solution out a situation that is utterly unsolvable. Isn't that a bit arrogant? To say that we know how things came to be? Isn't that already assuming one's self with god-like powers of knowledge? You have no such knowledge. You are completely in the dark.

No, it's called Humility.
Atheists are the self-inflating ones who think they know it all..

How is Accepting god as greater than yourself and putting god first qualify as Arrogant??
Atheists just want to make Man the center of the universe.... 8)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 9:16:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 8:40:32 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
But, of course, this is all just guess work. No assertions. But I think that further shows the problem with Theism. It attempts to create a solution out a situation that is utterly unsolvable. Isn't that a bit arrogant?

Guess work is arrogant?

Only when it's poor guess work, asserted as Sensible or as truth... Such as making horribly disconnected jumps from Subjective Goods to universal truths as many christian philosophers have when trying to explain Why God.

I don"t think speculation is arrogant, I think its human nature to wonder and postulate answers, and it"s why we have science. No, what is arrogant is to assert that the situation is utterly unsolvable. It happens to be the primary thrust of physics today, are you saying it is arrogant of physics to seek answers to such questions? I"d say declaring the fundamental problems of cosmology unsolvable and posturing that you are in some way above both theists and the scientific community is astoundingly arrogant.

It would seem to me that answers can go deeper and deeper, but there's always more questions....

How can the chain of questions ever end? I don't know.... and, though we certainly get fuller and fuller answers, I do doubt that we can ever understand Everything (because of how answers seem to lead to more questions).

But simply putting an arbitrary end to it, and filling it up with unjustified anthropomorphic characteristics (reasoning, loving, jealous etc..) with no good reason whatsoever (it's the Best of Possible worlds!, the Greatest Imaginable Thing!)is just ridiculousness and should be called such.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 9:35:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 1:50:22 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/5/2013 10:03:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I never said the cause could be explained by science. I just simply pointed out that there are plenty of other explanations which have nothing to do with a conscious being.

Yeah, that"s what I was pointing out too, it"s why I said it could "only be described by analogy", and that "it could not be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference, and therefore it could never be fully grasped in any fixed form". Not everybody thinks of God as a conscious being, "Unetlanvhi" roughly translates to "Creator", but my Grandmother certainly didn"t think of it as a conscious being, some of my maternal relatives do, others don"t.

It's clear why humans want to lean in that direction, because we are conscious beings (clear bias), it's more comfortable to think that reality is rooted in a conscious being. However, if you look at the situation objectively, there is no reason why this has to be the case.

There are a lot of people who look at the situation objectively and do see reasons why this has to be the case. Some scientists are trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and others are trying to reduce consciousness to matter, we seem to be caught in one big loop. Quantum physics tells us that particles exist as probability waves that only collapse into physically reality when a measurement is taken or when an observation is made. This certainly raises the question of where possibilities exist; the only place we know of possibilities existing is in a mind.

Where are you getting this nonsense from? A possibility is a possibility, regardless if any minds exists or not. You are acting like possibilities have to exist in a distinct location, which is rather silly.

If possibility waves require an observer to collapse into a physically reality, then quantum physics can certainly be understood to imply that consciousness is fundamental to the existence of physical reality, this raises the possibility that some sort of consciousness is needed to make the universe actual, as it relates to a universal beginning, that would necessitate some kind of cosmic consciousness, a consciousness without a body.

More rubbish. It's a measurement apparatus which causes the apparent collapse of a wave-function (the ontological status of collapse is even disputed within the science), this has nothing directly to do with consciousness.

John Wheeler and Henry Stapp are two quantum physicists that believe consciousness is a fundamental aspect of physical reality that must have been present for there to be an actual physical universe.

Most scientists disagree. Most scientists believe that consciousness emerges from a brain, so without the physical brain, where is this consciousness going to magically come from?

The fact is, reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions being raised here, the "God hypothesis" as you call it, is not logically coercive, it"s a matter of faith, but for those who choose it, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose. The theistic conclusion in no way seeks to be a rival to scientific explanation but rather it aims to complement that explanation by setting it within a wider and more profound context and understanding.

I just don't see why a conscious being is the most likely explanation.


I think it all comes down to whether or not you think that consciousness is primary or not, and I look at the situation objectively and find that it is. Everything we know is appropriated mentally; the only thing we know with certainty is that we are conscious beings, Cogito Ergo Sum, so to speak. The thing we call objective reality is secondary. All knowledge of anything outside of mind is contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there"; our only evidence that there even is a universe or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of an objective reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what is out there. What we take as the reality outside of us, outside of consciousness, the so-called objective reality, is a construct that is the "presumed" cause of our sensations. We can only presume that something is "out there" causing these sensations that we are having "in here". The only knowledge that is immediate is "in here", in our consciousness, that is the only thing we know directly.

Maybe the inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly, unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

I"m not trying to convince you, that"s not my gig, but your style of posting about theism seems to attempt to put theists on the defensive, and that is my defense of the position. I do in fact look at the situation objectively, and I will agree that there is no reason why this has to be the case, but that is not to say that there are no reason for it to be the case, I do have my reasons. Both positions are a matter of faith, the theistic conclusion may not be logically coercive, but that does not mean it isn"t logical, there are indeed logical reasons to arrive at the theistic conclusion and they are consistent with an understanding of science.

Like I said in my previous post, the Big Bang could have just been a transition, instead of a beginning from nothing (there is no evidence, that the universe came from nothing).

I think there"s evidence that nothing can"t exist actually, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it physically impossible. As a tool of cognition, "nothing" can be useful, but it doesn't, and never has existed.

What was there "pre" Big Bang? Perhaps a timeless, static, pre-universe, which contained everything needed for nature to exist, but isn't yet nature itself. It could be in this pre-universe's nature, to break symmetry and cause a finite universe to exist spontaneously. If that was the case, the universe could be all that exists, with the pre-universe now converted to the expanding universe. Do I believe this? No. I'm just making a point that there could be mechanisms that science cannot explain responsible for our universe, but there is no reason to think a conscious being is responsible.

There are plenty of reasons to think a conscious being is responsible and most people do.

It's possible science can explain our universe, if we ever get a unified theory.

Don"t hold your breath on that one.

However, I see no reason to give a leg up to the God hypothesis.

I guess it comes down to how you define the "God Hypothesis", it"s pretty clear that science is telling us that we live in a contingent reality, it resolutely points to a transcendent dimension of some sort in which this reality is embedded, but our ideas about that transcendent reality will necessarily be speculative, provisional, and inadequate. Whether or not you call it God is a choice, but for those who do think in those terms, it will reflect our ideas about value, meaning, and purpose in our speculation about the nature of a self-existent source of the universe as we see that universe in the light of the best available scientific knowledge. The choice is not between science and theism; I think it is a choice to align th
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 9:39:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 1:50:22 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/5/2013 10:03:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I never said the cause could be explained by science. I just simply pointed out that there are plenty of other explanations which have nothing to do with a conscious being.

Yeah, that"s what I was pointing out too, it"s why I said it could "only be described by analogy", and that "it could not be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference, and therefore it could never be fully grasped in any fixed form". Not everybody thinks of God as a conscious being, "Unetlanvhi" roughly translates to "Creator", but my Grandmother certainly didn"t think of it as a conscious being, some of my maternal relatives do, others don"t.

It's clear why humans want to lean in that direction, because we are conscious beings (clear bias), it's more comfortable to think that reality is rooted in a conscious being. However, if you look at the situation objectively, there is no reason why this has to be the case.

There are a lot of people who look at the situation objectively and do see reasons why this has to be the case. Some scientists are trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and others are trying to reduce consciousness to matter, we seem to be caught in one big loop. Quantum physics tells us that particles exist as probability waves that only collapse into physically reality when a measurement is taken or when an observation is made. This certainly raises the question of where possibilities exist; the only place we know of possibilities existing is in a mind. If possibility waves require an observer to collapse into a physically reality, then quantum physics can certainly be understood to imply that consciousness is fundamental to the existence of physical reality, this raises the possibility that some sort of consciousness is needed to make the universe actual, as it relates to a universal beginning, that would necessitate some kind of cosmic consciousness, a consciousness without a body. John Wheeler and Henry Stapp are two quantum physicists that believe consciousness is a fundamental aspect of physical reality that must have been present for there to be an actual physical universe.

The fact is, reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions being raised here, the "God hypothesis" as you call it, is not logically coercive, it"s a matter of faith, but for those who choose it, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose. The theistic conclusion in no way seeks to be a rival to scientific explanation but rather it aims to complement that explanation by setting it within a wider and more profound context and understanding.

I think it all comes down to whether or not you think that consciousness is primary or not, and I look at the situation objectively and find that it is. .

I find, that it isn't. Consciousness is just one piece of a larger puzzle, no more primary than a solar system.

Everything we know is appropriated mentally; the only thing we know with certainty is that we are conscious beings, Cogito Ergo Sum, so to speak. The thing we call objective reality is secondary.

Solipsism is irrational, I suggest you do not delve into this any further.

All knowledge of anything outside of mind is contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there"; our only evidence that there even is a universe or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of an objective reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what is out there. What we take as the reality outside of us, outside of consciousness, the so-called objective reality, is a construct that is the "presumed" cause of our sensations. We can only presume that something is "out there" causing these sensations that we are having "in here". The only knowledge that is immediate is "in here", in our consciousness, that is the only thing we know directly.

This is exactly why when human saw a lightning bolt, they thought it was some conscious being causing it, until we knew the non-conscious mechanism. This is why humans have to stop thinking that consciousness matter so much, when in reality, consciousness is just a subset of a larger mechanism at work. Putting so much importance on consciousness is clear bias towards consciousness.


Maybe the inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly, unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

I"m not trying to convince you, that"s not my gig, but your style of posting about theism seems to attempt to put theists on the defensive, and that is my defense of the position. I do in fact look at the situation objectively, and I will agree that there is no reason why this has to be the case, but that is not to say that there are no reason for it to be the case, I do have my reasons. Both positions are a matter of faith, the theistic conclusion may not be logically coercive, but that does not mean it isn"t logical, there are indeed logical reasons to arrive at the theistic conclusion and they are consistent with an understanding of science.

Like I said in my previous post, the Big Bang could have just been a transition, instead of a beginning from nothing (there is no evidence, that the universe came from nothing).

I think there"s evidence that nothing can"t exist actually, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it physically impossible. As a tool of cognition, "nothing" can be useful, but it doesn't, and never has existed.

What was there "pre" Big Bang? Perhaps a timeless, static, pre-universe, which contained everything needed for nature to exist, but isn't yet nature itself. It could be in this pre-universe's nature, to break symmetry and cause a finite universe to exist spontaneously. If that was the case, the universe could be all that exists, with the pre-universe now converted to the expanding universe. Do I believe this? No. I'm just making a point that there could be mechanisms that science cannot explain responsible for our universe, but there is no reason to think a conscious being is responsible.

There are plenty of reasons to think a conscious being is responsible and most people do.

It's possible science can explain our universe, if we ever get a unified theory.

Don"t hold your breath on that one.

However, I see no reason to give a leg up to the God hypothesis.

I guess it comes down to how you define the "God Hypothesis", it"s pretty clear that science is telling us that we live in a contingent reality, it resolutely points to a transcendent dimension of some sort in which this reality is embedded, but our ideas about that transcendent reality will necessarily be speculative, provisional, and inadequate. Whether or not you call it God is a choice, but for those who do think in those terms, it will reflect our ideas about value, meaning, and purpose in our speculation about the nature of a self-existent source of the universe as we see that universe in the light of the best available scientific knowledge. The choice is not between science and theism; I think it is a choice to align that speculation with an experiential reality that includes the discernment of values, meaning, and purpose.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 9:44:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 1:50:22 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/5/2013 10:03:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I never said the cause could be explained by science. I just simply pointed out that there are plenty of other explanations which have nothing to do with a conscious being.

Yeah, that"s what I was pointing out too, it"s why I said it could "only be described by analogy", and that "it could not be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference, and therefore it could never be fully grasped in any fixed form". Not everybody thinks of God as a conscious being, "Unetlanvhi" roughly translates to "Creator", but my Grandmother certainly didn"t think of it as a conscious being, some of my maternal relatives do, others don"t.

It's clear why humans want to lean in that direction, because we are conscious beings (clear bias), it's more comfortable to think that reality is rooted in a conscious being. However, if you look at the situation objectively, there is no reason why this has to be the case.

There are a lot of people who look at the situation objectively and do see reasons why this has to be the case. Some scientists are trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and others are trying to reduce consciousness to matter, we seem to be caught in one big loop. Quantum physics tells us that particles exist as probability waves that only collapse into physically reality when a measurement is taken or when an observation is made. This certainly raises the question of where possibilities exist; the only place we know of possibilities existing is in a mind. If possibility waves require an observer to collapse into a physically reality, then quantum physics can certainly be understood to imply that consciousness is fundamental to the existence of physical reality, this raises the possibility that some sort of consciousness is needed to make the universe actual, as it relates to a universal beginning, that would necessitate some kind of cosmic consciousness, a consciousness without a body. John Wheeler and Henry Stapp are two quantum physicists that believe consciousness is a fundamental aspect of physical reality that must have been present for there to be an actual physical universe.

The fact is, reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions being raised here, the "God hypothesis" as you call it, is not logically coercive, it"s a matter of faith, but for those who choose it, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose. The theistic conclusion in no way seeks to be a rival to scientific explanation but rather it aims to complement that explanation by setting it within a wider and more profound context and understanding.

I think it all comes down to whether or not you think that consciousness is primary or not, and I look at the situation objectively and find that it is. Everything we know is appropriated mentally; the only thing we know with certainty is that we are conscious beings, Cogito Ergo Sum, so to speak. The thing we call objective reality is secondary. All knowledge of anything outside of mind is contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there"; our only evidence that there even is a universe or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of an objective reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what is out there. What we take as the reality outside of us, outside of consciousness, the so-called objective reality, is a construct that is the "presumed" cause of our sensations. We can only presume that something is "out there" causing these sensations that we are having "in here". The only knowledge that is immediate is "in here", in our consciousness, that is the only thing we know directly.

Maybe the inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly, unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

All evidence points to consciousness being secondary. Consciousness as far as we know, is produced by a complex brain which takes billions of years to evolve. The universe, stars, and all the galaxies existed far before we did. If consciousness is so important, why wasn't there consciousness sooner? You could say God existed sooner, but of course, there is no evidence for this. I'm going off what can be verified.


I"m not trying to convince you, that"s not my gig, but your style of posting about theism seems to attempt to put theists on the defensive, and that is my defense of the position.

I would just like to know what makes consciousness so special. Just because we have it and it's all we really know? Doesn't sound like a convincing reason, it's just solipsism.

I do in fact look at the situation objectively, and I will agree that there is no reason why this has to be the case, but that is not to say that there are no reason for it to be the case, I do have my reasons. Both positions are a matter of faith, the theistic conclusion may not be logically coercive, but that does not mean it isn"t logical, there are indeed logical reasons to arrive at the theistic conclusion and they are consistent with an understanding of science.

Too bad I haven't seen any.


Like I said in my previous post, the Big Bang could have just been a transition, instead of a beginning from nothing (there is no evidence, that the universe came from nothing).

I think there"s evidence that nothing can"t exist actually, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it physically impossible. As a tool of cognition, "nothing" can be useful, but it doesn't, and never has existed.

What was there "pre" Big Bang? Perhaps a timeless, static, pre-universe, which contained everything needed for nature to exist, but isn't yet nature itself. It could be in this pre-universe's nature, to break symmetry and cause a finite universe to exist spontaneously. If that was the case, the universe could be all that exists, with the pre-universe now converted to the expanding universe. Do I believe this? No. I'm just making a point that there could be mechanisms that science cannot explain responsible for our universe, but there is no reason to think a conscious being is responsible.

There are plenty of reasons to think a conscious being is responsible and most people do.

It's possible science can explain our universe, if we ever get a unified theory.

Don"t hold your breath on that one.

However, I see no reason to give a leg up to the God hypothesis.

I guess it comes down to how you define the "God Hypothesis", it"s pretty clear that science is telling us that we live in a contingent reality, it resolutely points to a transcendent dimension of some sort in which this reality is embedded, but our ideas about that transcendent reality will necessarily be speculative, provisional, and inadequate. Whether or not you call it God is a choice, but for those who do think in those terms, it will reflect our ideas about value, meaning, and purpose in our speculation about the nature of a self-existent source of the universe as we see that universe in the light of the best available scientific knowledge. The choice is not between science and theism; I think it is a choice to align that speculation with an experiential reality that includes the disc
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 9:49:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 1:50:22 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/5/2013 10:03:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I never said the cause could be explained by science. I just simply pointed out that there are plenty of other explanations which have nothing to do with a conscious being.

Yeah, that"s what I was pointing out too, it"s why I said it could "only be described by analogy", and that "it could not be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference, and therefore it could never be fully grasped in any fixed form". Not everybody thinks of God as a conscious being, "Unetlanvhi" roughly translates to "Creator", but my Grandmother certainly didn"t think of it as a conscious being, some of my maternal relatives do, others don"t.

It's clear why humans want to lean in that direction, because we are conscious beings (clear bias), it's more comfortable to think that reality is rooted in a conscious being. However, if you look at the situation objectively, there is no reason why this has to be the case.

There are a lot of people who look at the situation objectively and do see reasons why this has to be the case. Some scientists are trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and others are trying to reduce consciousness to matter, we seem to be caught in one big loop. Quantum physics tells us that particles exist as probability waves that only collapse into physically reality when a measurement is taken or when an observation is made. This certainly raises the question of where possibilities exist; the only place we know of possibilities existing is in a mind. If possibility waves require an observer to collapse into a physically reality, then quantum physics can certainly be understood to imply that consciousness is fundamental to the existence of physical reality, this raises the possibility that some sort of consciousness is needed to make the universe actual, as it relates to a universal beginning, that would necessitate some kind of cosmic consciousness, a consciousness without a body. John Wheeler and Henry Stapp are two quantum physicists that believe consciousness is a fundamental aspect of physical reality that must have been present for there to be an actual physical universe.

The fact is, reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions being raised here, the "God hypothesis" as you call it, is not logically coercive, it"s a matter of faith, but for those who choose it, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose. The theistic conclusion in no way seeks to be a rival to scientific explanation but rather it aims to complement that explanation by setting it within a wider and more profound context and understanding.

I think it all comes down to whether or not you think that consciousness is primary or not, and I look at the situation objectively and find that it is. Everything we know is appropriated mentally; the only thing we know with certainty is that we are conscious beings, Cogito Ergo Sum, so to speak. The thing we call objective reality is secondary. All knowledge of anything outside of mind is contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there"; our only evidence that there even is a universe or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of an objective reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what is out there. What we take as the reality outside of us, outside of consciousness, the so-called objective reality, is a construct that is the "presumed" cause of our sensations. We can only presume that something is "out there" causing these sensations that we are having "in here". The only knowledge that is immediate is "in here", in our consciousness, that is the only thing we know directly.

Maybe the inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly, unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

I"m not trying to convince you, that"s not my gig, but your style of posting about theism seems to attempt to put theists on the defensive, and that is my defense of the position. I do in fact look at the situation objectively, and I will agree that there is no reason why this has to be the case, but that is not to say that there are no reason for it to be the case, I do have my reasons. Both positions are a matter of faith, the theistic conclusion may not be logically coercive, but that does not mean it isn"t logical, there are indeed logical reasons to arrive at the theistic conclusion and they are consistent with an understanding of science.

Like I said in my previous post, the Big Bang could have just been a transition, instead of a beginning from nothing (there is no evidence, that the universe came from nothing).

I think there"s evidence that nothing can"t exist actually, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it physically impossible. As a tool of cognition, "nothing" can be useful, but it doesn't, and never has existed.

What was there "pre" Big Bang? Perhaps a timeless, static, pre-universe, which contained everything needed for nature to exist, but isn't yet nature itself. It could be in this pre-universe's nature, to break symmetry and cause a finite universe to exist spontaneously. If that was the case, the universe could be all that exists, with the pre-universe now converted to the expanding universe. Do I believe this? No. I'm just making a point that there could be mechanisms that science cannot explain responsible for our universe, but there is no reason to think a conscious being is responsible.

There are plenty of reasons to think a conscious being is responsible

I mean convincing reasons. So far, all you have done is bastardize quantum mechanics and appeal to solipsism.

and most people do.

Of course. We are conscious beings, so it's comfortable to assume that reality is rooted in a conscious being. The point is, there are no actual good reasons for this belief (at least, your two arguments didn't contain any).


It's possible science can explain our universe, if we ever get a unified theory.

Don"t hold your breath on that one.

Why not? Most scientists believe a unified theory will be found.


However, I see no reason to give a leg up to the God hypothesis.

I guess it comes down to how you define the "God Hypothesis", it"s pretty clear that science is telling us that we live in a contingent reality, it resolutely points to a transcendent dimension of some sort in which this reality is embedded

No. The universe could have been contingent upon a pre-universe, but then there could have been a transition, meaning that all that would exist now is the universe. There need not be any "outside" the universe.

, but our ideas about that transcendent reality will necessarily be speculative, provisional, and inadequate. Whether or not you call it God is a choice, but for those who do think in those terms, it will reflect our ideas about value, meaning, and purpose in our speculation about the nature of a self-existent source of the universe as we see that universe in the light of the best available scientific knowledge. The choice is not between science and theism; I think it is a choice to align that speculation with an experiential reality that includes the dis
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 9:54:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 1:50:22 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/5/2013 10:03:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I never said the cause could be explained by science. I just simply pointed out that there are plenty of other explanations which have nothing to do with a conscious being.

Yeah, that"s what I was pointing out too, it"s why I said it could "only be described by analogy", and that "it could not be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference, and therefore it could never be fully grasped in any fixed form". Not everybody thinks of God as a conscious being, "Unetlanvhi" roughly translates to "Creator", but my Grandmother certainly didn"t think of it as a conscious being, some of my maternal relatives do, others don"t.

It's clear why humans want to lean in that direction, because we are conscious beings (clear bias), it's more comfortable to think that reality is rooted in a conscious being. However, if you look at the situation objectively, there is no reason why this has to be the case.

There are a lot of people who look at the situation objectively and do see reasons why this has to be the case. Some scientists are trying to reduce matter to consciousness, and others are trying to reduce consciousness to matter, we seem to be caught in one big loop. Quantum physics tells us that particles exist as probability waves that only collapse into physically reality when a measurement is taken or when an observation is made. This certainly raises the question of where possibilities exist; the only place we know of possibilities existing is in a mind. If possibility waves require an observer to collapse into a physically reality, then quantum physics can certainly be understood to imply that consciousness is fundamental to the existence of physical reality, this raises the possibility that some sort of consciousness is needed to make the universe actual, as it relates to a universal beginning, that would necessitate some kind of cosmic consciousness, a consciousness without a body. John Wheeler and Henry Stapp are two quantum physicists that believe consciousness is a fundamental aspect of physical reality that must have been present for there to be an actual physical universe.

The fact is, reality is always going to be ambiguous regarding the questions being raised here, the "God hypothesis" as you call it, is not logically coercive, it"s a matter of faith, but for those who choose it, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the broadest possible band of human experience, of uniting in a single account, the rich and many layered encounter that we have with a reality that is experienced as full of value, meaning, and purpose. The theistic conclusion in no way seeks to be a rival to scientific explanation but rather it aims to complement that explanation by setting it within a wider and more profound context and understanding.

I think it all comes down to whether or not you think that consciousness is primary or not, and I look at the situation objectively and find that it is. Everything we know is appropriated mentally; the only thing we know with certainty is that we are conscious beings, Cogito Ergo Sum, so to speak. The thing we call objective reality is secondary. All knowledge of anything outside of mind is contingent upon some constructive cognitive process projected "out there"; our only evidence that there even is a universe or reality "out there" comes from a "presumption", the existence of an objective reality is inferred at best. By inference we presume that there must be something out there causing these sensations, and then we mentally construct a model of what is out there. What we take as the reality outside of us, outside of consciousness, the so-called objective reality, is a construct that is the "presumed" cause of our sensations. We can only presume that something is "out there" causing these sensations that we are having "in here". The only knowledge that is immediate is "in here", in our consciousness, that is the only thing we know directly.

Maybe the inversion mistake is this presumption that the "out there" is first and foremost, and the "in here" is secondary, and we are mistakenly calling the inference real, and calling the only reality we know directly, unreal. Objective and subjective are misleading terms, perhaps what is truly subjective is this presumption that what we call objective, out there, is more real than what we know directly in here.

I"m not trying to convince you, that"s not my gig, but your style of posting about theism seems to attempt to put theists on the defensive, and that is my defense of the position. I do in fact look at the situation objectively, and I will agree that there is no reason why this has to be the case, but that is not to say that there are no reason for it to be the case, I do have my reasons. Both positions are a matter of faith, the theistic conclusion may not be logically coercive, but that does not mean it isn"t logical, there are indeed logical reasons to arrive at the theistic conclusion and they are consistent with an understanding of science.

Like I said in my previous post, the Big Bang could have just been a transition, instead of a beginning from nothing (there is no evidence, that the universe came from nothing).

I think there"s evidence that nothing can"t exist actually, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it physically impossible. As a tool of cognition, "nothing" can be useful, but it doesn't, and never has existed.

What was there "pre" Big Bang? Perhaps a timeless, static, pre-universe, which contained everything needed for nature to exist, but isn't yet nature itself. It could be in this pre-universe's nature, to break symmetry and cause a finite universe to exist spontaneously. If that was the case, the universe could be all that exists, with the pre-universe now converted to the expanding universe. Do I believe this? No. I'm just making a point that there could be mechanisms that science cannot explain responsible for our universe, but there is no reason to think a conscious being is responsible.

There are plenty of reasons to think a conscious being is responsible and most people do.

It's possible science can explain our universe, if we ever get a unified theory.

Don"t hold your breath on that one.

However, I see no reason to give a leg up to the God hypothesis.

I guess it comes down to how you define the "God Hypothesis", it"s pretty clear that science is telling us that we live in a contingent reality, it resolutely points to a transcendent dimension of some sort in which this reality is embedded,

but our ideas about that transcendent reality will necessarily be speculative, provisional, and inadequate. Whether or not you call it God is a choice, but for those who do think in those terms, it will reflect our ideas about value, meaning, and purpose in our speculation about the nature of a self-existent source of the universe as we see that universe in the light of the best available scientific knowledge. The choice is not between science and theism; I think it is a choice to align that speculation with an experiential reality that includes the discernment of values, meaning, and purpose.

Purpose, values, and meaning only have meaning subjectively to conscious beings like us. Objectively, there may not be any purpose to the universe at all. For all we know, we could just be viruses like creatures who consume energy and replicate until we get wiped off, and the universe is better off without us. Consciousness could just be a tool for survival, and in the grand scheme of things, has no primary function. It just seems to obvious that humans place this important on consciousness because we are conscious. It's so biased it's disgusting.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 11:17:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because I can't think of anything else
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 11:26:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 2:46:42 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/6/2013 2:24:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Actually, I just really enjoy it and it was relevant.

But I suppose the "enlightening" bit would be the part about "saving a step". Which essentially just Occam's Razor.

Well then it's a misapplication of Occam's Razor, which says not to posit causes beyond necessity. But if we have an absolute origin from nothing, which is what Sagan periodically affirms (Big Bang), then we would seem to require a first cause. His only reservation here is the toe-curling question of what caused the first cause, which is a meaningless question! It's a first cause! Der.

Creating an idea of God to explain the universe is an unnecessary step when the cause for such a God could just as easily be applied to the universe itself in the first place.

Then the universe came into being from nothing.. right, I don't think atheists can call theists deluded any longer with such reasoning. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.

Is it simpler to say the universe was uncaused out of nothing -I'll grant it for the argument's sake- or that it was caused by a super intelligent, super powerful, all loving, trinitarian, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, merciful, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true being?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 11:32:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 11:26:16 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 2:46:42 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/6/2013 2:24:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Actually, I just really enjoy it and it was relevant.

But I suppose the "enlightening" bit would be the part about "saving a step". Which essentially just Occam's Razor.

Well then it's a misapplication of Occam's Razor, which says not to posit causes beyond necessity. But if we have an absolute origin from nothing, which is what Sagan periodically affirms (Big Bang), then we would seem to require a first cause. His only reservation here is the toe-curling question of what caused the first cause, which is a meaningless question! It's a first cause! Der.

Creating an idea of God to explain the universe is an unnecessary step when the cause for such a God could just as easily be applied to the universe itself in the first place.

Then the universe came into being from nothing.. right, I don't think atheists can call theists deluded any longer with such reasoning. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.

Is it simpler to say the universe was uncaused out of nothing -I'll grant it for the argument's sake- or that it was caused by a super intelligent, super powerful, all loving, trinitarian, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, merciful, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true being?

Hey, hey.. If you want to use that word you better not use those other words there!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 11:39:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 11:26:16 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 2:46:42 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/6/2013 2:24:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Actually, I just really enjoy it and it was relevant.

But I suppose the "enlightening" bit would be the part about "saving a step". Which essentially just Occam's Razor.

Well then it's a misapplication of Occam's Razor, which says not to posit causes beyond necessity. But if we have an absolute origin from nothing, which is what Sagan periodically affirms (Big Bang), then we would seem to require a first cause. His only reservation here is the toe-curling question of what caused the first cause, which is a meaningless question! It's a first cause! Der.

Creating an idea of God to explain the universe is an unnecessary step when the cause for such a God could just as easily be applied to the universe itself in the first place.

Then the universe came into being from nothing.. right, I don't think atheists can call theists deluded any longer with such reasoning. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.

Is it simpler to say the universe was uncaused out of nothing -I'll grant it for the argument's sake- or that it was caused by a super intelligent, super powerful, all loving, trinitarian, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, merciful, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true being?

Well, to be fair, it's not possible for the universe to have emerged uncaused out of nothing.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 11:48:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 11:39:29 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 11:26:16 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 2:46:42 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/6/2013 2:24:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Actually, I just really enjoy it and it was relevant.

But I suppose the "enlightening" bit would be the part about "saving a step". Which essentially just Occam's Razor.

Well then it's a misapplication of Occam's Razor, which says not to posit causes beyond necessity. But if we have an absolute origin from nothing, which is what Sagan periodically affirms (Big Bang), then we would seem to require a first cause. His only reservation here is the toe-curling question of what caused the first cause, which is a meaningless question! It's a first cause! Der.

Creating an idea of God to explain the universe is an unnecessary step when the cause for such a God could just as easily be applied to the universe itself in the first place.

Then the universe came into being from nothing.. right, I don't think atheists can call theists deluded any longer with such reasoning. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.

Is it simpler to say the universe was uncaused out of nothing -I'll grant it for the argument's sake- or that it was caused by a super intelligent, super powerful, all loving, trinitarian, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, merciful, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true being?

Well, to be fair, it's not possible for the universe to have emerged uncaused out of nothing.

This is the first time I've heard an atheist say this on this site so far...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 12:02:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 11:48:25 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/6/2013 11:39:29 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 11:26:16 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 2:46:42 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/6/2013 2:24:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Actually, I just really enjoy it and it was relevant.

But I suppose the "enlightening" bit would be the part about "saving a step". Which essentially just Occam's Razor.

Well then it's a misapplication of Occam's Razor, which says not to posit causes beyond necessity. But if we have an absolute origin from nothing, which is what Sagan periodically affirms (Big Bang), then we would seem to require a first cause. His only reservation here is the toe-curling question of what caused the first cause, which is a meaningless question! It's a first cause! Der.

Creating an idea of God to explain the universe is an unnecessary step when the cause for such a God could just as easily be applied to the universe itself in the first place.

Then the universe came into being from nothing.. right, I don't think atheists can call theists deluded any longer with such reasoning. Sorry, but I don't have that kind of faith.

Is it simpler to say the universe was uncaused out of nothing -I'll grant it for the argument's sake- or that it was caused by a super intelligent, super powerful, all loving, trinitarian, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, merciful, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true being?

Well, to be fair, it's not possible for the universe to have emerged uncaused out of nothing.

This is the first time I've heard an atheist say this on this site so far...

I consider myself and Agnostic, not an Atheist.