Snakeystew
Registered: 04/04/08
Posts: 2,755
|
| | 08/23/09 at 08:14 PM | Reply with quote | #136 |
|
Quote: I don't find much that is beautiful about predation. But, I don't find much that is beautiful in mining the materials that eventually are constructed into art supplies. What's your point?
Wasn't my point, was you that said it was "beautiful". I suppose of course saying "food" does come across better than saying 'predation' but then I thought it pertinent to put 'food' in its proper context.
Oh, just incase there was confusion, you said the world was 'downright beautiful' and used food as an example. Is, in your view, food [ergo predation], a pertinent example to use in claiming that this world is 'downright beautiful'? If so, I ask the question again, (although your answer is apparently not much at all).
Quote: Are you saying that art is necessarily not beautiful because sourcing the materials is not necessarily beautiful?
Seemingly I have no idea what you even mean by "beautiful" and how, should you find some art piece 'beautiful', it has any relevance to a claim that gods exist.
Quote: As long as they live long enough to have healthy babies that are themselves able to live long enough to have healthy babies, why does it matter from a natural selection point of view?
With respect but you'll find in the 'tougher' areas, that doesn't happen. In Mali for instance the mortality rate <5 is 218 per 1000 children born. That's almost 1 in every 4 children that dies before they reach the age of 5.
However, this is inconsequential to the point. You question why there are so many fine foods to enjoy - and the answer to that has been provided. In a system that works on survival and predation, you would expect evolution, (or complete non-existence).
Quote: it is not necessary that humans have the wide variety of delicious and enjoyable foods and other ingredients that make life such a joyous experience who are in the fortunate position in history, circumstances, etc. to enjoy such variety and spices of life.
It is an inevitable outcome of evolution and of living organisms seeking out food - hence typically living in life abundant regions as opposed to icebergs. Taste buds have evolved to help us determine what to eat in order that we get the needed nutrients and hence survive.
Quote: Your argument seems to deny the whole notion of beauty, which I think is a weak argument given that I've already made the point that beauty contains objective features that are even found in mathematics.
Sorry, you'll have to explain to me what "beauty" even means with regards to a lamb chop, (it probably isn't quite as "beautiful" to a vegetarian [or the lamb] as it might be to you). If you'd like to provide me the objective details regarding aesthetics then please go ahead but I don't see an argument here. That we - whom need to eat other living organisms - find them to be beautiful, (which helps our survival a lot more than finding them sickening), isn't saying a great deal. Ok, we find lamb chops to be beautiful [once we've applied all the extras, put them in the oven and arranged them in delicate patterns on the plate]. What is the point?
Your last bit was some irrelevant complaint about the individual which would be better off sent by email.
Let me see if I've understood your original statement properly. You are seemingly saying that we don't need countless different types of food and hence, because we have countless different types of food... god exists. Right?
So basically, it's akin to saying that we don't need a ten inch winky and so - by having a ten inch winky.. god exists. I suppose by having a three inch winky, (I don't mean to get personal), you'd be evidence that god's don't exist? (Not suggesting you do, merely making the point).
|
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/23/09 at 09:16 PM | Reply with quote | #137 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
When and if you are ready to discuss that post respectfully, you can post your response and see whether I am still interested. You will have to address what I consider to be the major flaw in your argument. In almost every instance you were addressing natural selection, and I was addressing the fundamental laws of the universe. Until you address my actual argument, you're way out in left field in your replies. |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/23/09 at 09:26 PM | Reply with quote | #138 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ibelcaniva
I'm not really sure how any of those things indicate an asserted certainty in God's existence. Recall that faith refers to the "assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things unseen." While it is, for an epistemological point of view, utterly impossible to definitively know 100% that God exists according to Christian doctrine, I think most people would suffice for a fair justification (say, a reasonable philosophical argument which at the very least establishes God as a reasonably likely possibility) and a personal revelation. I'm not really sure what you think of personal experiences of God, but many Christians I know find their certainty in those rather than in wordy philosophical arguments, because the former is certainly more of a human experience.
If you can talk about a "personal experience of God," obviously, God must exist. Otherwise, you could not have a personal experience of him. It seems to me that this would be your answer to my question re what is your evidence for God. However, one cannot just make a statement, "I experienced God." One must also define what this experience is like and how one knows that what one experienced was God and not something else.
Quote: You hit the nail on the head when you say Christians act as if God existed, even if they have doubts.
You are to be commended for your honesty. No Christians I have known allow room for doubt; they condemn doubt as the devices of the devil. I think I've seen posts on these forums in which Christians said one either believes or does not believe--that there is no such thing as not knowing. I know they are wrong when it regards people leaving Christianity but that does not keep the Christians from making these presumptuous statements.
I've seen Christians on these forums express doubt, but always in the context of something that needs to be overcome, or as a weakness. Once I shared this with a group of atheists and agnostics and they were astonished that any Christians would admit to doubt. Note the word "admit." We can believe that doubt exists but Christians never admit of it.
Quote: Again, this reflects Paul's definition of faith. Consider all the philosophy and apologetics we know to make up the category of "things hoped for."
For the most part, I try to stay away from terms like "imaginary friend," or "wishful thinking." But this phrase "things hoped for" directly appeals to such terminology, i.e. you hope for it--you are wishing it were true but you really have no way of actually knowing for sure. In the KJV, on which I was raised, that verse says, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
So you've got the word "evidence" in there. If you've got evidence for something, you've got proof for it--solid, tangible proof. But Paul never gets around to taking it beyond that assertion. I've read the NT many times over and nowhere does Paul, or any other NT writer, explain faith beyond this. People in the Bible--Old and New Testaments--do all kinds of things because they trust God. The NT explains this. God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son and Abraham prepares to do it. In the nick of time, God stops him and takes his willingness as the deed.
In another story a man promises God to sacrifice the first one to meet him on his return if God grants him victory in a certain battle. The man wins the battle and his daughter comes to meet him. He is obligated to sacrifice his daughter in human sacrifice. This story comes much later in the OT than the Abraham and Isaac story. The Abraham and Isaac story is repeated in the NT and in sermons today; the other is not.
We are told that the Abraham story is God's way of telling us that human sacrifice is wrong, so why did the other guy so much later have to kill his only daughter who was also his only child? To just say "God moves in mysterious ways" or "God's ways are past finding out," or some other such platitude, is not sufficient for this kind of monstrous inconsistency. The most logical conclusion would be that there is no god to dictate human morals and behaviour and that both these men--Abraham and this later guy (whose name I don't remember)--just followed their own inner convictions and intuitive hunches.
The writer of Hebrews explains in great detail how the rituals and figures of Solomon's Temple are fulfilled in Jesus. What that writer fails utterly to explain is why God needs a sacrifice to begin with--why a perfect and almighty God cannot just forgive us like you and I have to forgive each other WITHOUT a sacrifice to pacify him. Nor does any other NT writer, or later theologian, explain it. We humans consider it a mark of maturity if we can forgive and overlook the failings in each other. Why must God not meet the same criteria for maturity? This is why exChristians so often refer to the Christian God as a two-year-old throwing a temper tantrum.
Quote: Faith is the act by which one realizes, usually through personal revelation, that though one may never be able to know for sure, they take a leap toward to positive (as Kierkegaard says-a "leap of faith").
This does not jibe with another argument I see a lot on here. Christians love to argue that the apostles would not have allowed themselves to be martyred if they had not known for sure that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. And for the bodily resurrection of Jesus to have occurred in history, we all know that the existence of God is presupposed. At least, I have yet to hear of an atheist NT scholar who believes that Jesus' resurrection is historical. I know of NT scholars who are professing Christians who do not believe the resurrection occurred in history but not of atheists who believe it did. That kind of argument is simply not made by people who readily admit of doubt regarding the reality of God's existence. This is so much the case that I suspect you of stretching the truth in making this statement.
Quote: I think that is why people devote so much to God: because they feel that though they cannot ever fully justify God's existence in a purely logical sense (which is to say, due to the limits on human reasoning, not that no cogent philosophical argument for God's existence exists) their personal experience gives them the assurance of that for which they hope.
Human reasoning is not the only means by which we know things. I know my computer exists because I can experience it via the senses. I'm not sure how I can justify belief in my computer's existence via logic. If no natural explanation could be found for things such as thunder and the light of day, it would make sense to think that thunder is God's voice and that light is his eye. But even primitive man could observe that clouds and thunder were related, and that light of day and the sun had a great deal in common. To conclude that a Being existed behind the clouds and sun required a large amount of abstract thinking.
According to cave paintings, Cave Man was quite capable of such abstract thinking ten thousand years ago. For the Egyptians and ancient Israelites to come up with deities five and three thousand years ago was but child's play. For some reason, educated humans still like to cling to the ancient deities. Gods die hard. Also, a batch of new deities and gods were introduced from about five to two thousand years ago. Biblegod and Jesus are among these.
And you emphasize that it is assurance that people seek, hope. Sounds like wishful thinking. Well, for me it's like Carl Sagan says: It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is... Somehow, I do better in dealing with reality than with conjuring up pretend entities and hoping/wishing they are for real at the end of the road.
If, at some point in time, you can provide evidence to prove these entities are for real, I'm open to investigating it. But you got to remember I have already investigated an awful lot so you need to provide something of which I have not already done an exhaustive investigation.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/23/09 at 09:30 PM | Reply with quote | #139 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Snakeystew
I suppose of course saying "food" does come across better than saying 'predation' but then I thought it pertinent to put 'food' in its proper context.
Quote: Originally Posted by snakeystew
Seemingly I have no idea what you even mean by "beautiful" and how, should you find some art piece 'beautiful', it has any relevance to a claim that gods exist.
If there is beauty in the world, and it is not necessary that there be such beauty, then this is evidence that God exists since we live in a wonderous world filled with beauty. As far as a definition of beauty, I suggest that you look it up in the dictionary or encyclopedia.
Quote: Originally Posted by snakeystew
With respect but you'll find in the 'tougher' areas, that doesn't happen. In Mali for instance the mortality rate <5 is 218 per 1000 children born. That's almost 1 in every 4 children that dies before they reach the age of 5.
Humans have consistently habitated areas in the far northern areas of the earth for thousands of years with very few food resources.
Quote: Originally Posted by Snakeystew
However, this is inconsequential to the point. You question why there are so many fine foods to enjoy - and the answer to that has been provided. In a system that works on survival and predation, you would expect evolution, (or complete non-existence).
So, are you saying it is necessary that the number of food staples be in the thousands for intelligent beings to evolve? It's really a simple question which you've given a few contradictory answers to already.
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/23/09 at 09:44 PM | Reply with quote | #140 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
When and if you are ready to discuss that post respectfully, you can post your response and see whether I am still interested. You will have to address what I consider to be the major flaw in your argument. In almost every instance you were addressing natural selection, and I was addressing the fundamental laws of the universe. Until you address my actual argument, you're way out in left field in your replies.
Okay, I'll have look at it again sometime when I have a large block of time available. In the mean time, I am not sure what you mean by the "fundamental laws of the universe." I have not heard that any such thing is known to humans, i.e. based on what I have read and heard from lectures, I am of the impression that no unified theory has yet been found to tie together all the various theories of the various disciplines required to describe how the known universe works. I understand that it is very much a work in progress, and that scientists do not expect this work to be completed in this generation. But each generation contributes its own share and with time more can be known. Maybe when I read it again I'll get it figured out.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
ibelcaniva
Registered: 05/22/08
Posts: 436
|
| | 08/23/09 at 09:49 PM | Reply with quote | #141 |
|
RS, I've read your post and will get back to you, however it's rather long so it shall not be tonight.
|
| Loading... | |
Snakeystew
Registered: 04/04/08
Posts: 2,755
|
| | 08/23/09 at 09:54 PM | Reply with quote | #142 |
|
Quote: Food is more than predation
Well no - 'food' is nothing more than predation whereas art is certainly more than charcoal.
Quote: If there is beauty in the world, and it is not necessary that there be such beauty, then this is evidence that God exists since we live in a wonderous world filled with beauty.
I see, so if something is not necessary, god exists. Toilet paper is not necesary - we could just use leaves and hence the fact that toilet paper exists is evidence that gods exist? Sorry, you've lost me.
Quote: As far as a definition of beauty, I suggest that you look it up in the dictionary or encyclopedia
Done. None of them seem to imply anything objective.
Quote: Humans have consistently habitated areas in the far northern areas of the earth for thousands of years with very few food resources.
Certainly - and have consistently died at very young ages.
Quote: So, are you saying it is necessary that the number of food staples be in the thousands for intelligent beings to evolve?
No, I am saying that when you have entities that are A) food sources, and B) want to survive, you will find evolution occurs and hence.. many food sources. Out of those entities that exist, we can't eat the mass majority, (or can but wont get any value from doing so). That we can eat a miniscule few of those millions of existing entitites is not evidence that gods exist, it's simply evidence that things evolve.. and, by being omnivores, we'll make the most of what exists and is suitable.
Quote: It's really a simple question which you've given a few contradictory answers to already.
Easy to make claims, kindly point them out.
I notice you missed the last bit which focused on your entire argument. It is unnecessary that we have a ten inch penis and so - by certain individuals having one, it is "evidence" that god exists. In saying, anyone that has a three inch one is clearly evidence that god's don't.
Think of your argument. You say that an abundance of unnecessary food is evidence of gods and so - by your own argument, a lack of unnecessary foods is evidence that gods don't exist.
It doesn't actually make any sense.
|
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/24/09 at 07:49 AM | Reply with quote | #143 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Snakeystew
Well no - 'food' is nothing more than predation whereas art is certainly more than charcoal.
Quote: Originally Posted by Snakeystew
I see, so if something is not necessary, god exists. Toilet paper is not necesary - we could just use leaves and hence the fact that toilet paper exists is evidence that gods exist? Sorry, you've lost me.
Nope. If something possesses a high degree of extraordinary design (e.g., a beautiful structure), it either exists by random brute fact or by intention. If we have a long combination of extraordinary design (e.g., the other 9 arguments that I presented), then we are required by reason to dismiss random brute facts.
Quote: Originally Posted by Snakeystew
None of them seem to imply anything objective.
I said you can use the dictionary or encyclopedia to define the notion of beauty. As for objectivity, answer my question, are mathematicians and physicists (e.g., Paul Dirac) imaging things when they say that there is real beauty in mathematical and physical equations?
Quote: Originally Posted by SnakeystewQuote: Humans have consistently habitated areas in the far northern areas of the earth for thousands of years with very few food resources. Certainly - and have consistently died at very young ages.
That's too bad since humans and many of their hominid relatives evolved during heavy glaciations in the Pleistocene.
Quote: Originally Posted by SnakeystewQuote: So, are you saying it is necessary that the number of food staples be in the thousands for intelligent beings to evolve? No, I am saying that when you have entities that are A) food sources, and B) want to survive, you will find evolution occurs and hence.. many food sources. Out of those entities that exist, we can't eat the mass majority, (or can but wont get any value from doing so). That we can eat a miniscule few of those millions of existing entitites is not evidence that gods exist, it's simply evidence that things evolve.. and, by being omnivores, we'll make the most of what exists and is suitable.
So, it is necessary that there are thousands of food staples, or it is not necessary?
Quote: Originally Posted by Snakeystew
Think of your argument. You say that an abundance of unnecessary food is evidence of gods and so - by your own argument, a lack of unnecessary foods is evidence that gods don't exist. It doesn't actually make any sense.
No. If we live in a world where choices are few, e.g., under ten, twenty, fifty, then we live in a world which is more consistent without the existence of God. However, by living in a world where variety is abundant and beautiful, then this suggests an intentional mechanism that generates this abundance and beauty.
|
| Loading... | |
hawke123
Registered: 01/29/09
Posts: 669
|
| | 08/24/09 at 09:14 PM | Reply with quote | #144 |
|
Harvey1,
Do tell, how do you maintain patience and composure?
__________________
"Ultimately, the problem with man is not the absence of evidence, it is the suppression of it." - Ravi Zacharias
“Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies [are] so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it.” - Blaise Pascal |
| Loading... | |
Snakeystew
Registered: 04/04/08
Posts: 2,755
|
| | 08/24/09 at 09:46 PM | Reply with quote | #145 |
|
Quote: False. Food includes ingredients
Really??!
Come now harvey1, work out the point.
Quote: If something possesses a high degree of extraordinary design (e.g., a beautiful structure), it either exists by random brute fact or by intention.
On what basis have you established that something is "high degree of extraordinary design" or beautiful for that matter? Should I assume you're not talking about anal cancer?
Quote: I said you can use the dictionary or encyclopedia to define the notion of beauty. As for objectivity, answer my question, are mathematicians and physicists (e.g., Paul Dirac) imaging things when they say that there is real beauty in mathematical and physical equations?
Yes, their perception of beauty is a subjective thing.
While we're on the subject of answering questions... Try it out one day.
Quote: That's too bad since humans and many of their hominid relatives evolved during heavy glaciations in the Pleistocene.
What are you trying to say with relevance to my statement?
Quote: So, it is necessary that there are thousands of food staples, or it is not necessary?
Well, necessary in that they provide survival for whatever eats them. Ok, our species don't eat or need to eat a lot of them, but of what consequence is that?
Quote: No. If we live in a world where choices are few, e.g., under ten, twenty, fifty, then we live in a world which is more consistent without the existence of God.
Support this statement please. If anything, I'd say it's the complete opposite. When you find very few food sources providing everything that we need to survive, (such as say manna from the heavens or diets astronauts survive on), we can contend that it suggests intentional, intelligent design. Kindly support your claim to it being the opposite.
If you claimed intelligent design then you wouldn't expect to have to go to such trouble to ensure your own survival, (ok it's somewhat easier now that Tesco's exists). In fact you'd expect to see one food source that provides everything you actually need, (although why you'd even need to eat, digest and then poop out the useless bits is somewhat of a mystery)
Whenever you're ready to support your claim.
Quote: However, by living in a world where variety is abundant and beautiful, then this suggests an intentional mechanism that generates this abundance and beauty
Abundance is the only thing that can be expected as long as the planet can sustain their existence and things get pregnant.
As for beauty - it's a subjective issue and utterly meaningless. Having said that, I'm somewhat unsure as to why you'd think a living organism wouldn't be attracted to that which helps ensure it's survival, (assuming that in general people find more beauty in lush, fertile regions than deserts etc).
While I am sure it is fun to base your god beliefs on watching National Geographic, it is without any actual merit. Behind the glamour of the TV lies a serious battle for survival. Blood, guts and teeth. If you find that "beautiful" that's fine but it has no value with claiming that because you think it's beautiful, that means it really is.
|
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/25/09 at 06:36 AM | Reply with quote | #146 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Snakeystew
On what basis have you established that something is "high degree of extraordinary design" or beautiful for that matter? Should I assume you're not talking about anal cancer?
Quote: Originally Posted by snakeystew
Yes, their perception of beauty is a subjective thing.
If it's subjective, then a major criterion on how mathematical and physical theories are weighed to be true is falsified. I would reject your view as poppycock.
Quote: Originally Posted by snakeystew
While we're on the subject of answering questions... Try it out one day.
Focus, Snakeystew. Focus. If you have one or two central points/questions, then make them, and then exit stage right.
Quote: Originally Posted by snakeystewQuote: So, it is necessary that there are thousands of food staples, or it is not necessary? Well, necessary in that they provide survival for whatever eats them. Ok, our species don't eat or need to eat a lot of them, but of what consequence is that?
Here we go again. You give contradictory answers. Necessary -- oh, did I say necessary? -- I meant not necessary. Is it necessary that the actual world has thousands of staples for evolving intelligent species at approximately our level of technology? Yes or no?
Sorry, I would answer more questions once you decide what are the main issues here for you. My whole point here is on necessity and beauty. I've worded my questions precisely. What is your exact argument in one or two sentences? I don't have the time to watch this discussion build up into a novelette.
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/26/09 at 11:36 PM | Reply with quote | #147 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
When and if you are ready to discuss that post respectfully, you can post your response and see whether I am still interested. You will have to address what I consider to be the major flaw in your argument. In almost every instance you were addressing natural selection, and I was addressing the fundamental laws of the universe. Until you address my actual argument, you're way out in left field in your replies.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt here and allowing you to think my main argument is natural selection. That was one of my points but not the only one--and not the most important one. Be that as it may, in four of your ten arguments you claim that atheism believes the universe originates via "blind processes." Given that forty percent of your arguments listed "blind processes," you can hardly blame me for making "natural selection" an important part of my rebuttal. Natural selection is anything but blind, i.e. random, processes. See above post.
You fail to comment on the "possible worlds" part of my answer.
My main argument is that your view of the atheist understanding of the origins of the universe is wrong. Possibly some uneducated atheists think it is a random or blind process. (This might call for a definition of the term "blind.") However, none of the people I have read or listened to put forth such a crazy position.
For example, let's look at this one:
Quote: 6. Either the universe is completely filled with blind causes (atheism), or it contains some intentional causes (theism, deism, pantheism). Atheists are being closed minded by rejecting the latter.
As an atheist, I believe neither of these; I reject both. I speak only for myself.
There is a fascinating pattern as one watches the universe and nature unfold, but there is no god behind it. Regarding the "fundamental laws of the universe." That is just a fancy way of saying "the natural world proves God's existence." One of my central points of the other posts was that you're wrong. The natural world does not prove the existence of God.
From Argument 4:
Quote:
Thus, we have very good reason to believe in God.
You have nothing more than a "good reason"??? I'm asking for evidence, sir--good solid tangible evidence. And all you're giving me is philosophical reasons???
As I keep repeating on these forums, there are natural explanations for almost everything, and it is reasonable to think that natural explanations will be found for the few remaining items. Sticking the "god did it" answer on the questions is not honest. To provide evidence for God you need to come up with an honest answer. So far, Christians have come up empty. We're beyond nine pages by now.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/27/09 at 06:54 AM | Reply with quote | #148 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
Be that as it may, in four of your ten arguments you claim that atheism believes the universe originates via "blind processes." Given that forty percent of your arguments listed "blind processes," you can hardly blame me for making "natural selection" an important part of my rebuttal. Natural selection is anything but blind, i.e. random, processes. See above post.
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
You fail to comment on the "possible worlds" part of my answer.
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
Intention & Possible Worlds: No intention is required for this. It is natural selection working naturally the way it naturally evolved in its environment. This being the case, the argument for "possible worlds" evaporates into so much nonsense. While it is possible that there is life elsewhere in the universe, this "possible worlds" argument has nothing to do with that theory and does not apply.
Cellular automata describe algorithmic rules that is possible for a system to operate and behave based on those rules. We're not talking about biological evolution (i.e., biological natural selection) since we're talking about the algorithms of physics that would naturally produce universes, galaxies, planets, etc. Unless there's a necessity in having the particular algorithms of physics that we observe (i.e., laws of physics), then it's possible that all of these other algorithms we observe from cellular automata "worlds" could have been in existence instead of the world that we see. If we go with the view that our laws of physics are necessary, then this refers to a metaphysical world (pantheist, deist, theist God) where the laws of physics are determined by this necessity.
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartinFrom Argument 4: Quote:
Thus, we have very good reason to believe in God.
You have nothing more than a "good reason"??? I'm asking for evidence, sir--good solid tangible evidence. And all you're giving me is philosophical reasons???
Again, physical evidence can only be interpreted within a contextual scheme (or theory). If we look at Argument 4 as a contextual scheme, then if you view the world without that contextual scheme you end up with some crazy implications: e.g., anything can happen next where the universe behaves drastically differently than what the laws of physics allow. If you view the world within this contextual scheme, then all of the successful predictions of physics confirm this viewpoint. The evidence is the annals of physics -- certainly more evidence than what one could ever hope for.
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
As I keep repeating on these forums, there are natural explanations for almost everything, and it is reasonable to think that natural explanations will be found for the few remaining items. Sticking the "god did it" answer on the questions is not honest. To provide evidence for God you need to come up with an honest answer. So far, Christians have come up empty. We're beyond nine pages by now.
You have a deep misconception here. Natural explanations are based on the laws of physics which are based on the very contextual schemes that require theism to be true. I just gave an example from Argument 4 where that contextual scheme is needed to hold that the laws of physics are indeed laws. The problem for atheists is not that they entirely reject the contextual scheme of theists, rather they are inconsistent in that rejection. It's as if one accepted monetary policy, but rejected the existence of the Fed. That would be inconsistent with monetary policy.
I wish I could explain these things such that you could understand. Might it be possible that you simply have an atheist gene?
|
| Loading... | |
lancia
Registered: 12/08/08
Posts: 744
|
| | 08/27/09 at 09:43 AM | Reply with quote | #149 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1Natural explanations are based on the laws of physics which are based on the very contextual schemes that require theism to be true. I just gave an example from Argument 4 where that contextual scheme is needed to hold that the laws of physics are indeed laws. The problem for atheists is not that they entirely reject the contextual scheme of theists, rather they are inconsistent in that rejection. It's as if one accepted monetary policy, but rejected the existence of the Fed. That would be inconsistent with monetary policy. Can you explain more fully what you mean here? It sounds like something I would like to know more about. |
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/27/09 at 07:49 PM | Reply with quote | #150 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lanciaQuote: Originally Posted by harvey1
Natural explanations are based on the laws of physics which are based on the very contextual schemes that require theism to be true. I just gave an example from Argument 4 where that contextual scheme is needed to hold that the laws of physics are indeed laws. The problem for atheists is not that they entirely reject the contextual scheme of theists, rather they are inconsistent in that rejection. It's as if one accepted monetary policy, but rejected the existence of the Fed. That would be inconsistent with monetary policy.
In any case, it's an intesting piece of history which I'll quote from Jagdish Mehra in his biography on Richard Feynman:
Quote: The principle of least action was first formulated by Maupertuis on 15 April 1744 in his scientific essay . . . And, finally, in 1746 Maupertuis proclaimed the principle of least action as the most general principle of Nature. . . In his investigations Maupertuis was looking not only for the simplest rational principles but also for the theological foundation of mechanics. In his opinion, 'perfection of the Supreme Being in His divine wisdom would be incompatible with anything other than utter simplicity and minimum expenditure of nature'. . . His main accomplishment was that he had formulated the principle as a general principle of nature (Jagdish Mehra, The Beat of a Different Drum: The life and science of Richard Feynman, 1994, p. 125)
So, right upon it's discovery one of the most important natural principles in physics was viewed and expounded upon as a theological principle. I guess I'm now on Argument 12...
|
| Loading... | |
