AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

Dhw (under Chimp vs Human Brain): Yes, we are unique, but even if we ignore the chance hypothesis, our presence could derive from any one of the three alternative hypotheses I offered you (God having fun, God experimenting, God leaving the mechanism to sort itself out), each of which is just as likely/unlikely as your single hypothesis that this was God's plan from the beginning. The latter in fact leads to a major question, which I will ask you next time if you really do insist on this single, narrow viewpoint!-DAVID: The whole history we see smells of purpose and nothing else. An inorganic universe creating consciousness. No way. A universe that appears and the mathematician/cosmologists admit it was an origin. What is the first cause? Life appears, only God knows how; then multicellularity, when bacteria have continued successfully since the beginning. The Cambrian Explosion with no evolutionary precursors. You know the drill.-I do indeed. An inorganic universe creating consciousness? Impossible. Consciousness simply being there for ever and ever? Ah yes, that's fine. Well, your sense of smell may be more acute than mine, but even if I agreed with you that God created the universe, I would still not understand why you insist that humans were his ultimate goal from the very start. You have ignored the alternative hypotheses above. But I think we should move on, which is why I'm starting a new thread.
 
In the light of your understanding of God's mind, here are two questions for you, instead of the one I promised:-1) If God's intention in creating life was to create humans, what do you think was his intention in creating humans?
2) If the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, but God is an eternal, self-aware energy, what do you think he would have been doing with himself in the eternity before he organized the Big Bang?

4367 views

dhw: But I think we should move on, which is why I'm starting a new thread.
> 
> In the light of your understanding of God's mind, here are two questions for you, instead of the one I promised:
> 
> 1) If God's intention in creating life was to create humans, what do you think was his intention in creating humans?
> 2) If the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, but God is an eternal, self-aware energy, what do you think he would have been doing with himself in the eternity before he organized the Big Bang?-Taking (2) first as the easiest: He has been around for an eternity. There have been other universes and probably different results. We can only know this attempt. The others were not failures, just different, but of course, as I am here and now, I can have no idea of what the other attempts were like.-As for (1) why shouldn't a UI want company? This is where I don't trust the standard religious thought that God loves u, that is why He created us, gave us life, free will and that is certainly more entertaining than glowing stars and rocky planets and nothing else. I don't know if 'entertaining' is the right word. 'Interesting' might be better, perhaps 'stimulating' as He watches us. As I've noted in the past, it is not right to give God personal attributes. In the circumstance we live in, we cannot really know His personality and should avoid anthropomorphism. So, I really do not understand God's mind , since I will not attempt to give Him a personality.-But I do see His intention for us to be here. None of the existing theories of evolution demand our appearance. Gould's contingency theory that we are totally an accident again creates the 'enormous odds' objection.

4375 views

dhw: 1) If God's intention in creating life was to create humans, what do you think was his intention in creating humans?
2) If the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, but God is an eternal, self-aware energy, what do you think he would have been doing with himself in the eternity before he organized the Big Bang?-DAVID: Taking (2) first as the easiest: He has been around for an eternity. There have been other universes and probably different results. We can only know this attempt. The others were not failures, just different, but of course, as I am here and now, I can have no idea of what the other attempts were like.-This reinforces the argument that first cause energy ... whether it is your fully self-aware variety, the not so conscious variety, or even the atheistic totally non-conscious variety, has had an eternity to chuck itself around and come up with an infinity of different combinations.
 
DAVID: As for (1) why shouldn't a UI want company? This is where I don't trust the standard religious thought that God loves u, that is why He created us, gave us life, free will and that is certainly more entertaining than glowing stars and rocky planets and nothing else. I don't know if 'entertaining' is the right word. 'Interesting' might be better, perhaps 'stimulating' as He watches us. As I've noted in the past, it is not right to give God personal attributes. In the circumstance we live in, we cannot really know His personality and should avoid anthropomorphism. So, I really do not understand God's mind, since I will not attempt to give Him a personality.
But I do see His intention for us to be here. None of the existing theories of evolution demand our appearance. Gould's contingency theory that we are totally an accident again creates the 'enormous odds' objection.-None of the existing theories of evolution demand the dodo. But for my own sly purposes, this answer will do, tentative though it is. And I like your list of adjectives: 'entertaining', 'interesting', stimulating', and "as He watches us" is fine with me too. (All of this assuming that he exists in the first place.) Tony uses adjectives like 'bored' and 'lonely', which fit in nicely. I can even go along with our being here intentionally. Here's the "sly" bit: a god who wanted company could have created life without knowing where it was leading, and then gradually increased its complexity as he found out what he could and couldn't do, finishing up (so far) with us. No preplanning of humans from the very start. Alternatively, he could have set up the mechanism for evolution, with its almost unlimited potential for development, and watched where it led. Entertaining, interesting, stimulating, but not planned from the beginning. He could still be watching, or he could have just sloped off to make himself another universe while his little toy went on developing to the potential he had given it. Three alternatives to the anthropocentric theory of evolution, and we haven't even mentioned atheism.
 
Your dislike of imposing attributes on God (e.g. that he loves us) raises another important question. If you don't believe in any of these religious conventions, and you are open-minded about whether or not there is an afterlife, and you think God may have created us and is watching us for company, entertainment, interest or stimulation, and he keeps himself hidden from us, he might as well not be there. So why does God's existence matter to you? 
 
For Tony and BBella, there is the possibility of a larger purpose of which we are ignorant, though for BBella it seems to be linked to a perfect fulfilment of human potential ... maybe in some kind of earthly (heavenly?) paradise. I'm surprised that Tony himself hasn't mentioned the kingdom of heaven, since the bible contains so many references to it (as well as to hell). I find it hard to believe that this fourth possibility does not have something to do with humans in an afterlife, since without that it can't be of any relevance to us personally, let alone to the zillions of humans who have existed before us. BBella's thoughts on this seem fluid, but perhaps Tony you could at least tell us your own beliefs concerning an afterlife and what it might entail.
 
My apologies if this is developing into a sort of classroom exercise, but now that I've started on this path, it might be worth seeing where it leads (as God might have said when he stuck together his first lego-DNA).

4354 views

dhw Your dislike of imposing attributes on God (e.g. that he loves us) raises another important question. If you don't believe in any of these religious conventions, and you are open-minded about whether or not there is an afterlife, and you think God may have created us and is watching us for company, entertainment, interest or stimulation, and he keeps himself hidden from us, he might as well not be there. So why does God's existence matter to you? 
> 
> For Tony and BBella, there is the possibility of a larger purpose of which we are ignorant, though for BBella it seems to be linked to a perfect fulfilment of human potential ... maybe in some kind of earthly (heavenly?) paradise. I'm surprised that Tony himself hasn't mentioned the kingdom of heaven, since the bible contains so many references to it (as well as to hell). I find it hard to believe that this fourth possibility does not have something to do with humans in an afterlife, since without that it can't be of any relevance to us personally, let alone to the zillions of humans who have existed before us. BBella's thoughts on this seem fluid, but perhaps Tony you could at least tell us your own beliefs concerning an afterlife and what it might entail.-Whoa! Where did you conjure up the idea that I don't believe in an afterlife? After all our discussion about NDE's and the way they prove there is communication with the dead. As for God's existence mattering I am fascinated by undestanding the source of 'all that is', to quote bbella. I am convinced that God exists.I am disturbed by religions' assumptions about Him. I'm not sure love is an issue. But universal consciousness is. As I've shown in my first book, I believe Sheldrake has presented good evidence for species consciousness. I believe we can have a personal relationship with God, each in our own way.

4406 views

dhw Your dislike of imposing attributes on God (e.g. that he loves us) raises another important question. If you don't believe in any of these religious conventions, and you are open-minded about whether or not there is an afterlife, and you think God may have created us and is watching us for company, entertainment, interest or stimulation, and he keeps himself hidden from us, he might as well not be there. So why does God's existence matter to you? -DAVID: Whoa! Where did you conjure up the idea that I don't believe in an afterlife? After all our discussion about NDE's and the way they prove there is communication with the dead. -My apologies. I thought NDEs were integral to your investigations into the nature of consciousness, but I didn't realize you were committed to belief in an afterlife.
 
DAVID: As for God's existence mattering I am fascinated by undestanding the source of 'all that is', to quote bbella. I am convinced that God exists. I am disturbed by religions' assumptions about Him. I'm not sure love is an issue. But universal consciousness is.-I suspect you mean the reverse: that you believe in a universal consciousness, but not necessarily that it loves us.
 
DAVID: I believe we can have a personal relationship with God, each in our own way.-This, of course, presupposes a) that God exists, and b) that he is interested enough in us to have a relationship. I can't imagine that your own relationship with him (or your image of him) would be anything other than a pleasure for both of you. However, I must say I would find it difficult to have a relationship with anyone or anything if I didn't know what they were like, what they thought, and what they wanted.

4411 views


> DHW: This, of course, presupposes a) that God exists, and b) that he is interested enough in us to have a relationship. I can't imagine that your own relationship with him (or your image of him) would be anything other than a pleasure for both of you. However, I must say I would find it difficult to have a relationship with anyone or anything if I didn't know what they were like, what they thought, and what they wanted.-LOL This is getting into my territory now.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4363 views

Ed Feser's approach:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/12/davies-on-classical-theism-and-divine.html#more

A theistic view:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/12/davies-on-classical-theism-and-divine.html#more

"Davies is well-known for contrasting classical theism (represented by Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, et al.) with what he calls the “theistic personalism” that is at least implicit in thinkers like Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, open theists, and others. The difference between the views is that theistic personalists reject divine simplicity and, as a consequence, often reject other classical attributes such as immutability, impassibility, and eternity.

***

"Among the important additions to the new edition are a few pages addressing the question of whether, given the significant differences between classical theists’ and theistic personalists’ conceptions of God, they are even really referring to the same thing when they use the word “God.” Davies suggests that it may be that “if differences in beliefs about God on the part of classical theists and theistic personalists are serious and irreconcilable, then classical theists and theistic personalists do not believe in the same God.” (my bold)

***

"For the classical theist, God creates eternally or atemporally, and what is eternal or atemporal does not undergo change. Still, he could have done otherwise than create, so that this eternal act of creation is free.

***

"But given that the divine nature is as classical theists, on independent grounds, argue it to be (pure actuality, perfect, omnipotent, etc.) there can be no need in God for anything distinct from him, so that nothing in his nature can compel him to create. And since, the classical theist also argues (and again on independent grounds) there is nothing apart from God that God did not create, there can be nothing distinct from him that compels him to create. Hence we cannot make sense of God’s being in any way compelled to create, and thus must attribute freedom to him.

"Third, Davies notes that those who suppose that freedom in God would entail changeability often presuppose an anthropomorphic conception of divine choice. In particular, they imagine it involving a temporal process of weighing alternative courses of action before finally deciding upon one of them. But that is not what God is like, given that he is eternal or outside time, and that he is omniscient and doesn’t have to “figure things out” through some kind of reasoning process."/b] (my bold)

***

"Davies emphasizes the idea that the ascription of attributes to God should be understood as an exercise in negative or apophatic theology. The main arguments for classical theism, he points out, emphasize both that the world is contingent or conditioned in various respects, and that an ultimate explanation of the world must be unconditioned and non-contingent in those respects. In particular, God must not be changeable, must not have properties that are distinct from each other or from him, and so on. This is what it means to characterize him as simple. But by the same token, he must not be compelled to create by anything either internal to his nature or outside of him. Hence divine simplicity, divine freedom, and the relationship between them are properly understood as characterizations of what God is not.

Comment: note the bolded comments that many people have their own version of God. The message here is there is only one theistic accepted version of God, as described. I strongly agree with this description of God's attributes. dhw please note.

970 views

A Thomist philosopher has an essay interpreted by Ed Feser:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/08/mccabe-on-divine-nature.html#more

"What God is not

"What is God? McCabe’s answer is that God is that which accounts for why there is anything at all. “God is whatever answers our question ‘How come everything?’”

***

"What he is saying, in effect, is that when we start trying to think about God’s nature, we should begin by putting out of our minds everything but the idea that God is that which accounts for there being anything at all. “What we mean by ‘God’ is just whatever answers the question”

***

"In particular, any aspect of a thing that makes its existence stand in need of explanation by reference to something else cannot be attributed to God. For example, since spatio-temporal objects require causes, God cannot be a spatio-temporal object. For if he were, then he would require a cause and therefore he just wouldn’t be that which accounts for why anything exists at all. He would himself just be one more thing among all the others whose existence we are trying to account for.

***

"So creation is making, but not making out of anything. When X is created there is not anything that is changed into X. Creation is ex nihilo… The fact that things are created does not make the slightest detectable or undetectable difference to them, any more than being thought about makes a difference to things.

***

"Among the things we need to delete from our conception of divine action is the idea that it amounts to an “interference” with what happens in the world. Creation is not a matter of God tinkering with the natural order so as to make it do what it otherwise would not do. It is a matter of his making it the case that there is any natural order at all.

***

"Again, because God is that which accounts for there being anything at all, what is true of the things we are accounting for by reference to God cannot be true of God himself. Hence we have a clearer grasp of what God is not than we do of what he is.

***

"Still, we can say something further, though here too negative theology plays a crucial role. McCabe points out that on Aquinas’s philosophy of mind, to have an intellect is essentially to have the capacity to possess form without matter. For example, when you understand what a dog is, your intellect takes on the form or nature of a dog but in a way that abstracts it or divorces it from the matter in which it is embedded in the case of a given particular individual dog. Now, when this account is worked out it has the consequence that something is an intellect if and only if it is immaterial. Intellects are necessarily immaterial and immaterial substances are necessarily intellects.

***

"Now, negative theology tells us that God is immaterial, since he is that which accounts for why anything exists at all, including material things. He must be distinct from the material world that is among his effects. But if being immaterial entails being an intellect, then we have to conclude that God is an intellect, albeit one from which we have to subtract all the limitations that apply to human intellects. There is also the fact that even when it comes to the human intellect, our conception is largely negative. It is easier to say what the intellect is not than what it is. So, attributing intellect to God, while it adds content to our conception of him, is itself largely a further application of negative theology.

***

"Once again, negative theology is crucial, because we have to subtract from our understanding of this model any of the limitations that apply to finite intellects like ours.
(my bold)

Let's skip to Part II

2852 views

To continue with a Catholic flavor:

"Among the things we have to subtract is the notion that God’s idea of himself is a kind of accident or modification of God, the way that our ideas are accidents or modifications of our intellects. For this would make God composite, and among the conclusions of negative theology is that God is non-composite or simple. Divine simplicity is sometimes claimed to be in tension with the doctrine of the Trinity, but as McCabe shows, in fact it is essential to understanding the Trinity. Divine simplicity entails that whatever is in God is God, and thus God’s idea of himself, and his willing of that idea, are God – exactly what we should expect given the Trinitarian insistence that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet they are not three Gods.

Simplicity is also essential to understanding the idea that the Persons of the Trinity are to be understood as relations. For example, the Father is said to generate the Son and the Son to be generated by the Father. But we have to subtract from these notions any supposition that the relations in question are accidents of God, the way that a human father’s relation to his son is a kind of accident. Again, whatever is in God is God. Hence God the Father doesn’t have a relation, he is a relation. This is mysterious, McCabe acknowledges, but then, God is mysterious anyway, even apart from the doctrine of the Trinity.

McCabe has much else of interest to say about the divine nature (as well as the other topics in the anthology referred to above) but I have been emphasizing the remarks that involve application of the idea that God is fundamentally that which accounts for why anything exists at all.

Again, McCabe heavily emphasizes the ways in which this entails a negative theology. In my opinion, he sometimes overdoes this a bit. Theological language cannot be construed in an entirely negative way. The most basic of theological assertions – that God exists – is at bottom an affirmative assertion, however many negative theological qualifications we put on it. And talk of the divine attributes would have no content or motivation at all if we took their content to be entirely negative. Negative theology is an essential corrective to theological misunderstanding, but it is not a complete account of theological language, and sometimes McCabe says things that seem to give the opposite impression. All the same, these days the greater danger is to go to the opposite extreme of crudely anthropomorphizing God, and McCabe does a great service in exposing the folly and theological shallowness of doing so. (My bold again)

Comment: I wish I could have been in the past as clear about God's nature as this essay and its interpretation are about God's nature. He must not and cannot be humanized. He is what we cannot imagine. Yes, He is crudely, a human invention of our wishes, but after deeper thought it is patently obvious, living organisms, complex as they are, must have had a designer. But at last we must see the negative side of trying to define God or imagine His thoughts. I don't, but dhw does as he attempts to be an imaginary theist.

2833 views

QUOTES: "What is God? McCabe’s answer is that God is that which accounts for why there is anything at all. “God is whatever answers our question ‘How come everything?’”

"Among the things we need to delete from our conception of divine action is the idea that it amounts to an “interference” with what happens in the world. Creation is not a matter of God tinkering with the natural order so as to make it do what it otherwise would not do. It is a matter of his making it the case that there is any natural order at all.”

Goodbye to David’s proposal that God dabbles – specially designing this, that and the other in order to prepare different organisms for different environments which he may or may not have programmed or dabbled, although he is always in full control.

QUOTE: Once again, negative theology is crucial, because we have to subtract from our understanding of this model any of the limitations that apply to finite intellects like ours. (DAVID’s bold)

Why do we “have to”? This means that ANYTHING we believe we can understand about God – e.g. that he can think, plan, design and have a purpose just as we can - must be wrong. How does McCabe KNOW that his God has no human attributes?

QUOTE: Negative theology is an essential corrective to theological misunderstanding, but it is not a complete account of theological language, and sometimes McCabe says things that seem to give the opposite impression. All the same, these days the greater danger is to go to the opposite extreme of crudely anthropomorphizing God, and McCabe does a great service in exposing the folly and theological shallowness of doing so. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: I wish I could have been in the past as clear about God's nature as this essay and its interpretation are about God's nature. He must not and cannot be humanized. He is what we cannot imagine. Yes, He is crudely, a human invention of our wishes, but after deeper thought it is patently obvious, living organisms, complex as they are, must have had a designer. But at last we must see the negative side of trying to define God or imagine His thoughts. I don't, but dhw does as he attempts to be an imaginary theist.

Who are you kidding? We both accept the logic of the design argument, but you then insist on imagining your God’s thoughts and methods: he is in total control (though you’re not sure about local changes in the environment), designed every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder either through preprogramming or dabbling, and is all-purposeful but from the very beginning has had only one purpose in mind: to design H. sapiens, and he “had to” design the rest so that they could eat or not eat one another until he designed H. sapiens, though you have “no idea” why he “had to” do it this way.

As for the article, you might just as well say that life and the universe are the product of some unknown and unknowable power and leave it at that. It’s your fixed beliefs that have led to all the alternative speculations. Just don’t give the unknown power a name, and stop pretending that you know its purpose (if it has one), and its inexplicable method of achieving that purpose, and then we can all sit happily together on the fence. “Negative theology” might just as well be called “negative atheism”: life and the universe are the product of a natural order which came into existence through a cause about which we know nothing. I suggest a single term for both: “agnosticism”.

2756 views

dhw: QUOTES: "What is God? McCabe’s answer is that God is that which accounts for why there is anything at all. “God is whatever answers our question ‘How come everything?’”

"Among the things we need to delete from our conception of divine action is the idea that it amounts to an “interference” with what happens in the world. Creation is not a matter of God tinkering with the natural order so as to make it do what it otherwise would not do. It is a matter of his making it the case that there is any natural order at all.”
[/b] (my bold)

Goodbye to David’s proposal that God dabbles – specially designing this, that and the other in order to prepare different organisms for different environments which he may or may not have programmed or dabbled, although he is always in full control.

This theological view is that God sets up a natural order that runs itself. Fine. My thought about dabbling has always been a tentative alternative. I can easily accept the author's viewpoint that dabbling is not required.

QUOTE: Once again, negative theology is crucial, because we have to subtract from our understanding of this model any of the limitations that apply to finite intellects like ours. (DAVID’s bold)

dhw: Why do we “have to”? This means that ANYTHING we believe we can understand about God – e.g. that he can think, plan, design and have a purpose just as we can - must be wrong. How does McCabe KNOW that his God has no human attributes?

Because, as I've always preached, WE CANNOT know God's personality in any other way than looking at His Works and understand the results are evidence of his purposes, but can only guess at why He picked out those existing results of His works. H.sapiens is such an amazing result, so far above what might have been expected (Adler) we must have been the main purpose.

QUOTE: Negative theology is an essential corrective to theological misunderstanding, but it is not a complete account of theological language, and sometimes McCabe says things that seem to give the opposite impression. All the same, these days the greater danger is to go to the opposite extreme of crudely anthropomorphizing God, and McCabe does a great service in exposing the folly and theological shallowness of doing so. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: I wish I could have been in the past as clear about God's nature as this essay and its interpretation are about God's nature. He must not and cannot be humanized. He is what we cannot imagine. Yes, He is crudely, a human invention of our wishes, but after deeper thought it is patently obvious, living organisms, complex as they are, must have had a designer. But at last we must see the negative side of trying to define God or imagine His thoughts. I don't, but dhw does as he attempts to be an imaginary theist.

dhw: Who are you kidding? We both accept the logic of the design argument, but you then insist on imagining your God’s thoughts and methods: he is in total control (though you’re not sure about local changes in the environment), designed every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder either through preprogramming or dabbling, and is all-purposeful but from the very beginning has had only one purpose in mind: to design H. sapiens, and he “had to” design the rest so that they could eat or not eat one another until he designed H. sapiens, though you have “no idea” why he “had to” do it this way.

Once again you choose to ignore that I have come to the belief God chose to evolve the universe, the Earth, and life to achieve his goals

dhw: As for the article, you might just as well say that life and the universe are the product of some unknown and unknowable power and leave it at that. It’s your fixed beliefs that have led to all the alternative speculations. Just don’t give the unknown power a name, and stop pretending that you know its purpose (if it has one), and its inexplicable method of achieving that purpose, and then we can all sit happily together on the fence. “Negative theology” might just as well be called “negative atheism”: life and the universe are the product of a natural order which came into existence through a cause about which we know nothing. I suggest a single term for both: “agnosticism”.

So once again you have glossed over the theological point God is an uncaused cause. We actually agree. There must be a first cause. Something does not come from nothing . You give it no name, but admit it designs. Only an uncaused mind fits the puzzle. We call it God and you object to giving it a name. Fine. We are both in agreement except for the name. But don't assume that that mind has any human attributes when you delve into thought behind purposes.

2701 views

QUOTE: "Among the things we need to delete from our conception of divine action is the idea that it amounts to an “interference” with what happens in the world. Creation is not a matter of God tinkering with the natural order so as to make it do what it otherwise would not do. It is a matter of his making it the case that there is any natural order at all.” (David’s bold)

dhw: Goodbye to David’s proposal that God dabbles – specially designing this, that and the other in order to prepare different organisms for different environments which he may or may not have programmed or dabbled, although he is always in full control.

DAVID: This theological view is that God sets up a natural order that runs itself. Fine. My thought about dabbling has always been a tentative alternative. I can easily accept the author's viewpoint that dabbling is not required.

The “theological view” that the natural order runs itself supports my proposal that if God exists, he set up a mechanism whereby evolution would run itself! It not only excludes your dabbling, but it also excludes your one and only alternative to dabbling, which is preprogramming. Progress at last!

QUOTE: Once again, negative theology is crucial, because we have to subtract from our understanding of this model any of the limitations that apply to finite intellects like ours. (DAVID’s bold)

dhw: Why do we “have to”? This means that ANYTHING we believe we can understand about God – e.g. that he can think, plan, design and have a purpose just as we can - must be wrong. How does McCabe KNOW that his God has no human attributes?

DAVID: Because, as I've always preached, WE CANNOT know God's personality in any other way than looking at His Works […] H.sapiens is such an amazing result, so far above what might have been expected (Adler) we must have been the main purpose.

He knows God has no human attributes, because we cannot know God’s personality? Strange logic. And once again we have “main” purpose, echoing “primary” purpose. Please tell us his other possible purposes. But of course we CANNOT know God’s personality; we CANNOT even know if he exists. So yes, we can only guess at reasons why…..And in your case, you cannot even guess why he would have specially designed the whale’s flipper and the weaverbird’s nest when his one and only purpose (unless you can give us other purposes) was to specially design H. sapiens.

QUOTE: All the same, these days the greater danger is to go to the opposite extreme of crudely anthropomorphizing God, and McCabe does a great service in exposing the folly and theological shallowness of doing so. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: […] at last we must see the negative side of trying to define God or imagine His thoughts. I don't, but dhw does as he attempts to be an imaginary theist.

dhw: Who are you kidding? We both accept the logic of the design argument, but you then insist on imagining your God’s thoughts and methods: he is in total control (though you’re not sure about local changes in the environment)…[Here I repeated the list of David’s other fixed beliefs.]

DAVID: Once again you choose to ignore that I have come to the belief God chose to evolve the universe, the Earth, and life to achieve his goals.

Once more we have plural “goals”. If God exists, I ACCEPT that he chose evolution as his method to achieve his goals. I do not accept that he specially designed every life form, and did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens.

dhw: As for the article, you might just as well say that life and the universe are the product of some unknown and unknowable power and leave it at that.[…] Just don’t give the unknown power a name, and stop pretending that you know its purpose (if it has one), and its inexplicable method of achieving that purpose, and then we can all sit happily together on the fence. “Negative theology” might just as well be called “negative atheism”: life and the universe are the product of a natural order which came into existence through a cause about which we know nothing. I suggest a single term for both: “agnosticism”.

DAVID: So once again you have glossed over the theological point God is an uncaused cause. We actually agree. There must be a first cause. Something does not come from nothing . You give it no name, but admit it designs. Only an uncaused mind fits the puzzle. We call it God and you object to giving it a name. Fine. We are both in agreement except for the name. But don't assume that that mind has any human attributes when you delve into thought behind purposes.

Nothing “glossed over”. My bold refers to the first cause. You have missed the point. I do not “admit it designs” because, using my limited finite human intellect, that would mean agreeing that it is conscious and has a purpose, and I am not supposed to impose any attributes on God. We are left with the argument that the first cause is unknown and unknowable: it has no name, no known purpose, no known attributes. And that = negative theology and negative atheism, which amounts to agnosticism.

2742 views

DAVID: This theological view is that God sets up a natural order that runs itself. Fine. My thought about dabbling has always been a tentative alternative. I can easily accept the author's viewpoint that dabbling is not required.

dhw: The “theological view” that the natural order runs itself supports my proposal that if God exists, he set up a mechanism whereby evolution would run itself! It not only excludes your dabbling, but it also excludes your one and only alternative to dabbling, which is preprogramming. Progress at last!

What??? A pre-programmed genome is set up from the beginning to run itself.

DAVID: Because, as I've always preached, WE CANNOT know God's personality in any other way than looking at His Works […] H.sapiens is such an amazing result, so far above what might have been expected (Adler) we must have been the main purpose.

dhw: He knows God has no human attributes, because we cannot know God’s personality? Strange logic. And once again we have “main” purpose, echoing “primary” purpose. Please tell us his other possible purposes. But of course we CANNOT know God’s personality; we CANNOT even know if he exists.

You have answered your own question.

dhw: So yes, we can only guess at reasons why…..And in your case, you cannot even guess why he would have specially designed the whale’s flipper and the weaverbird’s nest when his one and only purpose (unless you can give us other purposes) was to specially design H. sapiens.

Easy answer. God chose to evolve.

DAVID: So once again you have glossed over the theological point God is an uncaused cause. We actually agree. There must be a first cause. Something does not come from nothing . You give it no name, but admit it designs. Only an uncaused mind fits the puzzle. We call it God and you object to giving it a name. Fine. We are both in agreement except for the name. But don't assume that that mind has any human attributes when you delve into thought behind purposes.

dhw: Nothing “glossed over”. My bold refers to the first cause. You have missed the point. I do not “admit it designs” because, using my limited finite human intellect, that would mean agreeing that it is conscious and has a purpose, and I am not supposed to impose any attributes on God. We are left with the argument that the first cause is unknown and unknowable: it has no name, no known purpose, no known attributes. And that = negative theology and negative atheism, which amounts to agnosticism.

But again , design doesn't just pop by chance. There has to be an uncaused first cause that has the ability to create very complex designs. And we are created to recognize that logic.

2701 views

DAVID: This theological view is that God sets up a natural order that runs itself. Fine. My thought about dabbling has always been a tentative alternative. I can easily accept the author's viewpoint that dabbling is not required.

dhw: The “theological view” that the natural order runs itself supports my proposal that if God exists, he set up a mechanism whereby evolution would run itself! It not only excludes your dabbling, but it also excludes your one and only alternative to dabbling, which is preprogramming. Progress at last!

DAVID: What??? A pre-programmed genome is set up from the beginning to run itself.

So back you go to your God providing the very first cells with programmes for every single multicellular life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. “Running itself” in your theory means the old organism has already been programmed to pick the right programme at the right time in order to become the new organism, and so on for 3.8 billion years so far. What??? How about your God providing the first cells with the intelligence to work out new ways of coping with or exploiting different environments?

Dhw: (under “cellular intelligence”): Thank you for three more possible examples of cellular intelligence at work:
How plants got leaves […]
Horizontal gene transfer […]
Introducing the brain […]

DAVID: And it is very likely they are designed to contain intelligent instructions covering every possible need to respond.

So once again we have your God, whose one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens, providing the very first cells with programmes for leaves, every problem that bacteria will ever face, every life form, every lifestyle and every natural wonder, in addition to every phase leading to humans and their big brains. I can only repeat your “what???”

DAVID: Because, as I've always preached, WE CANNOT know God's personality in any other way than looking at His Works […] H.sapiens is such an amazing result, so far above what might have been expected (Adler) we must have been the main purpose.

dhw: He knows God has no human attributes, because we cannot know God’s personality? Strange logic. And once again we have “main” purpose, echoing “primary” purpose. Please tell us his other possible purposes. But of course we CANNOT know God’s personality; we CANNOT even know if he exists.

DAVID: You have answered your own question.

Which question? How can anyone KNOW whether God has human attributes if we cannot KNOW his personality? Not answered. What other purposes did God have if H. sapiens was only his main or primary purpose? Not answered.

DAVID: So once again you have glossed over the theological point God is an uncaused cause. We actually agree. There must be a first cause. Something does not come from nothing . You give it no name, but admit it designs. […]

dhw: […]I do not “admit it designs” because, using my limited finite human intellect, that would mean agreeing that it is conscious and has a purpose, and I am not supposed to impose any attributes on God. We are left with the argument that the first cause is unknown and unknowable: it has no name, no known purpose, no known attributes. And that = negative theology and negative atheism, which amounts to agnosticism.

DAVID: But again, design doesn't just pop by chance. There has to be an uncaused first cause that has the ability to create very complex designs. And we are created to recognize that logic.

There has to be an uncaused first cause that results in the complexities of the universe and life. It can be argued that a first-cause, infinite and eternal universe in which energy and matter are for ever producing new combinations of matter will inevitably one day produce a combination of matter that will give rise to conditions suitable for life and to life itself. Infinity and eternity make for pretty favourable odds. No, I don’t believe it, but it is no more and no less feasible than a first-cause, infinite and eternal, unknown and unknowable mind with the power and intelligence to create a universe and conditions suitable for life, plus life itself. Hence “negative atheism” and “negative theism” = agnosticism.

2693 views

DAVID: What??? A pre-programmed genome is set up from the beginning to run itself.

dhw: So back you go to your God providing the very first cells with programmes for every single multicellular life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. “Running itself” in your theory means the old organism has already been programmed to pick the right programme at the right time in order to become the new organism, and so on for 3.8 billion years so far. What??? How about your God providing the first cells with the intelligence to work out new ways of coping with or exploiting different environments?

Back you go to an inventive mechanism, which I accept with guidelines

DAVID: Because, as I've always preached, WE CANNOT know God's personality in any other way than looking at His Works […] H.sapiens is such an amazing result, so far above what might have been expected (Adler) we must have been the main purpose.

dhw: He knows God has no human attributes, because we cannot know God’s personality? Strange logic. And once again we have “main” purpose, echoing “primary” purpose. Please tell us his other possible purposes. But of course we CANNOT know God’s personality; we CANNOT even know if he exists.

DAVID: You have answered your own question.

dhw: Which question? How can anyone KNOW whether God has human attributes if we cannot KNOW his personality? Not answered. What other purposes did God have if H. sapiens was only his main or primary purpose? Not answered.

There may be no other purposes.

DAVID: So once again you have glossed over the theological point God is an uncaused cause. We actually agree. There must be a first cause. Something does not come from nothing . You give it no name, but admit it designs. […]

dhw: […]I do not “admit it designs” because, using my limited finite human intellect, that would mean agreeing that it is conscious and has a purpose, and I am not supposed to impose any attributes on God. We are left with the argument that the first cause is unknown and unknowable: it has no name, no known purpose, no known attributes. And that = negative theology and negative atheism, which amounts to agnosticism.

DAVID: But again, design doesn't just pop by chance. There has to be an uncaused first cause that has the ability to create very complex designs. And we are created to recognize that logic.

dhw: There has to be an uncaused first cause that results in the complexities of the universe and life. It can be argued that a first-cause, infinite and eternal universe in which energy and matter are for ever producing new combinations of matter will inevitably one day produce a combination of matter that will give rise to conditions suitable for life and to life itself. Infinity and eternity make for pretty favourable odds. No, I don’t believe it, but it is no more and no less feasible than a first-cause, infinite and eternal, unknown and unknowable mind with the power and intelligence to create a universe and conditions suitable for life, plus life itself. Hence “negative atheism” and “negative theism” = agnosticism.

Which doesn't answer the prime question : why is there anything? The answer is an uncaused first cause

2753 views

DAVID: What??? A pre-programmed genome is set up from the beginning to run itself.

dhw: So back you go to your God providing the very first cells with programmes for every single multicellular life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. “Running itself” in your theory means the old organism has already been programmed to pick the right programme at the right time in order to become the new organism, and so on for 3.8 billion years so far. What??? How about your God providing the first cells with the intelligence to work out new ways of coping with or exploiting different environments?

DAVID: Back you go to an inventive mechanism, which I accept with guidelines.

Your “guidelines” are the billions of programmes for billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders which your God apparently installed in the very first cells to be passed on through millions and millions of years and generations of life forms. My inventive mechanism is autonomous, whereas yours contains no inventiveness – there is nothing but your God’s instructions.

dhw: There has to be an uncaused first cause that results in the complexities of the universe and life. It can be argued that a first-cause, infinite and eternal universe in which energy and matter are for ever producing new combinations of matter will inevitably one day produce a combination of matter that will give rise to conditions suitable for life and to life itself. Infinity and eternity make for pretty favourable odds. No, I don’t believe it, but it is no more and no less feasible than a first-cause, infinite and eternal, unknown and unknowable mind with the power and intelligence to create a universe and conditions suitable for life, plus life itself. Hence “negative atheism” and “negative theism” = agnosticism.

DAVID: Which doesn't answer the prime question: why is there anything? The answer is an uncaused first cause.

Of course that is the answer, and I have given you two possible uncaused first causes, each of which in my view is equally unbelievable. Hence my agnosticism – or what we might call “negative theism” and “negative atheism”.

2697 views

DAVID: What??? A pre-programmed genome is set up from the beginning to run itself.

dhw: So back you go to your God providing the very first cells with programmes for every single multicellular life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. “Running itself” in your theory means the old organism has already been programmed to pick the right programme at the right time in order to become the new organism, and so on for 3.8 billion years so far. What??? How about your God providing the first cells with the intelligence to work out new ways of coping with or exploiting different environments?

DAVID: Back you go to an inventive mechanism, which I accept with guidelines.

dhw: Your “guidelines” are the billions of programmes for billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders which your God apparently installed in the very first cells to be passed on through millions and millions of years and generations of life forms. My inventive mechanism is autonomous, whereas yours contains no inventiveness – there is nothing but your God’s instructions.

dhw: There has to be an uncaused first cause that results in the complexities of the universe and life. It can be argued that a first-cause, infinite and eternal universe in which energy and matter are for ever producing new combinations of matter will inevitably one day produce a combination of matter that will give rise to conditions suitable for life and to life itself. Infinity and eternity make for pretty favourable odds. No, I don’t believe it, but it is no more and no less feasible than a first-cause, infinite and eternal, unknown and unknowable mind with the power and intelligence to create a universe and conditions suitable for life, plus life itself. Hence “negative atheism” and “negative theism” = agnosticism.

DAVID: Which doesn't answer the prime question: why is there anything? The answer is an uncaused first cause.

dhw: Of course that is the answer, and I have given you two possible uncaused first causes, each of which in my view is equally unbelievable. Hence my agnosticism – or what we might call “negative theism” and “negative atheism”.

Accepted.

2721 views

In a discussion of natural theology:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

"Debate between atheism and theism often proceeds as if the burden of proof is all on the theist, and in particular as if the theist, but not the atheist, must make metaphysical presuppositions (about the nature of causation, teleology, the principle of sufficient reason, or whatever) that are likely to be as controversial as the conclusion he wishes to establish by means of them. By contrast, the atheist, many seem to assume, proceeds from neutral ground and simply finds the arguments for theism, and for the broader metaphysical theses underlying such arguments, unpersuasive in light of premises that both sides have in common.

***

"Precisely because theism, properly understood, entails claims about ultimate explanation and the fundamental structure of reality, it is inevitable that the dispute between theism and atheism is going to entail broader metaphysical differences. The dispute cannot be bracketed off from these broader questions, and the skeptic can no more pretend that his position is neutral about them than the theist can.

"Hence, as Hartshorne points out, Hume’s and Kant’s influential objections to the traditional theistic proofs each rest on broader metaphysical assumptions that are no less open to question than the proofs themselves are. The same is true of contemporary objections that take for granted the metaphysical and methodological assumptions of scientism or naturalism. As Hartshorne writes: “Thus the procedure does what the proofs are accused of doing. It reaches a controversial conclusion by reasoning from premises equally controversial… it is as question-begging as it well could be.”

"And since “all rational argument presupposes rules, universal principles” under which the things being reasoned about fall as specific cases, “God must… be a case under [these] rules, he must be an individual being” (pp. 33-34). Otherwise we couldn’t say anything about him at all. So, while we must avoid the one extreme of implicitly reducing God to a creature by supposing that whatever is true of creaturely perfections must be true of him, we must also avoid the other extreme of putting God so far beyond what can be expressed in human language that we can know and say nothing about him at all.

***

"God can also not be defined in the strictest sense in which other things can be, viz. by identifying a genus under which they fall and a differentia which distinguishes them from other species in the genus. For as Being Itself, he falls under no genus. In other ways too, God is radically unlike any created thing – he is pure actuality rather than a mixture of actual and potential, is absolutely simple or non-composite, and so on.

"we can certainly explain what we mean when we use the word “God” and when we ascribe various attributes to him (omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, and all the rest). We can demonstrate his existence in a manner consistent with canons of logical inference. And once having done so, we can validly draw further conclusions about the divine nature. For the Thomist, the key to understanding how it is possible to speak of God in these ways despite his being so radically unlike the things of our experience is in the analogical use of language, as Aquinas and his followers understand that. (my bold)

***

"Hartshorne is also well-known for defending a version of Anselm’s ontological proof, and in A Natural Theology for Our Time he remarks that “since God’s existence has an aspect of necessity, something like an ontological proof must be possible” (p. 50). From a Thomist point of view, there is some truth to this insofar as, if we had a penetrating enough grasp of the divine essence, we would indeed be able to infer from it that God exists. The trouble is that the human intellect does not in fact have such a grasp of the divine essence, so that God’s existence cannot be known by us by way of an ontological proof.

***

"What Hartshorne seems to have in mind is that the starting points for sound theistic proofs must lie in truths that go deeper than any that might in principle be falsified by observation or experiment. Here I think he is correct,

Comment: note the comment about analogical use of words when describing God. I could use metaphorical in that same sense. I have used allegorical in the sense of hidden meaning. Adler tells us any definition of 'God' is extremely difficult to achieve. So we know what words mean in our level of existence, but we really do not know how they apply to God and His personality.

490 views


> 1) If God's intention in creating life was to create humans, what do you think was his intention in creating humans?-First, I must interject here that, at least from a biblical standpoint, the creation of humanity, in and of itself, may not have been the ultimate purpose. There are indications of this in the biblical texts. To point to the four most outstanding clues; there is the creation of mankind (and their purpose), the end of a creation cycle, the derailment of the intended plan, and the promise of 'opening new scrolls' or revealing more information later. All of these are laid out quite clearly in the text. -Reference: Gen 1:28 The purpose of mankind was to be the caretaker of the earth.
 Gen 2:3 God takes a break from 'all his work that god has created for the purpose of his making.(implies there is a larger purpose of which humans play a part)
 Gen 3 The whole show goes on pause as his right to universal sovereignty is questioned. 
 Rev 10:6,7 The seventh scroll was not revealed in the book of Revelation, but it was stated as relating to God's original purpose and specifically states that it had been 'delayed' and after this issue is settled up 'will be delayed no longer'.-The reason that I mention all of this is to offer a fourth possibility to your list of reasons that God created human's: That it is part of a larger plan that was put on hold to deal with this issue before continuing on with fulfilling a larger purpose of which we are ignorant of. -> 2) If the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, but God is an eternal, self-aware energy, what do you think he would have been doing with himself in the eternity before he organized the Big Bang?-Who knows? Perhaps, initially he was simply thinking, reveling in the fact that he existed at all. Perhaps, after a time he got bored and began to create as a means of expressing himself. Perhaps, after seeing how wonderful it was, he became aware that he was alone and grew lonely, leading him to create his son, his firstborn. Perhaps the experience of love shared was so great, so intoxicating that he wanted to create more thinking creatures so that they could experience it as well, a sort of love amplified by numbers. I really do not know, and it is all speculation.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4419 views


> > 1)(dhw) If God's intention in creating life was to create humans, what do you think was his intention in creating humans?
> 
> First, I must interject here that, at least from a biblical standpoint, the creation of humanity, in and of itself, may not have been the ultimate purpose. There are indications of this in the biblical texts..... Rev 10:6,7 The seventh scroll was not revealed in the book of Revelation, but it was stated as relating to God's original purpose and specifically states that it had been 'delayed' and after this issue is settled up 'will be delayed no longer.....The reason that I mention all of this is to offer a fourth possibility to your list of reasons that God created human's: That it is part of a larger plan....a larger purpose of which we are ignorant of. -Hi all, I've been away on an extra long trip and haven't really had the time to catch up with all that I've missed since I've been back several nights ago, tonight being the first chance I've had to myself to even be online other than just a few moments. I immediately picked up on this thread because of the curious title. -I think the fourth possibility Tony is mentioning here actually dove tails all most perfectly (in an abstract way) into the Shedding Light On Cell Communication thread about biophotons. I was saying that I believe there is a great possibility that scientist are now studying the messengers of knowledge and information - biophotons. And that I believe, when these messengers are scientifically understood and expounded upon, humans will learn/know/become aware of their own abilities to effect change, not only in themselves, but in their environments, and that this knowledge will be bode well for the good of all mankind and our Earth home (as well as all creation), which then could usher in the very 1000 years of peace prophesied in the scriptures that you spoke of above, Tony. Humans comprehending the ability they have encoded in their very being could be the opening of 7th scroll. This could then usher in this "larger purpose of which we are ignorant of." 
 
> >(dhw) 2) If the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, but God is an eternal, self-aware energy, what do you think he would have been doing with himself in the eternity before he organized the Big Bang?
> 
> Who knows? Perhaps, initially he was simply thinking, reveling in the fact that he existed at all. Perhaps, after a time he got bored and began to create as a means of expressing himself. Perhaps, after seeing how wonderful it was, he became aware that he was alone and grew lonely, leading him to create his son, his firstborn. Perhaps the experience of love shared was so great, so intoxicating that he wanted to create more thinking creatures so that they could experience it as well, a sort of love amplified by numbers. I really do not know, and it is all speculation.-The scriptures and the lost scriptures speak of angels as created beings long before man, so there is the possibility there are created beings "out there" even now (of which I have spoken of before that could be what we now call "Aliens". Angels were said to be created eternal beings. If we take the scriptures and expand it's allegorical ideas and see the science as well as the possibilities we can see the possibility these created beings, just like we are created beings, have achieved eternal life, however they may have achieved it (either by being created by a God or evolving into it just as we are on the road to do so). Regardless of how the idea of these eternal created beings got into those books, or even whether we believe the story literally or not (or even if there is or isn't aliens), man has been given, if only within our nature, the desire for eternal life. But these scriptures are warning us, in a sense, that there was disharmony and evil, even within these eternal beings. -So, allegorically, philosophically, and even possibly scientifically, the story says to us who seek eternal life, achieving eternal life solves nothing about the soul and it's distasteful aspects of "being" regardless of how long we live. So look elsewhere. There is something greater to seek and to be considered than finding the gene that turns off death or even finding eternal life. Because eternal life in misery or happiness, is still way too long to spend doing anything we or even the angels know or understand at this point. -The book, in some sense, is saying, humans, you have within you the ability and opportunity to create something that has never been before. With the knowledge and understanding about your own makeup that you are about to obtain, you will be able to create a future like no other. Discover that ability, but before you do, know what it is you truly want. And know this, if it's anything created before, it will not be any better than what you have now, within the known or unknown. And there are scriptures that say, even the whole of creation awaits for us to figure it out. -I believe the understanding of the biophotons are the messengers we have been waiting for that has allowed our foot in that door. So the question still begs an answer; If we knew we have within us the ability to create anything...-Just had to ramble some thoughts sparked by Tony's post...I now return you to your regular programmed mind (lol). Oh, and sorry, didn't have time to edit, because if I did, I probably wouldn't have posted these meanderings.

4430 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum