AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

David (under "Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism"): So we are stuck. How long can a person search and how far, if there is no real answer and probably can never be?-dhw: You could hardly have made a clearer case for agnosticism.-DAVID: Why should the basis of reality be so unintelligable, unless the creator wanted to stay hidden? Read Einhorn's "A Concealed God" for clarification. God wanted a requirement of faith.-DAVID: I read another way of putting the point about quantum theory and God. We live in a secondary reality. The primary reality is at the quantum level. And that is God's level. What would an agnostic call the primary level?-There is a sour taste of the syllogistic fallacy here: The primary reality is real. We call the primary reality God. Therefore God is real. And we all clap our hands and go dancing round the church. And different people conjure up different gods, such as a conscious being who created the universe in order to produce humans, but who remains hidden so that he can test their faith and they can learn the lessons of tough love.-No, no, this won't do at all. Who says we live in a secondary reality? Who says there is a primary and a secondary? Why is it not ONE reality, of which we experience only a very small part, and of which we understand only an even smaller part. What BBella calls the "All That Is" is endless and eternal, so do you really think infinitesimally small specks like ourselves know enough to divide it up into primary and secondary? What do the terms mean anyway? Try stepping in front of a bus, and then tell me it's only a secondary reality. If you insist on making divisions, how about the reality we think we know, and the reality we don't know? Or the reality we think we understand, and the reality we don't understand? What would I call them? I don't need to call them anything.

4488 views


> dhw: If you insist on making divisions, how about the reality we think we know, and the reality we don't know? Or the reality we think we understand, and the reality we don't understand? What would I call them? I don't need to call them anything.-Fine. I'll use a question: I have no idea why we can understand so much about the universe, an amazing fact in itself, and yet reach a level of reality where we have no understanding at all? Why isn't it all clear? I know 'why' questions are philosophical or theological. I try to have an answer that seems to make sense. You throw up your hands and say I just don't know. To each his own.-But our scientists are still trying: a four-quark particle has just popped up:-"After much more study, both teams concluded that what their data was showing them was something both new and real. Initial indications are that Zc(3900) is indeed a previously unknown type of matterâa particle with four quarks. Combined, the research teams have found 460 examples of the Zc(3900) particle giving serious credence to their actual existence. Thus far, the particle appears to have an electric charge and at least one charm and one anti-charm quark. Both teams suspect that it also has an up and anti-down quark as well, giving it its full complement of four quarks."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-collider-teams-evidence-particle-z3900.html#jCp-Clear as mud, right?

4533 views

dhw: If you insist on making divisions, how about the reality we think we know, and the reality we don't know? Or the reality we think we understand, and the reality we don't understand? What would I call them? I don't need to call them anything.-DAVID: Fine. I'll use a question: I have no idea why we can understand so much about the universe, an amazing fact in itself, and yet reach a level of reality where we have no understanding at all? Why isn't it all clear? I know 'why' questions are philosophical or theological.
 
I too am constantly amazed by what we humans have achieved. Why isn't it all clear? There is an indirect answer to that in the multiverse article you referred us to:-"Therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn: The fact that atheists have resorted to the multiverse argument constitutes a tacit admission that they have lost the argument about design in this universe. The evidence in this universe for design -- or, if you will, the fine-tuning that cannot be explained by chance or by "enough time" -- is so compelling that the only way around it is to suggest that our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes."-You believe that the first cause is eternal, conscious energy. If the Big Bang theory is correct, one can ask what your first-cause conscious energy was up to during the ETERNITY that preceded the Big Bang. Do you think it merely contemplated its energetic self doing nothing all eternity long until suddenly it thought to itself, "I know, I'll go bang and create a universe, and then I'll create humans and test their faith"? Is it not possible that your God would have been active during the ETERNITY that preceded the Big Bang? Maybe creating other universes? You are prepared to read his mind when it comes to the motive for creating THIS universe. Is the speculation that he might have created an infinite number of other universes so outrageous that you can't contemplate it? If you are prepared to contemplate it, then why shouldn't atheists also contemplate the possibility that eternal first-cause unconscious energy was active before the Big Bang, producing an infinite number of universes? Then the odds do indeed shorten. And so my answer to your question: "Why isn't it all clear?" is that wonderful though we are, there is no way we can ever hope to get to know, let alone understand the realities that have come about in the course of eternity and on the scale of infinity. Even our own universe is said to be approx. 95% "dark" energy and matter, and since it's dark, who knows what the real percentage is, let alone what it consists of or contains?-DAVID: I try to have an answer that seems to make sense. You throw up your hands and say I just don't know. To each his own.-The atheists' answer also makes sense to them. I started this website because I was appalled by Dawkins' blinkered vision, and found that his opponents could offer nothing but equally blinkered visions. I wanted a more informed and rational debate on all the issues, and hoped to learn from that. I didn't just throw up my hands. Thanks to your good self and many others over the last five and a half years, I've certainly learned a lot. The fact that I have not suddenly been overcome by a glorious vision of the ultimate truth ... and I'm afraid four-quark particles will not make me see the light either! ... does not diminish the value of this experience, or stop me from considering and reconsidering all the options.-****-I shall have to come back to Nagel & Feser another time.

4543 views


> dhw:You believe that the first cause is eternal, conscious energy. If the Big Bang theory is correct, one can ask what your first-cause conscious energy was up to during the ETERNITY that preceded the Big Bang.-If first cause conscious energy (FCEE) is eternal, and it must be, then it has created other universes in the past, for our current evidence is that FCCE makes universes, and more than likely human beings. This is the only scenario we know. -> dhw: Is the speculation that he might have created an infinite number of other universes so outrageous that you can't contemplate it? If you are prepared to contemplate it, then why shouldn't atheists also contemplate the possibility that eternal first-cause unconscious energy was active before the Big Bang, producing an infinite number of universes? Then the odds do indeed shorten. -Thank goodness you used the word speculation. 10^500 universes is a mathematical speculation based on unproved math excursions into the never never land of atheistic contortions to avoid our designer universe and its implications of a designer. The 10^500 argument works only if there is a smidgen of proof. Just where is that smidgen???
 
> dhw: I started this website because I was appalled by Dawkins' blinkered vision, and found that his opponents could offer nothing but equally blinkered visions. I wanted a more informed and rational debate on all the issues, and hoped to learn from that. I didn't just throw up my hands. Thanks to your good self and many others over the last five and a half years, I've certainly learned a lot. The fact that I have not suddenly been overcome by a glorious vision of the ultimate truth ... ... does not diminish the value of this experience, or stop me from considering and reconsidering all the options.-We who have enjoyed your website, thank you. Perhaps if I can get my new book (which you encouraged me to write) untracked soon, we all can see how 'blinkered' Dawkins really is.

4516 views

DAVID: If first cause conscious energy (FCEE) is eternal, and it must be, then it has created other universes in the past, for our current evidence is that FCCE makes universes, and more than likely human beings. This is the only scenario we know. -dhw: ...why shouldn't atheists also contemplate the possibility that eternal first-cause unconscious energy was active before the Big Bang, producing an infinite number of universes? Then the odds do indeed shorten. -DAVID: Thank goodness you used the word speculation. 10^500 universes is a mathematical speculation based on unproved math excursions into the never never land of atheistic contortions to avoid our designer universe and its implications of a designer. The 10^500 argument works only if there is a smidgen of proof. Just where is that smidgen???-So if an atheist thinks there must be other universes, it's an excuse to avoid the designer theory, but as a theist you think there must be other universes. This doesn't strike you as illogical? As for the silly mathematical figures, they're as unprovable as the odds calculated against chance creating life when we have no idea how many throws of the dice there might have been in the course of eternity and throughout infinity. Nor do we have any idea how many forms of life there might be. We certainly shouldn't assume that ours is the only possibility even within our own universe, let alone others. Your two answers reinforce the point I was making: every attack launched by theists upon atheism can be used by atheists against theism, and vice versa. It's all speculation, and that includes your conscious, first-cause, tough-love energy, for which there is not a smidgen of proof either.

4510 views

DAVID: Thank goodness you used the word speculation. 10^500 universes is a mathematical speculation based on unproved math excursions into the never never land of atheistic contortions to avoid our designer universe and its implications of a designer. The 10^500 argument works only if there is a smidgen of proof. Just where is that smidgen???
> 
> dhw: So if an atheist thinks there must be other universes, it's an excuse to avoid the designer theory, but as a theist you think there must be other universes. This doesn't strike you as illogical?-I don't follow. I think the multiverse is poppycock.-> dhw: We certainly shouldn't assume that ours is the only possibility even within our own universe, let alone others. -I don't think thre are 'others' and I actually believe we are the only life in this universe.-> dhw: Your two answers reinforce the point I was making: every attack launched by theists upon atheism can be used by atheists against theism, and vice versa. It's all speculation, and that includes your conscious, first-cause, tough-love energy, for which there is not a smidgen of proof either.-What we see requires intelligence to create it. You invent your intelligence one way, I another. But we both agree on the agency of intelligence being involved and required.

4560 views

dhw: Is the speculation that he might have created an infinite number of other universes so outrageous that you can't contemplate it? If you are prepared to contemplate it, then why shouldn't atheists also contemplate the possibility that eternal first-cause unconscious energy was active before the Big Bang, producing an infinite number of universes? Then the odds do indeed shorten.
 
DAVID: If first cause conscious energy (FCEE) is eternal, and it must be, then it has created other universes in the past, for our current evidence is that FCCE makes universes, and more than likely human beings. This is the only scenario we know.-dhw: So if an atheist thinks there must be other universes, it's an excuse to avoid the designer theory, but as a theist you think there must be other universes. This doesn't strike you as illogical?-DAVID: I don't follow. I think the multiverse is poppycock.-I have suggested an infinite number of universes before the big bang. I am not talking specifically about the multiverse theory, if by that you mean parallel universes existing in the present (though I'd have thought infinite and eternal first-cause energy would be capable of that too). You say with far more certainty than I can muster that your first-cause conscious energy "has created other universes in the past". With eternity and infinity to play with, there is no limit to the number it may have created. An atheist can argue that non-conscious first-cause energy may also have created a limitless number of universes, thereby slashing the odds against chance coming up with life. You seem to have no doubt that there have been other universes, but if an atheist says so, he is trying to avoid the designer theory!
 
dhw: Your two answers reinforce the point I was making: every attack launched by theists upon atheism can be used by atheists against theism, and vice versa. It's all speculation, and that includes your conscious, first-cause, tough-love energy, for which there is not a smidgen of proof either.-DAVID: What we see requires intelligence to create it. You invent your intelligence one way, I another. But we both agree on the agency of intelligence being involved and required.-I have not invented any form of intelligence. I can only speculate on possible forms that others have proposed, and explain why I do not believe in any of them: 1) your God; 2) a panpsychist form that evolved within changing matter; 3) a chance combination (after an endless history of combinations) that gave rise to organic life, prior to which there was no intelligence.

4538 views

dhw: I have suggested an infinite number of universes before the big bang.-I think we can suppose an infinite number of universes in past eternity if we presume first cause is eternal. One universe at a time, with one set of humans at a time. I still stick to the premise that we can only impute to God only what we know He does, and no further, from the one example we know.- -> dhw: I have not invented any form of intelligence. I can only speculate on possible forms that others have proposed, and explain why I do not believe in any of them: 1) your God; 2) a panpsychist form that evolved within changing matter; 3) a chance combination (after an endless history of combinations) that gave rise to organic life, prior to which there was no intelligence.- You have invented. Pansychism presumes inventing intelligence, in your scenario, as evolution progresses.

4501 views

dhw: I have suggested an infinite number of universes before the big bang.-DAVID: I think we can suppose an infinite number of universes in past eter
nity if we presume first cause is eternal. One universe at a time, with one set of humans at a time. I still stick to the premise that we can only impute to God only what we know He does, and no further, from the one example we know.-I really don't know why you assume that each universe would have been designed to produce humans. We have no idea what other forms of life could have been produced, either by God, or by an infinite number of chance combinations, or by energy evolving awareness within different forms of changing matter. But the object of my reference to earlier universes was to point out the illogicality of the claim that atheists only propose other universes in order to avoid the design theory, although you as a theist accept that there must have been other universes!-dhw: I have not invented any form of intelligence. I can only speculate on possible forms that others have proposed, and explain why I do not believe in any of them: 1) your God; 2) a panpsychist form that evolved within changing matter; 3) a chance combination (after an endless history of combinations) that gave rise to organic life, prior to which there was no intelligence.-DAVID: You have invented. Pansychism presumes inventing intelligence, in your scenario, as evolution progresses.-I can't follow this. I did not invent panpsychism. The version that I have proposed suggests that energy evolved some sort of awareness within changing matter. The basic tenet of panpsychism is that "there may be varying degrees in which things have inner subjective or quasi-conscious aspects, some very unlike what we experience as consciousness" (Oxford Companion to Philosophy). What have I invented?

4508 views


> dhw: I really don't know why you assume that each universe would have been designed to produce humans. We have no idea what other forms of life could have been produced, either by God, or by an infinite number of chance combinations, or by energy evolving awareness within different forms of changing matter. But the object of my reference to earlier universes was to point out the illogicality of the claim that atheists only propose other universes in order to avoid the design theory, although you as a theist accept that there must have been other universes!-The atheist position is to have a never-ending cycle of multiverses, always existing and popping in and out of existence like a mass of eternal soap bubbles. Gets rid of the Big Bang, gets rid of a designer universe concept, and trades fantasy for what we observe: an apparent creation of a universe which was designed to allow for life. Next step in my thought process: we can only suppose to extrapolate what we know. If God did this and is eternal, then He has done it over and over. Could He have tried other things. Sure, but we have no evidence as to what. You don't believe in God, but you want to imagine how adept He is?-> 
> dhw: I can't follow this. I did not invent panpsychism. The version that I have proposed suggests that energy evolved some sort of awareness within changing matter. -Exactly!!! You invented a way to put intelligence into matter, when none had prior existence. True pansychism leads to my theory of panentheism, God is everywhere and part of everything from the beginning as matter appeared.

4494 views

dhw: The object of my reference to earlier universes was to point out the illogicality of the claim that atheists only propose other universes in order to avoid the design theory, although you as a design theorist accept that there must have been other universes!-DAVID: The atheist position is to have a never-ending cycle of multiverses, always existing and popping in and out of existence like a mass of eternal soap bubbles. Gets rid of the Big Bang, gets rid of a designer universe concept, and trades fantasy for what we observe: an apparent creation of a universe which was designed to allow for life. Next step in my thought process: we can only suppose to extrapolate what we know. If God did this and is eternal, then He has done it over and over.-Forget multiverses. My atheist scenario begins with the same fantasy as yours: an endless succession of universes throughout eternity. But instead of being created by a fantastic, conscious, first-cause energy in order to produce humans, they have been created by a fantastic, non-conscious, first-cause energy, and at least one out of an infinite number of them has produced life. Both fantasies offer fantastic explanations of what we observe, and they demonstrate how illogical it is to claim that atheists propose other universes in order to avoid the design theory, although you as a theist also believe that there must have been other universes!-dhw: I really don't know why you assume that each universe would have been designed to produce humans. We have no idea what other forms of life could have been produced, either by God, or by an infinite number of chance combinations, or by energy evolving awareness within different forms of changing matter.-DAVID: Could He have tried other things. Sure, but we have no evidence as to what. You don't believe in God, but you want to imagine how adept He is?-I don't disbelieve in God, and if you can fantasize about his motives (to produce humans and test their faith) and his tough love, I can fantasize too, though here I've merely said we have no idea what other forms of life there might have been. In any case, we have no evidence for ANY of the above hypotheses. All we know is that we're here in a universe that has engendered life. The rest is fantasy. But in fairness to theists and atheists alike, fantasy need not mean falsehood, and one of them has to come close to the truth!-dhw: I can't follow this. I did not invent panpsychism. The version that I have proposed suggests that energy evolved some sort of awareness within changing matter.
 
DAVID: Exactly!!! You invented a way to put intelligence into matter, when none had prior existence. True pansychism leads to my theory of panentheism, God is everywhere and part of everything from the beginning as matter appeared.-Giving it a name (God) doesn't explain where intelligence came from, or how it got into matter. It merely envelops the mystery of known intelligence in an even greater mystery of unknown intelligence. As for panpsychism, I did not invent it, and the expression "true panpsychism" is meaningless. Nobody knows the truth.

4572 views


> dhw: Forget multiverses. My atheist scenario begins with the same fantasy as yours: an endless succession of universes throughout eternity. But instead of being created by a fantastic, conscious, first-cause energy in order to produce humans, they have been created by a fantastic, non-conscious, first-cause energy, and at least one out of an infinite number of them has produced life. -But you haven't forgotten multiverses. Now instead of a multitude at once, you want a multitude in succession with the same atheistic result. The lucky one finally produced life. Hang out your ideas on a clothes line to dry and see which one the wind picks to blow up into something sensational. I see nothing of substance.-> 
> dhw: I don't disbelieve in God, and if you can fantasize about his motives (to produce humans and test their faith) and his tough love, I can fantasize too, though here I've merely said we have no idea what other forms of life there might have been. In any case, we have no evidence for ANY of the above hypotheses. All we know is that we're here in a universe that has engendered life. The rest is fantasy. But in fairness to theists and atheists alike, fantasy need not mean falsehood, and one of them has to come close to the truth!-Very sensible summary. I know which one si true for me.-
> dhw: Giving it a name (God) doesn't explain where intelligence came from, or how it got into matter. It merely envelops the mystery of known intelligence in an even greater mystery of unknown intelligence. As for panpsychism, I did not invent it, and the expression "true panpsychism" is meaningless. Nobody knows the truth.-
 Yes, we don't know where God came from or why He bothered to exist. One of those huge mysteries. My 'true panpsychism' shorthand phrase meant 'the true definition of panpsychiam'.

4472 views

David has argued that atheists propose theories about multiple universes in order to avoid the concept of design.-DAVID (Friday 21 June): I think we can suppose an infinite number of universes in past eternity if we presume first cause is eternal.-Dhw: My atheist scenario begins with the same fantasy as yours: an endless succession of universes throughout eternity. But instead of being created by a fantastic, conscious, first-cause energy in order to produce humans, they have been created by a fantastic non-conscious first-cause energy, and at least one out of an infinite number of them has produced life. Both fantasies offer fantastic explanations of what we observe, and they demonstrate how illogical it is to claim that atheists propose other universes in order to avoid the design theory, although you as a theist also believe that there must have been "an infinite number of universes"!
 
DAVID: Now instead of a multitude at once, you want a multitude in succession with the same atheistic result. The lucky one finally produced life. Hang out your ideas on a clothes line to dry and see which one the wind picks to blow up into something sensational. I see nothing of substance.-I could hardly have made it clearer that I regard both hypotheses as fantasies. I just want you to acknowledge that if you yourself believe in "an infinite number of universes" designed by a designer, you can hardly dismiss atheists' theories about an infinite number of universes as poppycock devised purely to avoid the design theory! -dhw: Giving it a name (God) doesn't explain where intelligence came from, or how it got into matter. It merely envelops the mystery of known intelligence in an even greater mystery of unknown intelligence. As for panpsychism, I did not invent it, and the expression "true panpsychism" is meaningless. Nobody knows the truth.-DAVID: Yes, we don't know where God came from or why He bothered to exist. One of those huge mysteries.
 
A huge mystery on a par with our not knowing where intelligence or consciousness came from. That is why your solution (God) is not a solution at all, but merely the substitution of one mystery for another.-DAVID: My 'true panpsychism' shorthand phrase meant 'the true definition of panpsychism'.-There is no 'true' definition of panpsychism, although all forms of it are based on the idea that there is a mental, or quasi-conscious aspect in all things. Some thinkers (like Whitehead) link the concept to a god, but others (like Nagel and Penrose) do not, and of course there are atheistic versions in Buddhism too.

4606 views


> dhw: I could hardly have made it clearer that I regard both hypotheses as fantasies. I just want you to acknowledge that if you yourself believe in "an infinite number of universes" designed by a designer, you can hardly dismiss atheists' theories about an infinite number of universes as poppycock devised purely to avoid the design theory! -Yes, I can dismiss atheist theories. My reasoning is that we know that a first cause (my God) created this universe in a Big Bang. I then make the assumption from this knowledge that God has been doing this back into eternity. Current multiverses are pink elephant theories with no basis in what we know has occurred. I'm using historical fact to extrapolate
> 
> dhw: A huge mystery on a par with our not knowing where intelligence or consciousness came from. That is why your solution (God) is not a solution at all, but merely the substitution of one mystery for another.-First cause intelligence/consciousness has always existed. You cannot conjure up intelligence and consciousness out of raw energy. I've covered this before.

4514 views

dhw: I could hardly have made it clearer that I regard both hypotheses as fantasies. I just want you to acknowledge that if you yourself believe in "an infinite number of universes" designed by a designer, you can hardly dismiss atheists' theories about an infinite number of universes as poppycock devised purely to avoid the design theory! -DAVID: Yes, I can dismiss atheist theories. My reasoning is that we know that a first cause (my God) created this universe in a Big Bang. I then make the assumption from this knowledge that God has been doing this back into eternity. Current multiverses are pink elephant theories with no basis in what we know has occurred. I'm using historical fact to extrapolate-I trust you don't mean "we know my God created this universe in a Big Bang". Both God and The Big Bang are theories, not something we can claim we "know". However, that makes no difference to our discussion. While you argue that conscious first-cause energy would not have done nothing for ever and ever until it exploded itself, an atheist can say exactly the same about unconscious first cause energy. If it exploded once, it could have exploded over and over again. However, that is still not the point. You and atheists can both assume an eternal first cause, conscious or unconscious (I don't buy the something from nothing argument either), and extrapolate the existence of an infinite number of past universes from the historical fact of this one. It is therefore illogical to dismiss an atheistic infinite number of universes as a poppycock dodge to avoid design, when you yourself believe there have been an infinite number of universes! If you can have an infinite number of universes, so can an atheist, and that slashes the odds against one of them happening to be suitable for life.-dhw: A huge mystery on a par with our not knowing where intelligence or consciousness came from. That is why your solution (God) is not a solution at all, but merely the substitution of one mystery for another.-DAVID: First cause intelligence/consciousness has always existed. You cannot conjure up intelligence and consciousness out of raw energy. I've covered this before.-You have left out what I was responding to: namely, your own statement: "Yes, we don't know where God came from or why He bothered to exist. One of those huge mysteries." Your argument against atheism is exactly the same as the atheist argument against your theism. You cannot conjure up intelligence and consciousness out of "first cause" just by stating that it is so. Sorry, but it's still one "huge mystery" in place of another!

4518 views


> dhw: You have left out what I was responding to: namely, your own statement: "Yes, we don't know where God came from or why He bothered to exist. One of those huge mysteries." Your argument against atheism is exactly the same as the atheist argument against your theism. You cannot conjure up intelligence and consciousness out of "first cause" just by stating that it is so. Sorry, but it's still one "huge mystery" in place of another!-Not a huge mystery to me. God exists as a first cause. What I said was I don't know where or how He came to exist or if He had a cause, because I cannot know that. I must make the asumption that God has always existed, and cannot give it a reason other than to look at the results of his activity.

4472 views

Dhw: You and atheists can both assume an eternal first cause, conscious or unconscious (I don't buy the something from nothing argument either), and extrapolate the existence of an infinite number of past universes from the historical fact of this one. It is therefore illogical to dismiss an atheistic infinite number of universes as a poppycock dodge to avoid design, when you yourself believe there have been an infinite number of universes! If you can have an infinite number of universes, so can an atheist, and that slashes the odds against one of them happening to be suitable for life.-May I take it that you have now withdrawn the argument that an atheist belief in an infinite number of universes, which you also believe in, is a poppycock dodge to avoid design? (See below)-dhw: You cannot conjure up intelligence and consciousness out of "first cause" just by stating that it is so. Sorry, but it's still one "huge mystery" in place of another!-DAVID: Not a huge mystery to me. God exists as a first cause. What I said was I don't know where or how He came to exist or if He had a cause, because I cannot know that. I must make the asumption that God has always existed, and cannot give it a reason other than to look at the results of his activity.-I don't know where or how intelligence came to exist, because I cannot know that. All I know is that it does exist (here on Earth) and must have had a cause. The claim that the cause was an intelligence concerning which we do not know where or how it came to exist, or if it had a cause, still puts one huge mystery in place of another. If it is reasonable for you to live with one insoluble mystery because of your faith in God, it must be equally reasonable for an atheist to live with another insoluble mystery because of his faith in chance. Neither of you should therefore be dismissing the other's theories as poppycock. As in the discussions on an infinite number of universes and on my panpsychist hypothesis, theists and atheists attack one another's arguments for precisely the same reasons. You are pots and kettles. But you need to climb up onto my comfortably padded fence to get the full view!

4584 views


> dhw: May I take it that you have now withdrawn the argument that an atheist belief in an infinite number of universes, which you also believe in, is a poppycock dodge to avoid design? -When I discussed the possibility that God might have created other universes in the past, it was a response to your question about God's past time. We theists know He created this one, therefore that may be what He does, one after another. It is not a theory, it is not a point of faith, it is a plausable answer to your question.
> 
> dhw:I don't know where or how intelligence came to exist, because I cannot know that. All I know is that it does exist (here on Earth) and must have had a cause. The claim that the cause was an intelligence concerning which we do not know where or how it came to exist, or if it had a cause, still puts one huge mystery in place of another. If it is reasonable for you to live with one insoluble mystery because of your faith in God, it must be equally reasonable for an atheist to live with another insoluble mystery because of his faith in chance. -But even you reject chance from your padded fence. How can you defend the atheists as possibly correct in their views? The evidence is skewed my way.

4537 views

dhw: May I take it that you have now withdrawn the argument that an atheist belief in an infinite number of universes, which you also believe in, is a poppycock dodge to avoid design?
 
DAVID: When I discussed the possibility that God might have created other universes in the past, it was a response to your question about God's past time. We theists know He created this one, therefore that may be what He does, one after another. It is not a theory, it is not a point of faith, it is a plausable answer to your question.-On 21 June you wrote: "I think we can suppose an infinite number of universes in past eternity if we presume first cause is eternal" [which you do]. Atheists "know" that non-conscious eternal energy produced this one, therefore that may be what eternal energy does, one after another. Why is it plausible for a theist to "suppose" an infinite number of universes, but poppycock for an atheist?-dhw: I don't know where or how intelligence came to exist, because I cannot know that. All I know is that it does exist (here on Earth) and must have had a cause. The claim that the cause was an intelligence concerning which we do not know where or how it came to exist, or if it had a cause, still puts one huge mystery in place of another. If it is reasonable for you to live with one insoluble mystery because of your faith in God, it must be equally reasonable for an atheist to live with another insoluble mystery because of his faith in chance.
 
DAVID: But even you reject chance from your padded fence. How can you defend the atheists as possibly correct in their views? The evidence is skewed my way.-From my padded fence I do not believe in chance, in God, or in my panpsychist hypothesis (whether theistic or atheistic). But I realize that one of them must be closer to the truth than the others, and so I do not disbelieve or "reject" any of them. Not believing is not the same as rejecting ... a distinction many theists and atheists seem to have difficulty understanding. In discussions with theists, I tend to offer atheist objections, and vice versa. My human reason and experience, however, are appallingly limited, and because of these limitations, there are few arguments I would dare to dismiss as "poppycock". I can only try to explain as rationally as possible why I don't believe them.

4526 views

dhw: On 21 June you wrote: "I think we can suppose an infinite number of universes in past eternity if we presume first cause is eternal" [which you do]. Atheists "know" that non-conscious eternal energy produced this one, therefore that may be what eternal energy does, one after another. Why is it plausible for a theist to "suppose" an infinite number of universes, but poppycock for an atheist?-I 'supposed' it to answer your question of what God did all those eons before the Big Bang. I don't know what He did, and it doesn't matter to my personal theology. I only know this universe and don't need a multiverse, as the atheists do to support their position.-> 
> dhw: From my padded fence I do not believe in chance, in God, or in my panpsychist hypothesis (whether theistic or atheistic). But I realize that one of them must be closer to the truth than the others, and so I do not disbelieve or "reject" any of them. Not believing is not the same as rejecting ... a distinction many theists and atheists seem to have difficulty understanding. -Your disbelief is rational for you. I believe that two of your proposals require chance: chance itself and panpsychism as you describe it evolves on its own by chance. That leaves God and you find it rational to not accept that third choice.

4594 views

dhw: On 21 June you wrote: "I think we can suppose an infinite number of universes in past eternity if we presume first cause is eternal" [which you do]. Atheists "know" that non-conscious eternal energy produced this one, therefore that may be what eternal energy does, one after another. Why is it plausible for a theist to "suppose" an infinite number of universes, but poppycock for an atheist?-DAVID: I 'supposed' it to answer your question of what God did all those eons before the Big Bang. I don't know what He did, and it doesn't matter to my personal theology. I only know this universe and don't need a multiverse, as the atheists do to support their position.-I asked the question because you dismissed the atheist idea of other universes as a poppycock device to avoid design. If the theory of other universes is plausible for you as a theist, because something must have preceded the Big Bang, you should grant that it is plausible for an atheist because something must have preceded the Big Bang. The fact that you don't need this plausible theory because you believe in God anyway is hardly a reason for dismissing the same plausible theory just because atheists need it!-dhw: From my padded fence I do not believe in chance, in God, or in my panpsychist hypothesis (whether theistic or atheistic). But I realize that one of them must be closer to the truth than the others, and so I do not disbelieve or "reject" any of them. Not believing is not the same as rejecting ... a distinction many theists and atheists seem to have difficulty understanding. -DAVID: Your disbelief is rational for you. I believe that two of your proposals require chance: chance itself and panpsychism as you describe it evolves on its own by chance. That leaves God and you find it rational to not accept that third choice.-It is not disbelief, and you have still not understood the distinction between disbelief and not believing. Theists and atheists disbelieve: you reject chance, and they reject God. I accept the possibility of chance, and I accept the possibility of God, and I accept the possibility of consciousness evolving. Why? Because I cannot think of any other explanation. But each of them has a starting point that is so unlikely that I cannot choose any of them. In The Sign of Four, Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes sums it up beautifully: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" You and atheists are satisfied that you have distinguished between the impossible and the improbable, and you have come to diametrically opposite conclusions. I have not been able to make the distinction. For me, all three options remain improbable but not impossible.

4592 views


> Dhw:I asked the question because you dismissed the atheist idea of other universes as a poppycock device to avoid design. If the theory of other universes is plausible for you as a theist, because something must have preceded the Big Bang, you should grant that it is plausible for an atheist because something must have preceded the Big Bang. The fact that you don't need this plausible theory because you believe in God anyway is hardly a reason for dismissing the same plausible theory just because atheists need it!-You persist in missing my point. I don't need to imagine any other universes to support my theism. I only know this universe and what it shows me. Atheists have conjured up multiverses (with absolutely no way of proving them) to support their atheism theory.-> 
> dhw: It is not disbelief, and you have still not understood the distinction between disbelief and not believing. Theists and atheists disbelieve: you reject chance, and they reject God. I accept the possibility of chance, and I accept the possibility of God, and I accept the possibility of consciousness evolving. -I fully understand your position. It is an unwillingness to think outside your box. Reminds me of Schroedinger's cat.-> dhw: In The Sign of Four, Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes sums it up beautifully: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" You and atheists are satisfied that you have distinguished between the impossible and the improbable, and you have come to diametrically opposite conclusions. I have not been able to make the distinction. For me, all three options remain improbable but not impossible.-I know the quote well. Loved to read about Holmes as a child. Are all three options equally improbable in your mind?

4509 views

DAVID: You persist in missing my point. I don't need to imagine any other universes to support my theism. I only know this universe and what it shows me. Atheists have conjured up multiverses (with absolutely no way of proving them) to support their atheism theory.-Your last sentence is the point at issue, and is the subject of "Dennis Prager on multiverses" (your post of 18 June at 16.07) which triggered this discussion: 
 
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2013/06/18/why-some-scientists-embrace-the-...-When I asked whether your God might not have created universes prior to this one, you answered: "we can suppose an infinite number of universes in past eternity." An infinite number of universes in the present and an infinite number of universes in the past makes little mathematical difference! The point which "you persist in missing" is that if you can suppose an infinite number of universes, it is illogical for you then to dismiss the very same concept as poppycock just because atheists need it for their own theory. If it is plausible for you, it has to be plausible for them.-dhw: It is not disbelief, and you have still not understood the distinction between disbelief and not believing. Theists and atheists disbelieve: you reject chance, and they reject God. I accept the possibility of chance, and I accept the possibility of God, and I accept the possibility of consciousness evolving.
 
DAVID: I fully understand your position. It is an unwillingness to think outside your box. Reminds me of Schroedinger's cat.-I see it rather differently. By accepting the possibility of all three hypotheses, while not being hemmed in by any, I see myself as willing to think three ways (see below), whereas theists and atheists have dived into their box and closed the lid. 
 
dhw: In The Sign of Four, Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes sums it up beautifully: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" You and atheists are satisfied that you have distinguished between the impossible and the improbable, and you have come to diametrically opposite conclusions. I have not been able to make the distinction. For me, all three options remain improbable but not impossible.-DAVID: I know the quote well. Loved to read about Holmes as a child. Are all three options equally improbable in your mind?-That is a very difficult question, which has forced me into a lengthy session of introspection! The short answer is yes. But it's a complicated yes. If I could focus solely on your unanswerable design argument, I would have to acknowledge that a designer is the least improbable. If I could focus solely on eternity, infinity, the impersonality and randomness of the universe as I see it, atheistic chance would win. If I could focus solely on the meeting of individual minds through discussion, literature, music, on individual psychic experiences, and on the vast range of individual intelligences throughout the human, animal and plant kingdoms, my relatively new (to me) atheistic panpsychist hypothesis would seem the least improbable. However, each hypothesis impinges on the others, and they are always in conflict. I simply do not have the wherewithal to grasp the whole and make sense of it. No-one has. That is why you need faith to jump into your box!

4633 views


> http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2013/06/18/why-some-scientists-embrace-the-... 
> dhw: When I asked whether your God might not have created universes prior to this one, you answered: "we can suppose an infinite number of universes in past eternity." An infinite number of universes in the present and an infinite number of universes in the past makes little mathematical difference! The point which "you persist in missing" is that if you can suppose an infinite number of universes, it is illogical for you then to dismiss the very same concept as poppycock just because atheists need it for their own theory. If it is plausible for you, it has to be plausible for them.-Your question to me was what was God doing in the past before this universe? So I conjured up a supposition that he probably made other universes, since that is what we know He does. That supposition is not part of my belief system or vital to it. You are trying to make it seem as if it is. On the other hand, the atheists (other than that fool Vic Stenger, who has a book on why it does not look designed) are threatened by the designer universe concept. They need the hope, and hype, of multiverses to defend their position. They only know of one universe, just as I do, but have to invent from thin air and squirrely math a ray of hope from infinite universes. 
> 
> DAVID: I know the quote well. Loved to read about Holmes as a child. Are all three options equally improbable in your mind?
> 
> dhw: That is a very difficult question, which has forced me into a lengthy session of introspection! The short answer is yes. But it's a complicated yes. If I could focus solely on your unanswerable design argument, I would have to acknowledge that a designer is the least improbable. If I could focus solely on eternity, infinity, the impersonality and randomness of the universe as I see it, atheistic chance would win. If I could focus solely on the meeting of individual minds through discussion, literature, music, on individual psychic experiences, and on the vast range of individual intelligences throughout the human, animal and plant kingdoms, my relatively new (to me) atheistic panpsychist hypothesis would seem the least improbable. However, each hypothesis impinges on the others, and they are always in conflict. I simply do not have the wherewithal to grasp the whole and make sense of it. No-one has. That is why you need faith to jump into your box!-A very honest analysis. As I parse your words, the weakest consideration of yours is chance. The universe is not random, but follows rules and laws that make perfect sense to us. We have decoded much of the workings of this universe, granting as we have that its basis in the quantum realm is unyieldingly obscure. That leaves the design/designer option and the evolution of intelligence proposal. But panpsychism takes its cue from the recognition that intelligence and consciousness seem to pervade the universe. From my viewpoint the balance of improbability has design the winner.

4634 views

dhw: When I asked whether your God might not have created universes prior to this one, you answered: "we can suppose an infinite number of universes in past eternity" and called it a "plausible answer to your question."-DAVID: Your question to me was what was God doing in the past before this universe? So I conjured up a supposition that he probably made other universes, since that is what we know He does. -Atheist supposition: non-conscious energy probably made other universes, since that is what we know it does.-DAVID: That supposition is not part of my belief system or vital to it. You are trying to make it seem as if it is.
 
The discussion is not about your belief system. You have attacked the atheist proposal of an infinite number of universes as poppycock, and yet you agree that an infinite number of universes is supposable and plausible!
 
DAVID: On the other hand, the atheists [...] are threatened by the designer universe concept. They need the hope, and hype, of multiverses to defend their position. They only know of one universe, just as I do, but have to invent from thin air and squirrely math a ray of hope from infinite universes. -Yes, atheists need it and you don't. Instead you "need" your eternal, hidden, tough love God to explain your own view of the universe, which atheists would dismiss as an invention "from thin air" because you need "the hope and the hype". The fact that people need an explanation does not make it poppycock. So please let us have a straight answer, regardless of your belief system: is the theory of infinite universes PLAUSIBLE or not?
 
dhw: ...each hypothesis impinges on the others, and they are always in conflict. I simply do not have the wherewithal to grasp the whole and make sense of it. No-one has. That is why you need faith to jump into your box!-DAVID: A very honest analysis. As I parse your words, the weakest consideration of yours is chance. The universe is not random, but follows rules and laws that make perfect sense to us. We have decoded much of the workings of this universe, granting as we have that its basis in the quantum realm is unyieldingly obscure. That leaves the design/designer option and the evolution of intelligence proposal. But panpsychism takes its cue from the recognition that intelligence and consciousness seem to pervade the universe. From my viewpoint the balance of improbability has design the winner.-You say I'm unwilling to think outside my box, but you always revert to design. I was thinking in terms of the "eternity, infinity, impersonality and randomness" of stars (like species) coming and going, all the red giants, all the white dwarfs, billions of galaxies, black holes devouring, no known life anywhere but here. And our Earth is a speck of dust, which will also disappear into unyielding obscurity. My atheist hypothesis suggests there's no sign, let alone proof of a single, conscious, purposeful mind creating and controlling all this ceaseless activity in all the impenetrable vastness of space. And my atheistic panpsychist hypothesis suggests there's no overall, purposeful intelligence pervading the universe, but only countless individual intelligences with their own individual (or communal) purposes. From your viewpoint design is the winner. So who's in a box?

4611 views


> Yes, atheists need it and you don't. Instead you "need" your eternal, hidden, tough love God to explain your own view of the universe, which atheists would dismiss as an invention "from thin air" because you need "the hope and the hype". The fact that people need an explanation does not make it poppycock. So please let us have a straight answer, regardless of your belief system: is the theory of infinite universes PLAUSIBLE or not?-No, not at the same time as in multiverses. I supposed for my anwser to you the possibility of an infinite series of single universes, mimicking what we know about this universe. You are arguing apples and oranges. I don't need the series in my imagination to support my theism. And single file universes is no multiverse, the way the atheists exclude a designer universe. I think each was a designer universe, one at a time!-> 
> You say I'm unwilling to think outside my box, but you always revert to design. ......... From your viewpoint design is the winner. So who's in a box?-You are. This universe is designed for life or from your viewpoint appears that way. Why not accept the idea, because it makes the most sense, even without jumping the chasm of faith. All I can ever get to for sure in my thinking is a designer intelligence, always existing. I do not try to give that entity the religions' atributes of the God they describe. They do not try to describe the conclusion I've reached. I have my own religion of David.

4490 views

Dhw: Yes, atheists need it [an infinite number of universes] and you don't. Instead you "need" your eternal, hidden, tough love God to explain your own view of the universe, which atheists would dismiss as an invention "from thin air" because you need "the hope and the hype". The fact that people need an explanation does not make it poppycock. So please let us have a straight answer, regardless of your belief system: is the theory of infinite universes PLAUSIBLE or not?-DAVID: No, not at the same time as in multiverses. I supposed for my answer to you the possibility of an infinite series of single universes, mimicking what we know about this universe.-An infinite series of single universes = an infinite number of universes. "Mimicking what we know about this universe" is not necessary for the atheist supposition.
 
DAVID: You are arguing apples and oranges. I don't need the series in my imagination to support my theism. And single file universes is no multiverse, the way the atheists exclude a designer universe. I think each was a designer universe, one at a time!-That's because you're in a designer box. But both boxes can be eternal, and if eternal energy can produce one universe, it can produce an infinite series of who knows what kind of universes, leading to who knows what kinds of life and non-life? Their nature is irrelevant to my point that an infinite series of "single file universes" gives us an infinite number of potential lucky breaks for OUR universe. The argument for one lucky break is therefore plausible even if you and I don't believe it.-dhw: You say I'm unwilling to think outside my box, but you always revert to design. ......... From your viewpoint design is the winner. So who's in a box?
DAVID: You are. This universe is designed for life or from your viewpoint appears that way. Why not accept the idea, because it makes the most sense, even without jumping the chasm of faith. All I can ever get to for sure in my thinking is a designer intelligence, always existing. I do not try to give that entity the religions' atributes of the God they describe. They do not try to describe the conclusion I've reached. I have my own religion of David.-The first attribute you give your God is "a designer intelligence", i.e. it is conscious, and it plans (because no designer ever works without a plan), and it could hardly plan without having any purpose, and so your God ... according to the religion of David ... had the purpose of creating humans, but why did he want to create humans? Because he wanted to test their faith, to teach them the lessons of tough love (ah, God loves us). Are these attributes any different from OT Judaism?
 
A God without attributes may as well not exist. Why not emulate BBella, and call it the All That Is? It is there, and it produced the universe and life. No name. No attributes. The perfect agnostic solution. But neither you nor I nor Dawkins nor the Archbishop of Canterbury can rest content with such a blank, and so we shall all carry on inventing explanations till we have shuffled off this mortal coil.

4542 views


> dhw:That's because you're in a designer box. But both boxes can be eternal, and if eternal energy can produce one universe, it can produce an infinite series of who knows what kind of universes, leading to who knows what kinds of life and non-life? Their nature is irrelevant to my point that an infinite series of "single file universes" gives us an infinite number of potential lucky breaks for OUR universe. The argument for one lucky break is therefore plausible even if you and I don't believe it.-Again you are at apples and oranges. I described a series of designer universes, each one fit for life. no lucky break. All we can know from science and history is First Cause (All That IS, God) is capable of starting a universe that allows life with consciousness to appear. We cannot drag any imagined reality beyond that observation.-> dhw: The first attribute you give your God is "a designer intelligence", i.e. it is conscious, and it plans (because no designer ever works without a plan), and it could hardly plan without having any purpose, and so your God ... according to the religion of David ... had the purpose of creating humans, but why did he want to create humans? Because he wanted to test their faith, to teach them the lessons of tough love (ah, God loves us). Are these attributes any different from OT Judaism?-You are correct. Not really different. But interestingly, arrived at by studying science. 
> 
> dhw; A God without attributes may as well not exist. Why not emulate BBella, and call it the All That Is? It is there, and it produced the universe and life. No name. No attributes. The perfect agnostic solution. -I don't see the agnosticism at all. See my response above. You are so bound to the God of the OT that you met in childhood you let that image muddle your thinking. Forget that God. Start on the same path I used. Just don't conjure up wooly ideas such as unorganized energy can evolve to invent consciousness.

4488 views

dhw: [...] if eternal energy can produce one universe, it can produce an infinite series of who knows what kind of universes, leading to who knows what kinds of life and non-life? Their nature is irrelevant to my point that an infinite series of "single file universes" gives us an infinite number of potential lucky breaks for OUR universe. The argument for one lucky break is therefore plausible even if you and I don't believe it.-DAVID: Again you are at apples and oranges. I described a series of designer universes, each one fit for life. no lucky break. All we can know from science and history is First Cause (All That IS, God) is capable of starting a universe that allows life with consciousness to appear. We cannot drag any imagined reality beyond that observation.-Absolutely right. All we can know is that we are in a universe with life and consciousness (our own). But you drag your imagined reality as far as a conscious God who designed it. My brand of atheist drags his imagined reality as far as non-conscious energy which produced it. You can both extrapolate the possibility of an infinite number of past universes (maybe different, maybe similar ... it's the infinite number that matters to the atheist), and you each consider your own hypothesis to be more likely. Pots and kettles.-dhw: The first attribute you give your God is "a designer intelligence", i.e. it is conscious, and it plans (because no designer ever works without a plan), and it could hardly plan without having any purpose, and so your God ... according to the religion of David ... had the purpose of creating humans, but why did he want to create humans? Because he wanted to test their faith, to teach them the lessons of tough love (ah, God loves us). Are these attributes any different from OT Judaism?-DAVID: You are correct. Not really different. But interestingly, arrived at by studying science.
 
Interesting indeed, for a very different reason (see below).
 
dhw; A God without attributes may as well not exist. Why not emulate BBella, and call it the All That Is? It is there, and it produced the universe and life. No name. No attributes. The perfect agnostic solution. -DAVID: I don't see the agnosticism at all. See my response above. You are so bound to the God of the OT that you met in childhood you let that image muddle your thinking. Forget that God. Start on the same path I used. Just don't conjure up wooly ideas such as unorganized energy can evolve to invent consciousness.-An extraordinary non sequitur. You see yourself as a panentheist who does not endow God with any attributes, and yet in fact your God is the God of the OT! I offer you the ALL THAT IS without attributes, and you think I'm being muddled by the OT! The three "imagined realities" ... your eternal designer God full of readymade attributes, chance, my panpsychist hypothesis ... are ALL woolly, because they all come up against the unanswerable question of how consciousness arose. The muddled theist and atheist cling to their own woolly hypotheses and dismiss the others as woolly hypotheses, while the clear-thinking agnostic sees that they are all woolly hypotheses, and so remains neutral.

4606 views

dhw: An extraordinary non sequitur. You see yourself as a panentheist who does not endow God with any attributes, and yet in fact your God is the God of the OT! I offer you the ALL THAT IS without attributes, and you think I'm being muddled by the OT! -I feel the OT training of your childhood muddles your thinking. I make up my God as as I go along. My God does not include any trinitarian extensions, which is why He is OT only. You keep worrying about God and evil. God gave us free will and life. He doesn't worry much about evil, for what He did allows it. He arranged for a guided evolution and that implies red of tooth and claw. I do not believe He is the sweetness and light of the OT on one hand and killing off sets of people on the other. The OT makes him a complex mixture. I try to avoid all that.

4565 views

The muddled story so far: Atheists need to believe in an infinite number of universes to support their faith in chance. David supposes that his designer God would have created an infinite number of universes. His infinite number, however, is more plausible than the atheists' "poppycock" infinite number, because (a) he doesn't need an infinite number to support his faith, and (b) God designed them all.
 
We have now moved on to David's claim that he does not try to give his God "the religions' attributes of the God they describe". It turns out that he gives them most of the attributes described by OT Judaism.-Dhw: A God without attributes may as well not exist. Why not emulate BBella, and call it the All That Is? It is there, and it produced the universe and life. No name. No attributes. The perfect agnostic solution. -DAVID: I don't see the agnosticism at all. See my response above. You are so bound to the God of the OT that you met in childhood you let that image muddle your thinking.-dhw: An extraordinary non sequitur. You see yourself as a panentheist who does not endow God with any attributes, and yet in fact your God is the God of the OT! I offer you the ALL THAT IS without attributes, and you think I'm being muddled by the OT! -DAVID: I feel the OT training of your childhood muddles your thinking. I make up my God as I go along. -I admire your honesty. This is probably why on a Sunday your God has no religion's attributes, and on a Monday he becomes the God of the Old Testament. "But interestingly, arrived at by studying science" (Monday, 01 July at 15.50).
 
DAVID: My God does not include any trinitarian extensions, which is why He is OT only. [Christians might wonder why this should be a recommendation!] You keep worrying about God and evil. God gave us free will and life. He doesn't worry much about evil, for what He did allows it. He arranged for a guided evolution and that implies red of tooth and claw. I do not believe He is the sweetness and light of the OT on one hand and killing off sets of people on the other. The OT makes him a complex mixture. I try to avoid all that.-Yet more attributes! Rest assured, I don't keep worrying about God and evil, but I'm willing to discuss different concepts. Yours apparently created the scope for evil but doesn't worry much about it, stays hidden to test our faith, and hopes we'll learn our lessons from his brand of tough love. This sounds to me like the complex mixture of the OT which you try to avoid, although you believe it. I wrote earlier: "The muddled theist and atheist cling to their own woolly hypotheses and dismiss the others as woolly hypotheses, while the clear-thinking agnostic sees that they are all woolly hypotheses, and so remains neutral." That applies as much to muddled theists' woolly concepts of God as it does to woolly explanations of life and consciousness. BBella's ALL THAT IS expresses what we know, and avoids all attributes. Agnosticism par excellence!

4533 views


> dhw: Yet more attributes! Rest assured, I don't keep worrying about God and evil, but I'm willing to discuss different concepts. .....I wrote earlier: "The muddled theist and atheist cling to their own woolly hypotheses and dismiss the others as woolly hypotheses, while the clear-thinking agnostic sees that they are all woolly hypotheses, and so remains neutral." That applies as much to muddled theists' woolly concepts of God as it does to woolly explanations of life and consciousness. BBella's ALL THAT IS expresses what we know, and avoids all attributes. Agnosticism par excellence!-Your agnosticism is just as muddled. You don't accept a chance development of All That Is. You do accept evolution but you are sure Darwin got it wrong by relying too much on ramdon mutation and natural selection and you have embraced epigenetics. Is Lamarck OK? You accept a first cause, but are afraid to imagine what it might be. You admit to not being able to conceptualize a first cause with consciousness. Since you continue to seek 'truth' about how our reality started can you just let a little imaginative supposition sneak in? With all this confusion whirling about, I really view your picket fence as completely non-padded.

4542 views

dhw: Yet more attributes! Rest assured, I don't keep worrying about God and evil, but I'm willing to discuss different concepts. .....I wrote earlier: "The muddled theist and atheist cling to their own woolly hypotheses and dismiss the others as woolly hypotheses, while the clear-thinking agnostic sees that they are all woolly hypotheses, and so remains neutral." That applies as much to muddled theists' woolly concepts of God as it does to woolly explanations of life and consciousness. BBella's ALL THAT IS expresses what we know, and avoids all attributes. Agnosticism par excellence!-DAVID: Your agnosticism is just as muddled. You don't accept a chance development of All That Is. -No muddle there.-DAVID: You do accept evolution but you are sure Darwin got it wrong by relying too much on ramdon mutation and natural selection and you have embraced epigenetics. Is Lamarck OK?
 
Evolution comprises several theories. I reject random mutation and gradualism, accept common descent and natural selection, am convinced that epigenetics plays a major role, and suspect that it is bound up with some form of Lamarckism (inheritance of characteristics invented by the "intelligent cell/genome"). No muddle there. But like you, I am dependent on the research of the experts, and my views have certainly developed considerably over the last five years.
 
DAVID: You accept a first cause, but are afraid to imagine what it might be.-Not afraid. I simply don't know, and cannot subscribe to any particular creed. Not knowing/believing does not constitute a muddle.-DAVID: You admit to not being able to conceptualize a first cause with consciousness. Since you continue to seek 'truth' about how our reality started can you just let a little imaginative supposition sneak in?-I also admit to not being able to conceptualize a non-conscious first-cause that gives rise to consciousness, either by chance or by panpsychist evolution. Yes, I can let a little imaginative supposition sneak in, which is why I can put myself in the shoes of a theist, atheist, or panpsychist of whatever ilk. I do not reject their hypotheses. But not rejecting does not mean believing. I see merits and weaknesses in all three hypotheses, and remain neutral. No muddle there.-DAVID: With all this confusion whirling about, I really view your picket fence as completely non-padded.-Where is the confusion? Ignorance, certainly, but admission of ignorance is not the same as believing conflicting concepts, or accepting hypotheses that require the abandonment of reason. My picket fence is padded to the extent that I do not have to sit on the gaping holes of contradictory arguments, or on the sharp points of immutable dogmas. When it comes to the existence and nature of God, BBella's neutral ALL THAT IS remains the only concept that does NOT cause confusion.

4568 views

I know I probably shouldn't dare to make any biblical assertions in a thread about god, but... -The biblical answer is something we can certainly relate to. There was God. God created a son(motivation, loneliness, creativity, who knows). They spent some time getting to know each other, as any good father and son would. Every thing else was created 'through and for' his son. (The books words, not mine..) Certainly creating something more for your son is something that we can understand.

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

4507 views

Tony: I know I probably shouldn't dare to make any biblical assertions in a thread about god, but... 
> 
> Tony: The biblical answer is something we can certainly relate to. There was God. God created a son(motivation, loneliness, creativity, who knows). They spent some time getting to know each other, as any good father and son would. Every thing else was created 'through and for' his son. (The books words, not mine..) Certainly creating something more for your son is something that we can understand.-Of course, there is my viewpoint, which does not accept there was a son, and so I work on the concept of God only from the Old Testament.

4471 views

TONY: I know I probably shouldn't dare to make any biblical assertions in a thread about god, but...-Irony appreciated!
 
TONY: The biblical answer is something we can certainly relate to. There was God. God created a son(motivation, loneliness, creativity, who knows). They spent some time getting to know each other, as any good father and son would. Every thing else was created 'through and for' his son. (The books words, not mine..) Certainly creating something more for your son is something that we can understand.-By sheer coincidence, I have just read the obituary of a former chaplain at my younger son's old school (though he left before my son went there). You will draw your own conclusions from the following extract, which presents an interesting and, for me, rather sad counterbalance to Tony's post:-"...His passion for preaching drew big crowds.-But his faith dwindled. He was involved in the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which cast doubt on much of the accepted historical narrative of Christianity. Reading the Christian existentialist Paul Tillich reinforced his doubts, as did heated debates with John Robinson, Anglican bishop of Woolwich and author of the controversial Honest to God (1963). Billington considered his own The Christian Outsider to be its sequel.
 
After 19 years as a Methodist minister, he wrote The Christian Outsider (1971), which concluded that a personal God did not exist, Jesus was not his son, and there was no afterlife. He was accused of heresy by the Methodist doctrinal committee of appeal, tried at the Methodist Conference in Harrogate ... "850 ministers discussing nothing but me and my beliefs for seven hours" ... and defrocked."-(He went on to be head of philosophy from 1971 to 1995 at what became the University of the West of England, and wrote several more books.)-Clearly not everyone who studies the bible, as this man did in great detail, can relate to its answers.

4569 views

dhw: Clearly not everyone who studies the bible, as this man did in great detail, can relate to its answers.-I am so thankful I reached my conclusions from science alone.

4477 views

A Christian view of first cause:-http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/breakpoint-columns/entry/2/23856-
"In short, the universe was created by something that consisted of nothingâinstantly. Think of a rabbit being pulled out of a hat . . . without the hat or a magician, and you get the hang of it.
 
"It is not hard to imagine that scientists are a bit uneasy with this "Creator"âone that is omnipresent and omnipotent, yet immaterial and non-physical, except by definition. Those features infer something or Someone that is disqualified in their strictly, and unapologetically, materialistic discipline"

4380 views

DAVID: A Christian view of first cause:-http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/breakpoint-columns/entry/2/23856-QUOTE: "In short, the universe was created by something that consisted of nothingâinstantly. Think of a rabbit being pulled out of a hat . . . without the hat or a magician, and you get the hang of it."-That is a common atheist version, which depends on the Big Bang. I also find it unbelievable. As unbelievable as an eternal immaterial magician suddenly making himself go bang, and consciously spreading himself around as a universe.-QUOTE: "Whether the universe is the result of the Void of Buddhism, the Vacuum of scientism, or the God of theism, it is a question that can't be settled by science, except by fiat. In fact, these are not questions at all; they are presuppositions upon which our search for purpose and meaning are founded.
Lawrence Krauss is right to imagine that science has run its course, for each of the questions above hinges on the ultimate question: What is Ultimate Reality, the thing that is self-existent and non-contingent, preceding all that exists? Is it matter, energy, the vacuum, God? Ultimate Reality is the fountain from which all knowledge springs, yet is beyond the "limits of empirical science," whether from light spectra captured by the Hubble, exotic particles detected by the Large Hadron Collider, or cellular structures unraveled by the electron microscope."-Fine up to now. But then he goes and spoils it all with this:-"It is something or Someone, that must be revealed and, in fact, has been: "In the beginning, was the Logos.""-Just like all the others, this is a presupposition, or "fiat" (strange use of the word, but certainly more applicable to religion than to science). The usual atheist pots and theist kettles.

4456 views


> dhw: Fine up to now. But then he goes and spoils it all with this:
> 
> "It is something or Someone, that must be revealed and, in fact, has been: "In the beginning, was the Logos.""
> 
> dhw:Just like all the others, this is a presupposition, or "fiat" (strange use of the word, but certainly more applicable to religion than to science). The usual atheist pots and theist kettles.-Just because he used "Logos" you slip away from the point. The laws, principal requirements of life, the mechanics of the universe all follow rules and laws we can define with our minds. There has to be a source of such an underlying organization of information. Only a thoughtful mind could create such a structure of laws and rules.

4402 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum