Why is a \"designer\" so compelling? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, July 25, 2009, 04:54 (5599 days ago) @ dhw

I have no problem understanding what is meant by supernatural. My point is that we don't know the boundaries of what constitutes natural. You have summed it up very succinctly yourself: "We just don't know enough about our universe yet." The concept of the supernatural has too many silly associations. I'd prefer to say that there may be forms of communication and existence beyond those that we are currently aware of. 
> - It would be nice for you to clarify a bit why you think we can't draw the border to what is natural. - > You ask: "Why can't we let investigation take its course?" We do. Belief in God never stopped the Mendels and Newtons and Faradays, or even the young pre-agnostic Darwin from investigating, and there are plenty of theist scientists still investigating today. It makes no difference whether you try to find out how Nature did it, or how God did it (so long as neither belief influences the investigation). Only the prime cause remains unknowable (chance or design, unconscious or conscious, Nature or God, Nature = God).
> 
> ...But if by the entire system you mean everything excluding the prime cause, we're back where we started. Besides, calculating odds can't give you certainty.
> - The goal isn't about certainty its about what's more likely than not. If, for example, it can be shown that your definition of abiogenesis can happen, and that system is well studied, we would be able to determine how likely the process is--if we study the system to completion. If its a system that produces life on its own more often than not, and without human interference, then it argues a little better for a lack of design. - 
> (I've just read your post of 18 July at 19.39, in which you doubt if a "deity has done more than provide a psychological framework for a human being in terms of how we work in our world." That sounds pretty useful to me. Remember, it's you who brought up the criterion of utility!)
> - I wasn't clear here. The scope of utility here is in an explanatory power that advances exoteric knowledge. The kind of knowledge discussed in your suggestion here is purely esoteric (in the internal sense). - I think perhaps you also take me as too anti-religion here... you also appear to have me stretch this again beyond the scope of learning about the world. - It is fully true that if nothing else each person seeks to fashion his/her own full understanding of the universe and their place in it, and we're all free to choose that path. However, some paths come with certain restrictions. Some choose to place the *entirety* of all things on the foot of that which is fully unknowable, thus directly asserting that anything is indeed possible--when we *know* in fact that this is false. However, the problem with this as a skeptic is that we must also realize that there is an inherent superiority in explanations that actually *are* knowable... thinkable. While I don't adhere to scientism the fact remains is that this model of the world we have built is metaphysically superior to anything that came before it. While you agree that science methodically destroys superstition... at what point can we say that a creator being *isn't* such a thing? This is why I continuously assert that invoking a creator is metaphysically pointless beyond making (some of us) feel better. At that same token I have to swing the axe back the other way to say that world we have created through science is a *model* and is not by nature *actual reality.* It is an abstraction through which we can make predictions about our world. It doesn't rule out a creator but at the same time, metaphysically speaking it places definite limits about the creator that only a few forms of theism can actually deal with. - It is... a consequentialist argument to assert that because some of these people created useful things that it should excuse the bad acts they had also done. Last I checked that kind of ethical argument was dismissed via Kant. (Though on questions of survival I'm positively consequentialist myself.) - As for the paranormal, you're not likely to find me able to appreciably shed light on the topic. I know the "paranormal" as espoused through tarot cards, new-age religion, and other assorted phenomenon. I tend to stay 100% completely out of paranormal discussions as all I've ever run into in the past is rabid conviction from people who just want me to justify their beliefs as a "man of science." The research done by the U.S. Air Force gives a valid explanation for NDE that is not by any means paranormal in experience, and the model proposed is elegant--and with some of the advances in neuroscience very plausible. But I won't touch your fire tale just like I won't touch my friend Bill's experience with "demons." I've never once in my life encountered something like what either of you talked about, and I stay away from discussions that contain *that* level of conviction. - > (Personal note: do please tell us how your interview went.) - Which one, heh? I haven't set up the AI one yet but my old philosophy prof said he'd back me if I did the semiotics route.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"