Problems with this section; for Frank (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Monday, November 23, 2009, 13:47 (5478 days ago) @ Frank Paris

In response to my statement, "You believe God created the laws of Nature", Frank writes: I don't look at it that way. When the fundamentals "do their thing", laws are expressed, what we as scientists call "the laws of Nature".-On 15 November at 18.24, in response to my statement, "Some past contributors may, however, have said that God himself created the laws of Nature", you wrote: Count me in there. The laws of Nature flow out of the fundamentals. God created the fundamentals.-This is one of those irritating contradictions that cause misunderstandings. Using the same argument, on 15 November you explained why you agreed that God created the laws of Nature ("count me in"), and on 22 November you explain why you disagree. The argument itself is not affected, but the conclusion makes a difference to how one views God's responsibility for the universe. It also affects the argument about miracles, in which perhaps my point was not clear. You have repeatedly stressed that God can't perform miracles against Nature, which is part of the case against design, and I am suggesting that if he designed the universe and/or life, God would not have needed to go against Nature's laws. Even if he didn't create them ... which is now a moot point ... he could use them deliberately, just as chance "uses" them accidentally in the atheist scenario. The designs of our own scientists are not miracles either, though they sometimes seem that way ... especially when they work!-Re the little particles of God, you wrote: "They don't so much become physical, as they are what is physical in our universe."-I take this to mean, then, that since the particles of God are what is physical, God has a physical component and a non-physical component (you have stated that his consciousness could not be physical, 6 November at 22.27). First, I would like to link this to your exchange with David on NDEs. You have stressed the commonness of telepathy, but you have not dealt with the claim David makes that patients see dead people who inform them telepathically that someone else has died. This does not fit in with the explanation you suggested of broken contact between the patient and the "someone else". Here we have inaccessible information apparently ... I remain neutral ... being passed on by known, dead third parties. Since God's infinite consciousness is not physical, but he has physical components, why should there not be a similar, autonomous combination in humans? You have said (I'll have to hunt for the reference if you need it) that God has no control over his particles once he has "cut them loose", and yet on 20 November at 15.29, you said the source of my individual identity is "the illusions of separateness" and the source of our darker side is "illusions of autonomy". May I put it to you that these might not be illusions? We might have our own autonomous non-physical particle, "cut loose" by God and ... like God's own consciousness ... able to survive the destruction of the physical particles. Isn't this just as logical an interpretation of the data at our disposal, and wouldn't this explain the extraordinary phenomenon of NDE's? (But let me stress again that I'm acting Devil's ... or who knows, God's ... advocate here.)-The "comfort" of your theology comes in "simply experiencing a large enough perspective in any particular situation to see what is going on and understanding what the best course of action is from incident to incident, and then doing the right thing." That is a perfectly fair comment, and applies in equal measure to every religion I know, and also to humanism.-I asked what advantage your theology holds over deism and atheism, and your answer is: "How about being closer to the truth?" Yep. That's what they all say. -Perhaps I can try another summary of your various "truths" to make sure I've understood you correctly. God is not needed to explain the origin of life, our individual identity is an illusion, God is not responsible for suffering, there is no afterlife, "it's no great tragedy that we as individuals die",*** the comfort lies in doing the right thing, and the purpose of life is to enable God to see momentary reflections of himself. -*** Although you have prefaced this remark with a condition concerning God's own cycle of birth and death, I find it shocking, and wonder if it isn't one of those dramatic statements of yours that you might like to qualify. If not, I can only assume you have never lost someone you love, or witnessed the grief of those who have.