Why is there anything? (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, April 01, 2012, 18:06 (4597 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I'll agree about the eternal first cause as energy, but that energy is the mind of God. The only debate between us, I think, is you start with disorganized energy (high temp plasma state I guess) and I start with an organized energy, a mind.-I don't start with disorganized energy. I start and finish with the alternatives. You are prepared to choose, and I am not. (You see how even the cleverest people misunderstand agnosticism!)-I'd like to link this with Tony's comments under "Reason Rally". -DHW: Surely you admit that there are theists and there are atheists. Why won't you let those of us who are neither sit on our fence in between? -TONY: If that energy state was labeled God, all you would be arguing about is whether god is intelligent or Forest Gump, too stupid and mindless to fail. No one KNOWS the truth of the matter, we all just speculate. In that Agnostics are no different than theist or atheist, you just happen to be a little more fluid in your views. So, the fence that you are sitting on is an imaginary one.
 
We have all long since agreed that no-one KNOWS the truth (see the epistemology thread). Distinctions are only to be found in what people BELIEVE. You and David believe in an intelligent form of energy, Dawkins & Co believe in a mindless form of energy (not Forrest Gump stupid, but literally without a mind), and I have no belief either way. If you wish to argue that you & David, Dawkins & Co, and I are all agnostics, then you are right to say the fence is imaginary, but in that case - according to my concept of agnosticism - you would need to renounce your beliefs!-TONY: The real distinction is NOT whether there is or is not a God (despite the claims of atheism), but whether or not there are any discernible intelligent traits that we can gleam about its nature either from observation or intuition, and whether or not any knowledge gleaned places any obligation on us as sentient creations of said entity.-It is far too misleading to label the first cause energy "God", because for most people God is automatically associated with a conscious mind. David's and your observation and intuition tell you that there are discernible intelligent traits, and so the energy is conscious. Dawkins' observation and intuition tell him that the energy is mindless. My observation and intuition leave me undecided. If God is supposed to have/be a mind, then the real distinction remains as always whether there is or is not a God, i.e. an eternal MIND. As for obligations, if you mean morality, I see no difference between humanist principles and those of most religions ... though all of these are ultimately subjective codes arising out of the societies in which we live. If God exists, any "obligations" clearly depend on different people's interpretations of his will. (See also under REASON RALLY.)