Thursday, September 3, 2009
thought of the day.327
Nothing is certain but everything is not equally uncertain. All ideas should be put on a scale of probability which will show that though it is uncertain the sun will “rise” tomorrow, it is exceedingly more certain than the idea that Santa lives at the North Pole or that “God” exists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
It makes more sense for God to exist than for God to not-exist.
Clarification: it is more reasonable, logical, etc for God to exist than for God to not exist. (didn't want to be misinterpreted)
What you said is no different than saying: It is more reasonable, logical, etc for Bippity-bop to exist than for Bippity-bop to not exist.
Both “God” and “Bippity-bop” are ideas without a shred of compelling evidence to support their existence.
"If anything exists, it either exists through means of something or through means of nothing." -Anselm (paraphrased)
Either the world was created, or the world has always existed. The world has not always existed, thus it was created. If the world was created, either something created it, or nothing created it. It is impossible and absurd to say that nothing could create something. "Ex nihilo, nihil fit." Thus, something must have created the world.
Either that something had a creator, or that something was eternal. You can keep pursuing this line of argument until somewhere along the line, either something has to be eternal, or you have to believe that nothing spontaneously created a something, which is absurd. Really, that is the notion that takes more faith. If there is an eternal something, an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, then that is your god. Your god may be different than my god, but really, if you use reason and logic, then you have to come to the conclusion that there is a supreme being that created everything that is.
You may believe that being is one atom which somehow spontaneously created everything that is, but you have to believe in something eternal, some creator. So really, both of us have faith. And there must be a god, which I believe is my God, because the existence of God is more logical than the nonexistence of God.
You say “Either the world was created, or the world has always existed”. This is very misleading and untrue. You try to solve the mystery of the origin of the universe in a short sentence. All evidence points to the fact that neither the world nor the universe has existed forever but that the universe is some 14 billion years old and the earth close to 5 billion. (Interesting fact-did you know it seems the moon was formed from material from the earth expelled in a huge collision?) But this does not mean the universe was “created” as that implies a plan by some intelligence and there is no proof for that whatsoever. We simply don’t know at this point. To fill that gap in out knowledge with Allah or God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irresponsible. Better to live in humble ignorance than to pretend to know.
You say, “And there must be a god, which I believe is my God, because the existence of God is more logical than the nonexistence of God.”
How silly does this sound? “And there must be a Magic Invisible Pink Unicorn, which I believe is my Magic Invisible Pink Unicorn, because the existence of the Magic Invisible Pink Unicorn is more logical than the nonexistence of the Magic Invisible Pink Unicorn.” Makes exactly as much sense as your sentence.
No, magic pink unicorns do not make as much sense as my sentence. I just explained to you the evidence and the reasoning that it took to make me believe in a higher being (which I call a god.) I, due to the facts and evidence that I see presented to me, believe that this higher being (which I call a god) is the God of the Bible. You may believe that a magic pink unicorn created the universe. OK, that's your belief then, and you're allowed to have it. But all of us HAVE to believe that there is some form of higher being (or, if it's not a being, then we'll call it an initial cause. Some sort of initial being or matter or form that caused everything else to have form, matter, and being.)
"But this does not mean the universe was “created” as that implies a plan by some intelligence and there is no proof for that whatsoever. We simply don’t know at this point."
If the universe was not eternal, and was not created...what other option is there?
Clearly something caused the big bang. Could have been an alien from another universe, Zeus, a completely natural chemical reaction of some sort or a billion things we can’t begin to even imagine. Some people are comfortable living with unanswered questions and some aren’t. I am happy to accept that we don’t know and you seem to need to fill that gap in our knowledge with “God”. Most people do.
I'm pointing out that if *something* caused it, as you say, then there WAS a something. And that something either had to be eternal, or have a creator, but you can pursue that line of reasoning until you come to the conclusion that something is eternal, unless at some point something came from nothing, which is impossible. Agree or not agree?
What created the Creator? You can’t argue that the universe had to have a Creator but the Creator did not. Whatever your ideas about what preceded the Big Bang they are mere guesses as no one knows. Better to wait for evidence before making conclusions. Ideas like eternity, space and time may have no meaning at all when considering the state of things before the Big Bang. My guess is it may be like an ant trying to understand Algebra, we just don’t have the brain power to comprehend it.
No, I didn't say that the universe had to have a creator, I said that either the universe was eternal or it had a creator, and I thought science "knew" for a fact that the universe wasn't eternal.
So somewhere along the line, something had to be eternal.
And why be satisfied with ignorance when there is the possibility of an answer? "It can't be God, because we don't know." Isn't that an argument ad ignorantium?
Our particular universe had a beginning. Perhaps it is inside another universe that has always existed. Perhaps we are one of an infinite number of universes. We just don’t know. It is not being “satisfied with ignorance” to admit that we don’t know it is being honest. Actually, to suggest “God” created the universe is the anti-intellectual position. It is to say there is no need to cpnduct research and experiments and explorations to determine what caused the universe. We already know...God made it!
John,
You say "perhaps" and allow for things as silly as aliens. Why not "perhaps" God? You seem to be playing a game that is very inconsistent. Then you go on and say we "simply just don't know." You have faith that one day empiricism will provide answers.
Belief in God is not anti-intellectual. Some of history's greatest minds have argued for God's existence ontologically (Anselm), cosmologically (Aquinas & Aristotle), existentially (Pascal) and teleologically (Paley). Read a couple pages from those authors and I think the last thing you would say is that they were anti-intellect. Say they are wrong in your opinion, but anti-intellect? Get real!
The problem is that a naturalist develops their presuppositions about God in a post-enlightenment/empirical context. To say that only science, or empirical data can help us know reality is flawed and very limiting at best. You are borrowing from rationalism to even make such a claim. That claim can't be verified empirically or scientifically.
I theorize (believe) that God exists. My theory or belief in God is informed by reason, logic, science, and a host of other things.
To say that theism is anti-intellectual is naive and uninformed. I could name a plethora of scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, etc., that are leaders in their fields who are theists. They are still doing research, conducting experiments, and exploring! They continue as I do, seeking to know all that can be known about life, being, motion, and universe.
Sooner, I mention aliens because it is conceivable that we are not alone in the universe. If life evolved here it certainly seems reasonable to think it could evolve other places and given enough time a species could conceivably far surpass us in technology. Of course I don’t think an alien species created our universe but to me that is more reasonable than to think something (gods) that men have imagined in countless different forms and with countless different personalities (all human projections) created it. We humans invented the idea of a god. There is absolutely no getting around that fact. Seems like that would be the first thing to rule out in out quest for answers. Just seems so self-centered to think some “god” made all this for us. And really cares about what we do, who we have sex with, what type of shellfish we eat, whether or not we have our females cover their heads in certain holy buildings. It is just so infantile.
What helps us know reality better empirical evidence examined by the scientific method? Nothing! If there was such a thing it would replace science.
You say, “I theorize (believe) that God exists. My theory or belief in God is informed by reason, logic, science, and a host of other things. ” Of course you think that. It makes you feel better. Other people can say the same thing but replace the word “God” with “aliens” or “big foot” or “Zeus” or “Allah” or this saint or that etc. But all of you are believing in something with no evidence to back it up.
There is plenty of evidence . . . I think you think it makes me feel better, but I think you say there isn't evidence to make yourself feel better.
Think about that! : )
Are you familiar with Anselm's ontological argument for God? When you said "We humans invented the idea of god," that's what it made me think of.
Anselm's argument basically defines God as "that than which no greater can be conceived." The ultimate being. Prime reality, if you will. And no matter what religion or system of beliefs you hold, you have to believe in some prime reality/ultimate being. (Unless, of course, you are content with the answer "I dunno." But even then, there still must be an ultimate being/prime reality. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.)
I think another thing that can be said (which is rooted in Anselm's argument) is that anything we humans "make up" or fantasize, whether it be unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters, is rooted in something that we have seen or something that has been experienced. A unicorn is not really completely made up, because it's a horse with a horn. It's based on something we've seen. Humans can't conceive of something they haven't seen or experienced in some way. So how did we come up with all the gods that humans have conceived through the ages, if there's not one to base it on?
There is clearly a reality. I don’t see there being different realities, for instance, an ultimate or prime reality and lesser realities. There is simply reality. What is. Of course we being of such limited perception can only glimpse reality.
You’ve hit on something important in your last paragraph but you are thinking about it backwards. The reason all God’s and Goddesses were referred to as he and she, why they all had personalities, why they all reacted just like humans-got angry, wanted revenge, commanded people to kill and destroy, had to rest (seventh day), designed things (ark, temple, clothes, etc)— is because the gods are just human projections. We enlarged are petty little selves and put them onto these imagined characters we called “gods”. It wasn’t because we had encounters with some real god. The fact that the god of the bible is so human (jealous, angry, vindictive, mysogynistic, violent, loving, prejudiced, compassionate, etc) should be a giant clue that we just used our experiences as humans to construct “him”.
But why couldn't that same evidence just as easily be construed to say that we got all those traits from Him?
Post a Comment