Natural Laws and a Higher Order

[catbert836]

I saw this being discussed a lot on several threads, and, since no one has really bothered to point this out (plus I have an annoying habit to want my views known ;-)), so here's my take on it.

I believe that the universe DOES have a higher order, that of divinity, and I DO believe that this order can be seen through quantum physics, Newton's laws, the cycle of matter, et cetera. I believe this higher order is best explained by concepts of Buddhism, Taoism, pantheism, and many other faiths.

I have seen one poster recently draw these same conclusions. I'll not name names, but this poster has been on a quest recently to prove through logic that this higher order can be percieved through the natural one.

I think what we have here is confusion between LOGIC, that something can be proved beyond a doubt, and IMAGINATION, which uses logic often to draw varying conclusions, of mixed provability.

Let me take a moment to explain. The main movement behind the Industrial Revolution was that of RATIONALISM, which believed in using logic and science to better the lives of humanity. Rationalist thinkers, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, had varying views on the existence of a higher order, but they were united by their attempt to use logic and science to explain our universe.

There was another movement that took place during the 19th century, known as ROMANTICISM. This movement largely ran counter to Rationalism, but it did not reject science and logic as ways to explain the universe. Romantic thinkers, such as Immanuel Kant and Henry David Thoreau, saw the negative effects of the Industrial Revolution, and concluded that while science/logic were good methods of explanations for natural phenomenon, they are not all there is to our universe. They tended to value imagination and intuition as key to human understanding of the universe, and sought to place them on equal footing with logic and science.

So, you see that what we have here is a fundamental disagreement, which I can't see we can resolve by arguing. Most athiests seem to subscribe to the Rationalist point of view, that the universe can be entirely explained by reason, logic and science, and these when apploed to the laws of the universe, they seem to suggest no higher order. Most thoughful theists, however, will take the Romantic view, and look at the laws of physics that control our universe and (by using their IMAGINATIONS) will see a pattern indicative of a higher order at work.

I'll use me as an example. I believe in a higher order at work in our universe, and I also believe that this order is hinted at by the laws of physics. However, I do not take the view that the laws of physics are logical proof that suh and order exists. Instead, I take it on my imagination and FAITH that such an order exists. When athiests look at Newton's third law (action/reaction), they see just that: a natural law of our universe. Through my imagination, I see something more: an indication of of a higher law, karma. But I would certainly not try to argue with the supporters of mere logic on this point, since our views are irreconcilable.

In the end, it's useless to try and prove divinty through logic, because of this fundamental difference of opinion.

If you read through this all, you have my undyong gratitude, and I hope what I said made just a little bit of sense. Peace.

[lvx35]

1. Great post.

And it was easy to read through all of it, good thoughts. I would say that you are right, and its an important point that you make when you identify rationalism as a mode of thinking, not an absolute. Rationalism, in all its forms, is a system of thinking that's based on Axioms or assumptions which are founded on faith. This is a matter of philosophical truth, and it manifests down to the most intracate details with the most rational fields of study, e.g. math:
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
All rational systems are based on assumptions, and by changing those assumptions different systems arise, whether they are spiritual, romantic, or whatever.

[glaucon]

2. Reason and Faith...

...two seemingly irreconcilable paths.

Science, or empiricism, is wonderful at predicting and controlling nature. It can describe the "is" with unparalleled clarity.

But it can't get from the "is" to the "ought." It can't tell us what to value or what is good or bad or just.

Faith can, but is remarkably unreliable in predicting things.

A third possibility bridges the gap. It's called reason.

A good example would be Aristotle's ethics. I don't endorse his conclusions, and find many to be abhorrent (a defense of slavery, for example), but it does use logic and reason to arrive at ethical prohibitions and exhortations, something science can't do. And it is suprerior to faith, because it can be defended with logic, instead of threats (believe or burn in hell, etc.).

just my 2 cents.

:)

[Arianrhod]

9. I would argue that there is no "ought" to get to.

There is nothing compelling human behavior on a moral level. Different cultures have different ethical norms (which is the dictionary definition of "morality"; hence my statement is actually a tautology, but I don't know how else to phrase it). These sets of ethics work for each respective society, but may be seen by members of other societies as "immoral". It's all a matter of viewpoint, education, and indoctrination.

Even among religions within the same society, morality varies tremendously. (Religious groups behave very much like subcultures within a society.) The Southern Baptists recently declared that women must "submit graciously to their husbands"; whereas the Universalists tend to see women as equal partners with men. Both groups are Christian, yet each holds to a completely different vision of how life "ought" to be lived.

Which "ought" should someone like me, a nonChristian, follow?

All there is, is the "is". There is no "ought". The "ought" is an imposition upon Nature by particular groups of humans--which is to say, it is an invention of man that has no basis in Nature at all.

[Tace]

3. There's A Paradox In Rational Thought Regarding Divinity

The very arguments against divinity are actually good arguments for divinity.

Take evolution. I remember in high school the science teacher explained a classic example of a jar with fruit flies. He argued that fruit flies could only exist in the jar if they had pre-existed. They couldn't have come from nowhere. This was his "proof" of the efficacy of evolution.

Well, think about it a little while, and you'll realize he's exactly right... the fruit flies did come from somewhere.

It's exactly the same with life in this universe. If we see the universe as a closed system, like the jar, there's no way that life simply appeared out of nowhere. Impossible.

So the very rational argument in favor of evolution, against fruit flies from nowhere, is actually a good argument for the fact that life came from somewhere... it didn't appear out of nowhere.

---

That said, I subscribe to what is known as Hermetic Philosophy. One of the basic tenets of Hermetic Philosophy is "As above, so below."

This is the idea, as the poster you mentioned, that we can glimpse a higher order by studying this level of reality. I suppose maybe I'm a Romantic.

[Zebedeo]

7. Yes, very well said

Life could not have appeared out of nowhere. Nor could the matter in the universe have appeared out of nowhere.

The mass of the universe is estimated as about 25 billion times the mass of the Milky Way galaxy. By measuring the rate of radioactive decay of matter, and observing how far along the decay is, we can determine that the universe, consisting of matter with a mass of 25 billion galaxies, came into existence about 14.5 billion years ago.

The law of conservation of mass (the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law) tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the creation of this unfathomably enormous quantity of matter 14.5 billion years ago. The only possible explanation for the creation of this matter - which we call "the universe" - is a supernatural explanation.

[Silent3]

8. Here we go again.

Life could not have appeared out of nowhere.

As far as I know, the early Earth constitutes as "somewhere" for life to emerge from. Is that "not nowhere" enough for you?

Nor could the matter in the universe have appeared out of nowhere...

The law of conservation of mass (the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law) tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

This is ridiculous on so many levels.

1) Adamantly insisting that things can't appear out of nowhere, but also insisting that the only possible solution to this problem is to invoke a separate entity exempted from this rule, a God which, for some reason, is the one and only thing which is allowed to appear out of nowhere, or which is allowed to have been around forever without needing to appear. Why not assume that the matter of the universe is a thing which always existed, or grant the possibility of a boundary condition exception for the emergence of matter -- all evidence for the conservation of matter certainly cannot apply to a boundary condition such as the very beginning of time, so it's wrong to say that such an exception has been proven impossible.

2) Conservation of matter is not as strict as you imagine -- mass/energy is what is now understood to be conserved, as one can be converted into the other.

3) Even conservation of mass/energy is not completely strict. There are quantum-level fluctuations of energy in which new particles simply appear out of nowhere. These fluctuations are typically very small and very brief, but there is no absolute upper limit on the size of these fluctuations. Wait long, and a universe-sized fluctuation will eventually happen.

4) You're talking about matters of beginnings using far-too-limited pedestrian concepts of time and space -- space and time are things themselves which would "begin" with the "beginning" of the universe, if such time-bound words can even be said to apply. There aren't any laws of physics which contradict either a spontaneously created universe or an eternally-there universe because those laws can't be constructed to address such boundary conditions.

These limitations of physical law in no way, shape or form "demand" any suplemental supernatural explanation. All that's needed is an ability to accept such limitations without thinking you need to invent things to fill in the gaps.

[Arianrhod]

11. Well said, my friend.

I would add only (see my post below yours) that such appearances of "virtual particles" out of nothingness are necessary for our calculations of spatial quantities to be correct.

That which does not exist affects that which does.

[Zebedeo]

12. Now who is inventing things?

Well, I appreciate your response, but I cannot agree with your assessment that my post is "ridiculous on so many levels." You accuse me of "inventing things to fill in the gaps." But in your own post, you engage in a great degree of invention yourself.

As far as I know, the early Earth constitutes as "somewhere" for life to emerge from. Is that "not nowhere" enough for you?

There is no evidence to support your conjecture that life spontaneously formed from inanimate materials on the "early Earth." You seem to have "faith" that this occurred, without a scintilla of evidence that it did, or even that such a process could theoretically occur. This is the first example of you "inventing" things.

Why not assume that the matter of the universe is a thing which always existed

Because our observations show that the matter which we call the universe did not "always exist." We can determine that it has existed for only 14.5 billion years.

all evidence for the conservation of matter certainly cannot apply to a boundary condition such as the very beginning of time

Says who? Again, you seem to be "inventing" an exception to the law of conservation of mass, simply because you need to invent the exception in order for your materialistic world-view to make any sense. You have to PRESUME this "boundary condition," because unless you make such a presumption, you are forced to admit that there is no naturalistic explanation for the generation of 25 billion galaxies worth of matter. You make this presumption purely on FAITH, because there is absoultely no EVIDENCE suggesting that there was a "very beginning of time" at which the law of conservation of mass did not apply, allowing 25 billion galaxies worth of matter to pop into existence all by themselves, without a cause.

Conservation of matter is not as strict as you imagine -- mass/energy is what is now understood to be conserved, as one can be converted into the other.

That gets you exactly nowhere. If you assume that all the matter in the universe was created out of pre-existing energy, you have to explain where that energy came from.

Even conservation of mass/energy is not completely strict. There are quantum-level fluctuations of energy in which new particles simply appear out of nowhere. These fluctuations are typically very small and very brief, but there is no absolute upper limit on the size of these fluctuations. Wait long, and a universe-sized fluctuation will eventually happen.

Oh, come on! Where is your evidence that a universe-sized quantity of matter can pop into existence all by itself, without a cause. Even the infinitessimal fluctuations to which you refer have a CAUSE. Fluctuations do not occur without a CAUSE. If, at the "very beginning of time" to which you refer, there was no matter and no energy, what would CAUSE a quantum fluctuation to occur that would result in the spontaneous popping into existence of 25 billion galaxies? Remember, use evidence here, not faith.

These limitations of physical law in no way, shape or form "demand" any suplemental supernatural explanation. All that's needed is an ability to accept such limitations without thinking you need to invent things to fill in the gaps.

I have not invented anything. I have used logic to conclude that since there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for what is observed in the universe, there must necessarily be a SUPERnatural explanation. YOU are the one who has invented all sorts of fantastically improbable and extraordinary scenarios that have zero evidence to support them, such as (1) all the matter and energy in the universe popping into existence without a cause; (2) the total suspension of the laws of physics at a hypothetical "boundary" for which there is no evidence; (3) a time that you refer to as the "very beginning of time"; and (4)an assumption that life on the early Earth generated spontaneously from inanimate material.

I really do appreciate your response, because I enjoy these types of discussions, but I am amazed that you seem blind to the fact that your world-view relies on at least as much "faith" in wildly improbable scenarios and "inventing things to fill the gaps" as any religious world-view. :)

[Arianrhod]

14. I'm sorry, but your first statement is absolutely wrong.

There are tons of evidence that early life on Earth arose from inanimate matter. The Miller experiment clearly shows how it could have happened. There is no need to appeal to supernatural forces to explain the formation of early protein and amino acid chains; we've literally watched them form in the laboratory.

> Again, you seem to be "inventing" an exception to the law of conservation of mass

There is no such law. The scientific principle is actually the Conservation of Mass and Energy. E=Mc2, and all that.

> Even the infinitessimal fluctuations to which you refer have a CAUSE.

Yes; it's called "statistical probability". The laws of Quantum Mechanics are based only on that principle, and nothing else. As Heisenberg stated, "If there is a possibility that something can exist, it will exist."

> I have used logic to conclude that since there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for what is observed in the universe

This premise is false. There is a naturalistic explanation for what is observed in the Universe: it's called Quantum Mechanics, and it needs no supernatural intervention whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but your faith-based science just doesn't correlate to what we know to be true.

[Zhade]

82. "we've literally watched them form in the laboratory."

Yep - and here's the rub: it's reproducible.

Hence, proven.

Hence, the "something from nothing" argument on the part of theists is laughably ignorant.

[Arianrhod]

88. It's not only reproducible, it's extremely fast.

The chains form in about 24 hours.

[Zhade]

110. Amazing!

Science is pretty damn fascinating, I must say.

[hunter]

113. Another point to make is that there was nothing around to "eat" the stew

In today's world these raw materials of life usually get eaten or absorbed by living things before they have a chance to organize spontaneously. But before life existed the concentrations of these molecules could increase worldwide until you had entire lakes and oceans of randomly organized long chain molecules "competing" for the smaller building block molecules.

At some point one of these large complex molecules began to "reproduce" itself in an organized fashion, and so life began. This probably occurs on any planet like earth. Furthermore, different sorts of life may evolve in different environments. Who knows? There may be living things floating around in the atmosphere of Jupiter.

People may have a problem with evolution simply because they have a problem with big numbers. A "one in a billion chance" is not a deal breaker if there are trillions of opportunities for the thing to happen. And then once you start trading genetic material -- by sex, by infection, or by some other means -- then things become even more fascinating.

[Zhade]

114. Hey, that's an excellent point.

No predators, room to grow - I'd be more surprised if life HADN'T 'spontaneously' generated on Earth!

[Zebedeo]

129. Yeah, and that's why

we see a whole universe teeming with life. :sarcasm:

Because it's so easy for life to form spontaneously.

[Zenlitened]

130. Has the whole universe been examined already?

The telescope is a fairly recent invention. The science of examining the universe is just now taking baby steps, really.

:shrug:

[Silent3]

19. You're confusing inventions and options.

If you say, "Well, the only answer left is A", and I say, "What about B and C?", I don't have to prove that B or C happened or are true, just that they are possible answers, to demonstrate that your rush to settle on A is unfounded. I am inventing nothing -- I am presenting options you are too quickly dismissing because you want to rush to the conclusion that God is the only answer.

...Or at least that the "supernatural" is the only answer. If all you mean by "supernatural" is something outside of nature, I can see how, in a technical way, you might try to use that word to mean "beyond the boundaries of what physics can define". But just because something might be beyond the known laws of physics doesn't mean that all of the things people tend to associate with God -- a Personality, Commandments, Salvation, a Divine Plan, an enormous fixation on what people do with their genitalia -- gets to go along for a free ride just because you can come up with a good reason to label something "supernatural".

The supernatural is not necessarily God. In my book, anything worthy of the term "supernatural" is likely so beyond our limited human understanding that it's foolish to try to saddle it with simplistic notions rooted in human superstitions, human yearning for order, and human fear of death.

There is no evidence to support your conjecture that life spontaneously formed from inanimate materials on the "early Earth." You seem to have "faith" that this occurred, without a scintilla of evidence that it did, or even that such a process could theoretically occur. This is the first example of you "inventing" things.

In a courtroom, when you prove that a criminal is guilty of a crime, that does not mean that you have a videotape of the crime being committed or even a single eye witness. You can use indirect evidence such as forensics, and you do not need to prove something 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, you only need to prove a case beyond a "reasonable doubt" in criminal matters, or meet the lesser standard of "preponderance of evidence" in civil matters.

Science works a whole lot more like a courtroom than what you're trying to pretend it has to be -- something where the only thing that "counts" as evidence is 100% proof. Under a much more reasonable burden of proof, there is plenty of evidence that life could have arisen spontaneously from inanimate matter, given the chemical composition of the early earth and the input of energy provided by the sun and left over from the formation of the earth.

You're playing the double standards game that I've often seen from creationists -- hold science you don't like to excruciatingly strict and unreasonably high (if not deliberately insurmountable) standards of evidence and proof, while letting things like ID or supernatural explanations slide by on the barest shreds of plausibility, if not outright granting your favored faith-based explanations special exemption from any sort of standard of proof at all.

Oh, come on! Where is your evidence that a universe-sized quantity of matter can pop into existence all by itself, without a cause. Even the infinitessimal fluctuations to which you refer have a CAUSE.

This is not a matter of evidence that it DID happen, it's a matter of saying that from what IS known, such an event is a POSSIBILITY. In science, such explanations, involving extrapolations from known laws and known observable things like ordinary matter, are preferable to whole-cloth inventions of supernatural beings as explanations.

Quantum fluctuations have been observed. If they have a cause, that cause is unknown. While it's certainly great to discover causes if and when you can, you certainly can't deny real, observed events because you haven't figured out underlying causes. These fluctuations, better known as "vacuum fluctuations" are real and experimentally verifiable. The mathematics which describes these fluctuations (which derive from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) lay out certain probabilities for certain magnitudes and durations of fluctuations. While only small fluctuations have ever been observed, the same math which matches our observations with great accuracy contains no inherent barrier to much larger fluctuations. Should we tack on extra terms to already-working equations, not based in experimental results, but to rule out really big fluctuations because, well... uh... just because we don't like the idea of allowing for them?

An airplane has disappeared from radar and is days overdue from landing. No wreckage has been found yet. Does anyone have to first prove that the wreckage sank into the ocean in order for that possible explanation to be placed higher on a list of explanations we plan to investigate than we'd place the explanation "God willed the plane to disappear without a trace"? Of course not.

So it is with science and questions of origin. The only solid answer is "we don't know". Saying "we don't know" means just that, not knowing. It does not mean, "Well, I'd better pick something definitive, anything, and commit to it as if it were absolute fact." The best you can do is extrapolate from known entities and known physical laws, and suggest possibilities based on those things, and to the extent possible rank those explanations according to how far you have to stray beyond what is solidly known and observed.

As I've already rambled on pretty long at this point, I'll skip the rest of what you wrote for now except to say this: The known laws of physics have contexts. In some cases you're treating those laws as absolutes beyond their contexts. Not only that, you're trying to pretend that you've got a big "gotcha" on those terrible faithless materialist scientists whenever you ignore the context with this "Ah, hah! That's impossible by your own laws, isn't it?" ploy you keep trying to play.

[Zebedeo]

20. Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response

I appreciate that you are not responding with glib one-liners, like some other posters sometimes do. Since you have taken the time to provide a lengthy response to my post, I feel I owe it to you to do the same.

You said:

If you say, "Well, the only answer left is A", and I say, "What about B and C?", I don't have to prove that B or C happened or are true, just that they are possible answers, to demonstrate that your rush to settle on A is unfounded. I am inventing nothing -- I am presenting options you are too quickly dismissing because you want to rush to the conclusion that God is the only answer.

That's not what happened in this discussion. I pointed out several wildly fantastic and preposterous things that atheist/materialists ASSUME on pure faith, without any evidence, in response to a post accusing believers of relying on assumptions. I pointed out that the atheist/materialist can be viewed as "inventing" many explanations, for which there is absolutely no evidence, and that the atheist is then just as subject as the theist to a charge of relying on "faith" and "assumptions."

I also demonstrated, using the laws of physics, that the origin of the universe HAD to have been supernatural (by definition), because there can be no naturalistic explanation for it. Nothing creates itself. In fact, it is a logical impossibility for something to create itself, because until it is created, it doesn't exist, so there is nothing to do the creating. Since it is logically impossible for the universe to have created itself, and since it is a flagrant violation of the laws of physics to imagine that the universe, with its unfathomable quantity of matter and energy, self-generated out of nothing, with no cause, the only explanation is that the universe was created by a pre-existing Cause that had the power to accomplish such a Creation. I call that Cause "God." He told His people that they could refer to Him as "I AM."

God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you. Exodus 3:14

just because something might be beyond the known laws of physics

Are you suggesting that NEW laws of physics will be one day be discovered that would provide answers to my questions and thereby support your materialist world-view? If so, do you see how someone could say that you are relying on assumptions and faith to support your preconceived world-view -- in this instance, an assumption that new laws of physics will be discovered that will permit your view of the origin of the universe to be possible?

Your proposed scenario seems to be that all of the matter and energy in the universe popped into existence as the result of a quantum fluctuation. You state that this is a POSSIBLE explanation for the origin of the universe, and is preferable to a theistic explanation, because a theistic explanation, to use your pejorative, would require the "whole-cloth inventions of supernatural beings." Yet you offer no explanation for how your scenario is POSSIBLE.

Think about this. Under your hypothesis, there is a time at which no matter or energy exists anywhere. Simply, there is nothing. No matter, no energy, no intelligence, no thought, no purpose, no gravity, no processes -- nothing at all. Then, a quantum fluctuation occurs within this void, which causes 25 billion galaxies of matter-energy to come into existence. If there was no matter or energy, how did the quantum fluctuation occur? Is there any evidence that our universe was created in this way? Is it even theoretically possible for such a quantum fluctuation to occur in an environment that is devoid of matter and energy?

Don't you see how this scenario is wildly improbable and seems to require a great deal of faith to believe in it?

How about this? Where do you think the laws of quantum mechanics came from? Did they invent themselves? How? Even if your preposterous scenario of a quantum fluctuation occuring in a matter-less, engergy-less void, and causing the creation of all matter and energy in the universe, were true, that would hardly disprove the existence of the God of the Bible. In fact, it sounds alot like the account in Genesis - minus God, of course.

[trotsky]

28. You think you understand the physics involved,

but you clearly do not. Your questions arise from your ignorance of the topic, nothing more.

[Zebedeo]

29. Thank you for that enlightening contribution to the discussion

Name calling. Calling people ignorant. Well, you must be right, because those who disagree with you are "ignorant." What more need be said? I guess you've proven your point. All hail the genius trotsky! He doesn't have to answer difficult questions about his own belief system, because he can simply proclaim that other people are "ignorant." How nice for you.

[trotsky]

32. I didn't say you were ignorant.

I said you displayed ignorance of the topic, as in lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified.

It's not intended as an insult - it's merely noting that the things you are saying betray a lack of comprehension of the subject matter.

I myself am ignorant of a good many things, and wouldn't take offense at someone telling me such, especially were I to pop into a thread and tell people what their discipline was really about.

[Zebedeo]

51. I am just an ignorant goatherd

and cannot hope to match wits with the brilliant astrophysicist "trotsky," whose intellect is so powerful that he needn't even set forth arguments to support his positions. He need only speak, and we all must obey. :sarcasm:

Or, we could rely on the conclusions of ACTUAL astrophysicists, such as Fred Hoyle:

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Or, we could consider the observation of Frank Tipler, a Professor of Mathematical Physics: "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

Or perhaps we could consider the findings of Arno Penzias, winner of a Nobel prize in physics: "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

No, no. I think that "trotsky's" credentials trump all of these. Only trotsky can understand the complicated physics that must be involved in the creation of 25 billion galaxies out of an environment devoid of matter and energy.

Say no more, trotsky. We all must respect your authoritah!

[hunter]

52. I think I must intervene here...

There are times you have your feet on the bottom, and times you swim.

Even if you keep your feet on the bottom most of the time, it is good to know how to swim.

You have a quote from Jimmy Carter in your sig, Zebedo. Have you read his book?

Our Endangered Values : America's Moral Crisis

[Zebedeo]

54. I have not read that book

I did help Jimmy Carter get elected in 1976. Not in any big way, but just as a campaign volunteer. I have not read the book that you linked to, because I don't enjoy reading political or current events types of books. That type of writing just doesn't float my boat. It is usually poor writing and states over-obvious points that I already agree with, or is flat out wrong. When I have time to read, I like to read books that are entertaining, like mystery novels, or sometimes nonfiction books on religion or philosophy -- but not political books.

I believe in many, if not most, of the core principles for which Jimmy Carter stands, including human rights, democracy, decency, kindness, fighting injustice, helping people who need help, and deep, sincere religious faith.

For some reason, some on this board have pigeon-holed me as someone who wants to impose my religious views on others, or even someone who wants to "kill" people who have different beliefs. These accusations are pathetic and obviously false.

I think the tenets of Christianity are true, just as ayeshahhiqqa thinks the tenets of Sufism are true, and PsychoDad thinks the tenets of Islam are true, and trotsky thinks the tenets of atheism are true. Everyone has his or her own beliefs, and no one is entitled to impose their beliefs on anyone else. That's what I believe in, contrary to the slander of some on this board who have attempted to demonize me as a "fundie."

[hunter]

56. You write as if you were young.

I worked to get Carter re-elected but alas Reagan won, and it was a dirty win too.

Whenever anyone drops slander on my own doorstep, I simply refuse delivery. That seems to work pretty well.

Yeah, Carter's book is almost overwhelmingly "over-obvious" but this is much better than the madness of today's deliberately divisive politics.

Your antagonists here on DU are often reacting to actual harms that have been committed by people who speak very much as you do.

[trotsky]

53. What's interesting to note in all those cases

is that each is venturing away from his area of expertise and into the arena of philosophy.

There's nothing wrong with that. Plenty of people do it. Plenty of people don't. We can quote experts back and forth all day, but that doesn't change the fact that YOU are not using physics properly to support YOUR conclusions.

Attack me all you want, it won't change that one bit.

[Silent3]

57. If you can spare a moment away from the herd...

Quoting Hoyle et al is very nice, but that's just an appeal to authority, that's not showing us that you know the physical laws you're tossing around very well or how to use them. Further, I'd love to see the supposed equations out of which spring forth the Ten Commandments or Noah's Ark. Are you offering up brilliant men with brilliant proofs, or just brilliant men rationalizing their own wishful thinking? It's not like being smart makes you immune to such things.

Many brilliant physicists are atheist or agnostic or, to the extent that the believe in and speak about "God", that God is a very abstract notion which can mean nothing more than the order they see in the universe itself, as opposed to some separate creating entity. What makes them wrong and Hoyle right? You can find plenty of refutation of Hoyle, for instance, here: Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

Let's look at conservation of mass/energy, which you seem to think is such a winner for your case. How would we state that law mathematically? Well, working within the scope of pretty limited text formatting, skipping some relativistic complications, and using E denote universal mass/energy...

Et = Enow, for all valid values of t.

This is to say, the total mass/energy at any valid time t equals the total mass/energy right now. One could simply say that Enow is an unchanging constant, but that's not an equation, and an equation helps demonstrate what you're overlooking.

What happens if you try to apply this to the very beginning of the universe? Let's call the very first moment in time 0 (zero). Then all values of t < 0 are invalid. After all, how can you calculate anything involving a time before the beginning of time?

The result is that you simply cannot apply this equation to questions of the origin of the universe. It only has meaning once there is a universe to talk about, and no meaning outside of that. Unless you can point me to some well-proven law about conservation of universes or conservation of entire flows of time, you haven't got anything here to go on.

On top all of this, toss in some relativistic complications with primordial singularities and quantum complications like trying to deal with universe smaller than a Planck length, or times intervals shorter than a Planck time, and you're totally out of luck trying to say that the law of conservation of mass/energy can tell you anything at all applicable to such circumstances as the beginning of the universe.

Something further for you to consider: What do you imagine constitutes "proof" for something like a conservation law? How are such things validated? Where does the justification come from for using our own infinitesimally small set of experimental measurements (compared to enormous conceivable set of possible measurements which could be done over the vastness of all space and time) and saying that we can extrapolate those things universally? Wouldn't you imagine those recommending such extrapolations might consider that there are reasonable limits to such extrapolations, and that a little ol' thing like The Beginning of Everything might be among those reasonable limits?

As I said before, you're treating physical laws like a lawyer who wants to nail someone on a technicality ("You agreed to pay for all travel expenses. You never specifically ruled out my client buying a private jet to do his travel, now did you?") rather than like a physicists.

[Zebedeo]

58. Aren't you making some pretty big assumptions here?

Quoting Hoyle et al is very nice, but that's just an appeal to authority, that's not showing us that you know the physical laws you're tossing around very well or how to use them.

So? Is this a test of my knowledge of physics? Or a discussion directed toward finding the truth of the matter? I freely admit that I am just a goatherd. I make no pretensions of anything more than that. However, that adds nothing to your argument, as I see it.

Once again, I appreciate your serious response to my post, and the time that you have taken to compose it. Yet I still think that you are making some awfully huge assumptions to fill the gaps in your theory.

You ASSUME that there was a "beginning of time." What is the evidence supporting that assertion? We can determine that all the MATTER in the universe came into existence at a specific time (about 14.5 billion years ago, give or take a few eons), but I don't think there is any reason to believe that time itself began at that point. In fact, I don't even think it makes sense to assert that TIME came into existence at a particular TIME.

Then, you ASSUME that the law of conservation of mass/energy does not apply to this hypothetical "beginning of time." Why would this law not apply? Is there any REASON to believe that it would not apply (other than the desire to avoid a theistic world-view)?

Is it your theory that the impossible becomes possible at the "beginning of time"? How? Are there any limits to what is possible at such a "boundary event"? Is it only the law of conservation of mass/energy that can be broken at the beginning of time, or are all physical laws thrown out? What about mathematical laws? At the beginning of time, is it possible to have a>b and b>a at the same time?

To me, postulating the existence of a "beginning of time," and further postulating that the laws of physics do not apply at such "beginning of time" seems like an awfully convenient out for those who do not want to believe in a Creator.

I would like to give a fuller response to your post, but one of the goats just escaped from the pasture, so I gotta go . . .

[hunter]

64. Actually, time is part of the package...

..in the same way that matter and energy or anything else we observe in this universe is part of the package.

Everything outside the boundry of this universe is simply undefined. There is no time before time.

As things stand now, we hardly know what time "is" in our own universe. Time as we know it may simply be an artifact of human perception.

Yes, the laws of physics do apply at "the beginning of time," they simply don't extend beyond that. We can't "see" past it.

It's like a calculus problem...

1/x approaches infinity as x approaches zero.

[Silent3]

66. A long, long time ago, in a galaxy which hadn't formed yet only 3 cm. away

So? Is this a test of my knowledge of physics? Or a discussion directed toward finding the truth of the matter?

The two are related. You purport to invoke physical law to prove a point. How can you do so validly without better knowledge of the physics you invoke?

I freely admit that I am just a goatherd. I make no pretensions of anything more than that. However, that adds nothing to your argument, as I see it.

Once again, I appreciate your serious response to my post, and the time that you have taken to compose it. Yet I still think that you are making some awfully huge assumptions to fill the gaps in your theory.

The point I'm making, to put it bluntly, is that you don't know what you're talking about. Telling you that your argument doesn't hold water is not a "theory". I am not at the moment proposing any "theory," in either the casual or technical sense of the word.

If I tell you that you can't cross a river because your bridge will collapse, that in no way implies that I have a better bridge or that I have to build a better bridge or provide any other means of crossing. In some cases, all one can say is "you can't get there from here," and that is ALL I am saying.

You're the one with the "theory" here (more of a conjecture, really), that a commonplace law of physics practically proves the existence of God. The burden of proof is upon you.

You ASSUME that there was a "beginning of time." What is the evidence supporting that assertion?

I am not assuming any such thing. Whether you realize it or not, a beginning of time is implicit in the way you state your own case. I'll gladly address there not being a beginning of time in a moment.

We can determine that all the MATTER in the universe came into existence at a specific time (about 14.5 billion years ago, give or take a few eons), but I don't think there is any reason to believe that time itself began at that point. In fact, I don't even think it makes sense to assert that TIME came into existence at a particular TIME.

Here's where your lack of knowledge of physics, as well as an inability to let go of a "common sense" notion of time which has no place here, trip you up.

The very same physics and mathematics which lead to computing an age for the universe of 14.5 billion years point to there being a beginning of time, or, essentially the same thing, an earliest moment in time beyond which it is impossible to apply ANY of our known laws of physics -- and that includes conservation laws.

Then, you ASSUME that the law of conservation of mass/energy does not apply to this hypothetical "beginning of time." Why would this law not apply? Is there any REASON to believe that it would not apply (other than the desire to avoid a theistic world-view)?

I didn't assume anything there, I showed you that such a law can't apply before a "beginning in time". If you believe I have erred, I invite you to show how you would mathematically construct a conservation law that can be used beyond the boundaries of time itself. Good luck.

Beyond that, I don't need any of the above to "avoid" (I'm simply non-committal and agnostic in this matter, BTW) a "theistic world view". All I need is Occam's Razor and the ability to know when to say "I don't know" instead of filling in the blanks with mystical beings.

Is it your theory that the impossible becomes possible at the "beginning of time"?

Again, I am not proposing any theory. I'm telling you your bridge doesn't cross the river you're trying to cross. It is your burden of proof to show how a conservation law can be used the way you say it can be used, not mine to prove it can't be.

How? Are there any limits to what is possible at such a "boundary event"? Is it only the law of conservation of mass/energy that can be broken at the beginning of time, or are all physical laws thrown out?

The laws we know, including the conservation of mass or energy, mathematically break down at the beginning of time, so yes, they are "thrown out" in that sense. Perhaps some day someone will come up with deeper and more powerful laws of physics which can cross such boundaries, but such laws could likely be nothing more than elegant mathematics beyond any conceivable experimental validation.

What about mathematical laws? At the beginning of time, is it possible to have a>b and b>a at the same time?

Not that it's all that relevant, but I think you could probably define the operations < and > in a system of modular mathematics in such a way that both of those two expressions are always simultaneously true (modular math is "clock math" -- think of a number circle instead of a number line). More fundamental are the laws of logic, but if you try to start discussing systems or conditions under which logic does not apply, any possible conversation on such a topic steps of the edge of a cliff and can't coherently go anywhere.

To me, postulating the existence of a "beginning of time,"

Which, without you realizing it, is implicit in your own idea of a "creation". If you have in your mind the idea of a big, empty space, time somehow flowing by (even though nothing which would give any meaning to the concept of time exists), into which matter suddenly explodes like an actor bursting forth onto a stage, then you have in your mind a scenario which has nothing to do with the laws of physics you're trying to use.

...and further postulating that the laws of physics do not apply at such "beginning of time" seems like an awfully convenient out for those who do not want to believe in a Creator.

More precisely, I'm saying the laws of physics don't apply beyond the bounds of time (t < 0, where 0 is defined as the first, or first theoretically accessible, moment in time), not at the bounds of time (t = 0). This has nothing to do with "convenience". This has to do with the very nature of how one can and can't use the related mathematics. You can't divide by zero. You can't fill in a time-based parameter with data from outside of time. (You might get away with taking the square root of a negative number in a few places where complex math applies.)

But let's suppose there is no beginning of time. Why then would there have to be a beginning of matter and energy? If one physical property can stretch eternally forward and backward, why not all of them? In fact, if you really understood the physics involved, you'd see that time, matter, energy, and space itself are all intrinsically interconnected, any one being meaningless without the others, because all of the operational definitions of these physical qualities and quantities, upon which the laws of physics are based, involve mass and energy existing within time and space.

To propose a scenario in which any of these things (spacetime, mass/energy) do not exist is to propose something beyond the reach of the way the laws of physics are computed and defined. It seems more and more that what you're imagining is this:

(spacetime, by itself) + (Act of God) -> spacetime + mass/energy

If that's what you're saying, go ahead an believe it all you like, but don't pretend the principle of the conservation of matter gets you there. Not only is the Act of God part a bit outside of the laws of physics, the spacetime devoid of any mass/energy is also non-sensical to any application of the laws of physics.

If you just want to say you need something outside the system to create the system, well, that's just proving your point by assuming your point. It's at best a game of semantics, which again has nothing to do with physical law.

Getting back to something closer to real physics, whether you propose that there's a beginning of time or propose an infinite past, conservation of matter can be applied for all valid points in time in either scenario, and can't be applied outside of valid points in time in either scenario.

May I suggest you really pay attention to exactly what I have written, radically rethink your concept of time itself, think about the relationship between the meaning of the word "create" and the flow of time, and bite your tongue at least three times (or, since you'd be typing, perhaps bite your fingers), before reflexively making yet another ill-founded response about how I'm "assuming" this and "proposing" that -- because if those words are just itching to escape from you at this moment, you simply are not getting what I'm saying at all.

[Zebedeo]

139. I have thought about your post as you suggested

and rhetorically bitten my fingers.

Your only objection to my proof is based on your claim that there was a "beginning of time," before which none of the laws of physics apply. You have no evidence for that claim, and you even contend that you are not making an "assumption" that there was such a "beginning of time" before which all natural laws have to be thrown out. But you are. Truly, that is your only objection to my proof. Without the assumption that there was a "beginning of time" and the assumption that all natural laws can be thrown out, you have no objection to my proof.

I understand that you prefer not to take a position, but only to challenge mine. Yet your challenge itself relies entirely on wildly extraordinary assumptions.

Your argument, while it is articulate and well-presented, is reduced to an absurd notion. In order to make it, you have to assume that there was a time at which none of the laws of physics applied. If no laws apply, anything would be possible -- even the spontaneous generation of 25 billion galaxies from a void in which no matter and no energy exist. This is what your argument comes down to. And you offer no explanation for what could have CAUSED this generation.

Reductio ad absurdum.

[muriel_volestrangler]

140. No, I think you're missing a vital part of the argument

which isn't a question of "only challenging your argument" - he's explaining how physicists view time. The equations that show the behaviour we see of spacetime, matter and energy say that you cannot extend them back to "t=0" - the equations cannot be applied at that point. It's not an assumption, it's an inevitable part of our understanding of our universe. And without being able to extend time back to that point, "cause" has no meaning at t=0, or 'negative' values of t.

This doesn't mean there has to be a supernatural cause of the universe - 'cause' is part of our universe. Tracing the early conditions of the universe will become harder and harder as we try to get closer and closer to that "t=0", because it will require more extreme test conditions, or sensitive instruments, to do so. But the description of the universe won't be taken to t=0, unless the physical laws we're workgin with are completely rewritten.

[Arianrhod]

89. Fred Hoyle:

From Wikipedia: "Sir Fred Hoyle (June 24, 1915 in Yorkshire – August 20, 2001 in Bournemouth, England) was a British astronomer, notable for a number of his theories that run counter to current astronomical opinion, and a writer of science fiction, including a number of books co-authored by his son Geoffrey Hoyle."

While famous, he was not exactly a mainstream scientist.

"Hoyle ... argued for the universe being in a "steady state". The theory tried to explain how the universe could be eternal and essentially unchanging while still having the galaxies we observe moving away from each other. The theory hinged on the creation of matter between galaxies over time, so that even though galaxies get further apart, new ones that develop between them fill the space they leave."

Hm, creation of matter from nothing to replace gaps in the Universe left by expanding galaxies. Isn't that contrary to your argument?

Just on these two items alone, I'd say you'd be best to find a different source. . . . :shrug:

Frank Tipler: "I also argue that the ultimate future state of the universe, the Omega Point, should be identified with God. I have presented my argument in detail in my book The Physics of Immortality, but a main reason for my identification Omega Point = God, comes from Exodus 3:14." http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/summary.html

Pure religion/theology, no science involved at all. Tipler is also the inventor of the Anthropic Principle, the obviously religion-based claim that the entire Universe was created for mankind. (Medieval Roman Catholicism, anyone?)

Another source you might consider dropping. Did you find these guys on a Creationist Web site somewhere?

Personally, I'd be willing to bet that Trotsky's credentials do trump these radicals'. . . . :)

[Zhade]

83. You're ignorant of the subject.

That's not a personal insult. Hell, I'm ignorant about Chinese weaving, I don't take THAT as an insult if someone points it out.

I might if I based my life on some sort of opposition to Chinese weaving, though.

[Silent3]

31. Look! It's an invisible bird! It's an invisible plane!

No, it's Supernatural Man! (Hey, I needed a segue. :evilgrin:)

I pointed out several wildly fantastic and preposterous things that atheist/materialists ASSUME on pure faith, without any evidence, in response to a post accusing believers of relying on assumptions.

First of all, I don't care what any generalized notion of "atheist/materialists" you might have in your mind do or don't do. Please address and respond to what I am saying.

The only thing I assume about truly ultimate "causes" is that "causes" probably isn't even the right word, and that none of us are likely to have anything close to the right answers or the even the right questions.

Beyond that, I am not assuming any of these things you keep claiming I (or those of your generalized materialist notion) must be assuming. When I suggest the explanation of a quantum fluctuation, for instance, I'm saying "here's the best thing I can think of based on known phenomenon." I am not holding any "faith" in that idea whatsoever. There is NO answer to any of this, including "God did it", which doesn't lead to more questions.

Why does it make any more sense for a personality, an intelligence, to simply pop into existence out of nowhere, or have the special quality of Always Having Been There, than it does for plain ol' mass/energy to have to do either of those things? Do you think you can better wash your hands of having to answer for the origin of God by quoting from the Bible "I am that I am", putting a capital M on Mystery, and saying "that settles it"?

As for your "logic dictates" stuff about first causes... please, go google for some critiques of Descartes' similar attempts to "prove" the existence of God. You can't apply cause and effect reasoning to the very beginning of the stage upon which causes and effects occur. You particularly shouldn't be trying to apply notions rooted in limited human imagination about what's "big enough" or "important enough" or "special enough" a cause for the universe we know to spring into being.

In fact, you need to see how rooted your human thinking is in the concept of time, in the notion of one event occurring before, and leading to, another event. You have to realize that a question of ultimate origin which fundamentally involves the "existence" of time itself -- with "existence" in quotes, because even the word "existence" is rooted in the notion of objects and events situated in time and space -- involves the very things the absence of which you need to be considering.

So, before you go off again about who is "assuming" this and putting "faith" into that, let me make it perfectly clear what I'm proposing:

1) Realize that when dealing with questions of ultimate origin, we humans might not have the slightest clue as to how to even form the right questions we'd need to be asking.

2) Above all, saying "I don't know" is the best answer, admitting that since every question leads to more questions, you simply can't answer everything, and questions of ultimate origin are of course going to lead you off into unanswerables no matter what you do.

3) Science recommends forming the best answers you can, not answers which will answer all possible questions -- an impossible task -- but answers which lead to useful predictions, expanded understanding of that which is accessible to you, and which at least conceivably or theoretically can lead to possible avenues for further investigation. Science also requires that answers are at least theoretically falsifiable -- any logical circle of word play which purports to answer everything and rule out any possible objection is not a scientific answer.

4) Science does not deny the existence of God, supernatural events, or little demons floating behind your head where you can't see them, which no one else will tell you about, and which turn invisible when you try to get try to get tricky with multiple mirrors. Science merely says that such things have no explanatory power. There's good historical reason for this -- very little progress was made in understanding the world until people stopped being satisfied with attributing the unknown to the actions of spirits and demons and gods.

5) The methodological materialism of science does not demand philosophical materialism -- the first often encourages the second, but the two are not the same thing nor are they required to go together. Science is not incompatible with many religious principles. The only place where science and religion directly conflict is where aspects of religion, such as Biblical literalism, make claims which clearly go against observable data.

6) Not having an answer does not mean you're assuming some answer anyway. For instance: Darwin's theory of evolution relates to the origin of species, not the origin of life itself. Regardless, a typical creationist "oh, now I've got you!" question goes something like this: "So, you're just assuming life came out of nowhere?"

No, no, NO! Kill that meme! Die meme, die!

Just because a theory provokes a question -- such as evolution leading one to ask, "Where did life itself come from in the first?" -- provoking the question DOES NOT OBLIGATE THE THEORY TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER. A theory need only provide a good framework for unifying the observations and data it attempts to unify. That a theory leads you to interesting questions that you don't know how to answer is a GOOD THING, not a bad thing. Only a question which points out a possible flaw in a theory is a valid challenge to that theory. (As I've said, the mere inability to answer all conceivable questions is NOT A FLAW).

I also demonstrated, using the laws of physics, that the origin of the universe HAD to have been supernatural (by definition), because there can be no naturalistic explanation for it.

The above has nothing to do with a proper application of the laws of physics. You are not respecting the proper scope of those laws or applying them very well.

Now, as a matter of semantics, you might be able to say that the origin of nature has to be outside of or beyond nature -- therefore "supernatural". But what does this buy you? All you have now is a word which means "outside of or beyond nature," nothing more. Having gotten there by mere semantics, there is no justification for attaching further meanings to the word "supernatural". It does not follow that the supernatural, thus defined, is "powerful" or "intelligent", that is has a will or a personality, or that it happens to coincide with some character in your favorite holy book.

I call that Cause "God." He told His people that they could refer to Him as "I AM."

To call your notion of the supernatural a "cause" is to apply cause-and-effect reasoning where it does not belong, outside of the purely natural world which is the only place in which we can assume the idea of cause-and-effect, and that idea's implicit notion of a flow of time, apply.

Also, just because you decide to call this cause "God" does not give you the magical power to invest that cause, or the supernatural in general, with the cultural baggage that comes along with the word "God".

[catbert836]

36. I hope you don't mind if I reply

First of all, I'd like too say that your contributions to this dialogue have been very interesting and intelligent. I think that what you're talking about is just what I was getting at in my OP: some people (like yourself) only think of logic and science, which, I'd like to add, is a perfectly normal and rational view. Posters like Zebedo (sp?) take a more imaginative view, saying what they BELIEVE is a "Primary Mover" or GOD, creted this universe. This is also a perfectly acceptable view, the downside of which there is no LOGICAL certainty. Which is fine, because these conclusions, which lie OUTSIDE the logical realm, should not need LOGICAL proof to back them up.

[trotsky]

37. I assume you don't intend to...

but you make it sound like the age-old mischaracterization of rationalists. That we're cranky old curmudgeons that can't see any beauty in life because all we can accept is that which is based on cold, hard logic. That believers and non-skeptics have logic and reason but also realize there's "so much more" to the world and see a more complete picture.

I'm sure you can see why that might be considered insulting.

Secondly, I see an inherent problem in labeling a non-rational view as "perfectly acceptable." Would it be "perfectly acceptable" if say, your child (if you don't have one, imagine you do) joined the UFO cult and was going to commit mass suicide when the next comet came along? Would you be OK with them making decisions based on this view? Would you be OK with them making political decisions affecting all of us based on this view?

[catbert836]

38. This is where we get bogged down

It's always been my view that you can believe whatever you want, so long as you don't violate the "social contract", eg harm others or yourself. This view is subjective of course, so all may not agree with it. However, most would agree that this is a reasonable view. I would definitely NOT agree with letting them harm others by their views by governing others, which is why I have such a strong objection to the fundies currently in power.
I'm very sorry about my mischaracterization of rationalists. Know that I consider myself at least 40% rationalist, so I have no intention of insulting them. I think there is a certain beauty in "cold, hard logic", as you say, but I also believe that to take it as the only thing to life would be a mistake. I hope you can understand that. I also believe that Romantics such as myself make a huge mistake when they refuse to see that logic, despite iis faults, offers ABSOLUTE certainty, something that Romanticism comes nowhere close to doing.

[trotsky]

39. No, there's no such thing as absolute certainty.

First off, I don't think even the most ardent of rationalists thinks that reason is "the only thing to life." Philosophy, poetry, art, music - all of these things are important intellectual pursuits that can help us understand other perspectives. They offer plenty about how humans perceive their universe and their place in it. But they don't really tell us anything about the universe itself - just what "sounds nice" or "looks pretty."

Secondly, how do you propose defining this "social contract"? After all, if your imagined position includes the "fact" that people will burn in hell forever unless they repent and accept Jesus Christ in this lifetime, then it doesn't really matter what physical or institutional harm you cause, because your ultimate goal is saving their immortal soul. You are willing to cause some finite suffering now, to prevent INFINITE suffering later. In your viewpoint, you are SPARING them harm, not causing it.

[catbert836]

41. Alright

I did not mean that rationalists think reason is the only thing oi life. I meant that many (and I stress that word here) think it is the only way to UNDERSTAND life. From your statements, you seem to agree with this sentiment. Once again, I'm genuinely sorry for that mistake.
You're right, there is no such thing as absolute certainty. Even the most logical observations about our universe are worth nil if our universe is just an illusion, and there is probably much more about it that we can simply not comprehend.
As to the social contract as I referred to it, it has nothing to do with Christianity. It was developed, in a large part by the philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and what it is basically is, in regards to our discussion, is that you have the right to believe just about whatever you want, as long as you don't violate the rights of others in the process.
I don't believe at all that people will burn in hell for not accepting Jesus, but that's probably not what you meant. My Catholicism wandered off in May, and it has yet to return.

[trotsky]

44. You didn't answer my questions.

First, the social contract. Even that is a mere viewpoint, not agreed upon by everyone. You are trying to say that all viewpoints are equal, but even within your own logic you're putting one viewpoint above others. I just want you to address this inconsistency.

And second, you might not believe that people burn in hell, but what about people who DO? If you're going to say that everyone has an equally valid viewpoint, or that they're just looking at another aspect of the universe, well, from their viewpoint, any attempts they make to forcibly convert or control people will spare them from an eternity of torment. In their world, wouldn't they be justified in trying to take over the country and install a radical Christian theocracy?

[catbert836]

59. ....

I acknowledged the social contract was a mere viewpoint in the reply where it was first stated. I'm trying not to put my own viewpoint over others, and thank you for correcting me on that. I believe my exact words were that many people disagree with it, but it is generally considered a reasonable view on the matter.
Yes, indeed they would be justified from their own viewpoint. You got me on that one. :). Except for one thing. Their reasonig is not quite what you assume. Yes, a large part of it is from sparing others eternal torment, but I wouldn't be so quick to rule self-righteousness (eg I'm saved, you're not, ha ha ha). I can't speak for all of them (a fact I'm sure you'll call me on) but I used to be involved in converting people to Catholicism, and a lot of our rhetoric was indistinguishable from the fundie Protestants. Anyways, we as a group enjoyed arguing with possible converts far more than actually trying to convert them. As you've probably found out in your own experiences, this self-righteuosness is extremely aggravating, but from the other side, I can safetly say my role was to laugh at the unsaved more than to convert them. In my experience with born-again Christians, once they find out you're Catholic or non Christian (essentially the same thing to them) you find yourself on the recieving end of all their fire-and-brimstone rhetoric.
Just pointing something out. I'm sure there are people who want to save the unsaved truly.

[Arianrhod]

47. "This view is subjective of course, so all may not agree with it."

I disagree with the portion that says one may not harm him/herself. That is an area of the social contract that has no business being there, IMO. What a person does with his/her own body is his/her own choice, and should not be interfered with by others.

I also disagree with the notion that logic "offers ABSOLUTE certainty". All logic does is provide a framework for rational conclusions. Nothing in true science is absolutely certain--including the probability that we are all having this conversation here.

:)

[catbert836]

60. Yes, I've already addressed both of them

In my conversation with Trotsky, and you're right on both counts. My bad.

[Silent3]

55. Don't mind at all.

Besides, it is your thread, isn't it? :)

Your reaction to Zebedeo's posts is diplomatic, but I'm not sure if it's accurate. It sure seems to me that he/she is saying that a God-created universe is a logical (practically inescapable!) conclusion, and that it's a leap of faith not to believe God (or the "supernatural", which he/she equates with God by fiat) created everything.

At any rate, it doesn't seem to me that very many people speak or behave as if their religious beliefs are mere acts of imagination. A good many (if not most) speak as if they believe what they believe because they're "tuned in" to some Deeper Truth, and a few among those are basically saying that if you don't tune into the same frequency they're on and get with the program, you'll burn in hell forever at the hands of an ostensibly loving and just God.

I'm perfectly capable of being imaginative and enjoying imaginative things, and I'm perfectly capable of a rich emotional life, without any of the trappings or dogma associated with religion or (by some meanings of the word) "spirituality".

[catbert836]

63. The primary basis

of our knowledge on life and existence is what we can percieve through logic and reason. I've acknowleged that throughout this thread. Through logic and reason, I percieve a kind of higher order, but I can fully accept those who don't see it. I think it's a far tretch to believe in God, but on the other hand, there are many who've searched all their lives for aswers, and found God at the end. I can accept that view as well, but i don't agree with it.
Imagination was probably not the best word here. Another poster, further down the thread, came up with the idea of "arational", eg without, (not against) rational views, which I think most religious views are, and I think you would agree with me. But where we get bogged down is in the word logic. Many theists attempt to justfy their beliefs using logic, which is impossible, since the very act of faith is a belief that cannot be proven by logical/scientific processes. As these beliefs are not logical, they shouldn't need logic to back them up. Many of us believe that logic is not the only thing there is to understanding of life, so it's ridiculous to try to set up religious beliefs backed by science strawmen.

[InaneAnanity]

133. As others have said...

Not only is the spontaneous generation of carbon compounds based on nothing but electricity reproducible, it has been replicated thousands of times.

How many times have you proven how god created the universe??

Argument over.

[lvx35]

24. A theological argument regarding your statements and the athiests.

When I see these arguments, which say things to the effect that there must be a creator because we can see proof he must existed here and here, It makes me think of a theological argument: If there were an all knowing, all powerful God, does he want everybody to know he exists? If the answer is yes, there would not be a single atheist in the world; he's all powerful! If the answer is no, then there would never ever be a single thing in the world that could be found that would prove his existence to everybody, including any kind of scientific proof.
Interesting thought.

[Zhade]

81. Excellent post.

"Life just couldna sprung up from NOTHIN' - so there must be a gawd!", while an emotional outburst, does not a truism make.

[catbert836]

35. "... a supernatural explanation."

Here is where you and me disagree, I think. By your posts, you seem to be a fellow theist, but we disagree on the beginning of our universe. You see, the matter that was there at the start of the Big Bang could have been a remenant from the "Big Crunch" of a previous universe, that collapsed on itself when entropy was too great for it to keep expanding. Once the gravity was too strong in this singularity to keep shrinking, it expanded again, in what we call the Big Bang. According to our knowledge of theoretical physics, this is the BEST (not the only) possible explanation of the Universe's existence.
Anyway, there's a lot more to the theory, but what I'm saying is that there's not necessarily a supernatural explanation to the universe. I certainly accept it's possibility, but once again, it goes far beyond what we know about the universe.

[Zebedeo]

43. Even if you assume that there was a "previous universe"

and a "Big Crunch," you haven't gotten anywhere in explaining the origin of all the matter and energy in the universe. You have just pushed the question to be: "How did all of the matter and energy in the previous universe come into existence?" You could keep doing this with more and more hypothetical prior universes, but it would not do anything to answer the question of how the matter and energy originally came into existence.

I would think that every rational person could agree that nothing can create itself. This follows logically from the fact that until the something is created, it is not there to create itself.

So it is simply logically impossible for the universe to have created itself. The ONLY explanation, then, is that a cause INDEPENDENT OF the universe created the universe. This cause has to have an independent existence that pre-dates the creation of the universe 14.5 billion years ago. This cause also has to have had immense power, beyond our capacity to fathom -- a power so great, that it not only created 25 billion galaxies of matter and all the energy in the universe, but also designed the intricate workings of every atom in the universe. Fromo this, you don't have to accept that this Cause is omnipotent, but the Cause's power is undeniably, head-spinningly awesome. From this, you don't have to accept that this Cause is still working in the lives of His creatures. I believe these things, but I understand if others don't.

What I find hard to understand is when people refuse to accept that there was a Cause that created the universe. Logically, there had to have been such a Cause, and it had to have an existence independent of, and predating, the universe's creation. This timeless, awesomely powerful entity, who exists independent of the universe, and created the universe, is what most people worship as "God." As a theist, you believe in a supernatural entity. Yet you say that you don't believe that the supernatural entity created the universe. Do you believe the supernatural entity is Himself a creature? If so, what caused the creation of the entity and all of the universe?

To me, the only rational conclusion is that God, who has no beginning and no end, because He exists independently of the the matter, energy, time and space of the universe, created the universe.

[Arianrhod]

49. "I would think that every rational person could agree that nothing can

create itself."

I am a rational person, and I do not agree.

Virtual particles create themselves. They appear out of nothingness, and vanish back into nothingness. They do not "exist" as we think of existence. Yet they affect the things that do exist.

[catbert836]

62. Okay.

However, the theory goes on to say that the matter from the previous universe didn't necessarily have to be created, but it could have always existed, and perhaps will always exist. That's pretty mind-boggling, and it would be simpler to apply Occam's Razor, and say God created everything, but that seems way too easy to me.
Also, as Arianrhod says, quantum/virtual particles could have something to do with it.

[InaneAnanity]

134. Your brain is tiny

and cannot comprehend the possibility of an infinitely existing universe.

Because our lives are finite, we think of everything in finite terms. In our minds, everything must have an origin, when the actual likelihood is that the universe always has and always will exist, in some fluctuating form.

Your own mental limitations aren't proof of god, which is, in effect, your argument.

[manic expression]

144. So since

our brains are "tiny", we cannot comprehend infinite things?

Why can we comprehend a circle?

[Arianrhod]

10. Ah, a fellow Hermeticist.

I'm a Pagan Gnostic, which is a philosophy that grew out of Hermeticism.

Hail and well met! :)

I do have a problem with your argument, however. It is a known scientific fact that material things do arise out of nothing; in Quantum Physics, these materials are known as "virtual particles". They don't exist in the way we normally think of existence; they tend to pop in and out of reality in accordance with the statistical probability of their coming into being. They surround all of the "real" particles in the Universe, and--according to astrophysicist Paul Davies--have a profound impact on those "real" particles. Without taking virtual particles into consideration, all of our spatial calculations are wrong.

Thus, that which does not exist affects that which does.

Fruit flies did not need to pre-exist before their appearance in the jar. By the laws of Quantum Mechanics (see in particular the Copenhagen School headed by Schroedinger, Heisenberg and Bohr), the fruit flies exist in the jar only because we observe their existence in the jar. Without that observance, there is no way to say that there exists a jar full of fruit flies.

As a Gnostic, I don't see the Universe as a closed system. It is constantly being influenced by something from outside. I don't know what this "something" is, but I refer to it for convenience' sake as "The Dreamer". This is, in fact, in keeping with Stephen Hawkings' scientific theory of white holes--according to which energy is constantly being input to the Universe from "something" outside of it.

"The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine; it is stranger than we can imagine." (Erwin Schroedinger)

[trotsky]

26. The universe is indeed a closed system.

But there is nothing in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that says there cannot be pockets of order within that system, so long as the total entropy of the system increases. Which, as long as there are stars shining and contributing ENERGY to those localized pockets (at the expense of changing nice simple little hydrogen atoms to helium and EM waves), can safely be said to be the case.

So that kind of blows your whole reasoning out of the water. Which tends to happen when you try to base a philosophical opinion on a scientific law that you don't understand.

[papau]

40. Well said! :-)

:-)

[McKenzie]

4. good post friend

once we get to the basic bits of atomic structure all we find is vibration (sound?), rather than matter. Sound is a recurring theme in ancient mysticism as anyone who cares to find out will discover. Maybe that's why we respond to music in such a big way. As for physics and the nature of matter it is very interesting to look at the maths that underpin the natural world. (Fibonacci numbers, for example). And don't let me start ranting on about sacred geometry..I'd get flamed by the rationalista for a start.

I'm no Christian but I'm no atheist either. But I don't believe in a personal god...it's something within all of us...we are all part of something...quite what I don't know.

And you are right about the irreconcilabilty (is there such a word?) of the logical and the intuitive side of human understanding.

Karma? You might well be right there too.

Let me know if you need some tin foil...I keep a 30 metre roll in the kitchen.

Cheers.

[Arianrhod]

13. Sacred geometry.

According to Carl Sagan in his PBS documentary Cosmos, Johannes Kepler spent many years attempting to correlate the orbits of the planets with the sacred geometrical figures of Pythagoras. He believed fervently in the orderliness of the Universe, and that the mathematical structures devised by Pythagoras were reflective of that order. He was incorrect as far as the solar system is concerned (he actually had the correct answer two years before he finally accepted it, because of his insistence on the Sacred Forms), but he was correct in his assumption of orderliness.

String Theory (as far as I know; my knowledge is extremely weak here, and I've just ordered a book on the subject to get a better grasp of it) posits that everything is a vibration. This idea is in perfect accord with Occultism, Paganism, Gnosticism, and Hermeticism--philosophies that reach back up to 6000 years or so. Humans have always understood that the Universe is ordered on principles which, while to some degree understandable, are profoundly different than that which appears to us on an everyday level. Modern science is finally confirming this intuitive realization.

[StClone]

5. Why does Order Prove anything?

Order is proof that to exist order is needed. But it does not indicate Logically or through Imaginative summations of the need of an order producer. A cosmos exists of its own independent order (independent of a creator). That is the hardest part to accept I guess: that it exist because it does and order is the determining factor that causes it.

[catbert836]

18. To you, it might not.

But to many theists, with varying reasoning, the order throughout the universe is seen, as you say, as an indicator of an Order Producer.
I would not be the most qualified person to answer your question. I do not believe in an "Order Producer", in that sense of the words, because I follow, as I said the philosophies of Buddhism, Taoism, and pantheism, and these to me seem to be indicated by natural laws, such as Newton's 3rd law= karma, Law of Conservation of Mass=reincarnation?
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is I agree with you. I do not believe in an order producer, and I think it would be useful if we could get some theists who DO in on this thread.

[Orrex]

142. Sorry--late in replying

the philosophies of Buddhism, Taoism, and pantheism, and these to me seem to be indicated by natural laws, such as Newton's 3rd law= karma, Law of Conservation of Mass=reincarnation?

That's the exact kind of QED/New Age blurring that many empiricists find so infuriating.

If you posit that karma is in some way equivalent to a physical law of "equal and opposite reaction," then you are arguing that karma is a physical force governed by predictable physical laws. Additionally, the "energy" or "mechanism" of karma should be as detectable as other physical phenomena. If this is not your argument, then you should abandon the attempted linkage between karma and Newtonian physics.

If you posit that "reincarnation" matches to "conservation of mass," then you're stating that the soul (by whatever name) is likewise subject to predictable physical laws and likewise detectable.

If you then make the argument that neither karma nor the soul is "as yet" detectable by current technology, then that's a statement of pure faith, and it shatters your metaphysics/physics analogy.

[skids]

6. Occam's razor...

...also isn't proof. But since it seems to carry so much (perhaps unjustified) weight with some, what does it say about this?

Let's take three views of various extremes:

1) Consciousness exists in any system that satisfies some (unknown to us) criteria.

2) Consciousness can ONLY exist in spatially localized organisms.

3) Since I'm the only consciousness I can empirically observe, and thus prove, I'm the only conscious entity in the Universe. While not disproven, there is no proof that anything else is conscious, so the "logical" assumption is that it doesn't exist until it's proven to.

If you demand everything must be proved before it can be believed in, you get #3. If you follow Occam's razor, you get #1. What principles #2 derives from, that pool of "common sense" logic we seem to see among a lot of people these days, I have absolutely no idea.

[Arianrhod]

15. It depends on how you define "consciousness".

As Sartre pointed out, there is a huge difference between consciousness and self-consciousness. The latter is what we as humans experience; the former runs the gamut from human beings to amoebas. (Even a one-celled creature recognizes "self" from "other", which is what enables it to eat.)

We as yet have no true science of consciousness. Still, we have been moving in this direction for some 80 years now, and are finally coming to a point where we might be able to at least describe what happens in a human brain when it experiences consciousness. (See Sir Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind, as well as Nobel Laureate Gerald Edelman's book, A Universe of Consciousness, which is based in part on Victor Johnston's theory of tonal heuristics.)

According to scientific research, it appears that consciousness as experienced by humans can only exist in spatially localized systems. However, that which is experienced by amoebas may be more generalized in its scope. Even Einstein complained that Quantum Mechanics implied that consciousness is a fundamental property of the Universe. . . .

[lvx35]

22. Amoeba conciousness?

That's interesting...because it seems to me if an ameoba is concious, everything is. I mean little critters like that have no brains, no nervous systems that I am aware of or eyes (to my understanding) they can be viewed as just bio-chemical systems of stimulus and response. If there is no brain, how can their be conciousness?

[Arianrhod]

25. If one understands "consciousness" to be

only that which humans experience, then obviously the amoeba is not conscious. But if the definition includes the ability to discriminate in an environment, then we might have to consider ascribing at least that element of consciousness to it.

[lvx35]

30. That's such an interesting can of worms...

Because we don't really have conciousness defined...We know that an ameoba is not concious OF sight, or sound, or memory in the way we are, but just because we know its not concious OF the same things doesn't really say anything about its conciousness itself.

[Arianrhod]

50. Precisely. :)

I'm an ardent student of consciousness, both via scientific exploration (Freud, Jung, Fromm, Johnston, Damasio, Penrose, Edelman) and internal exploration (Taoism, Zen, Druidism, Gnosticism). My own feelings on the subject are that we are far too eager to impose boundaries on it.

And we are certainly arrogant and chauvinistic enough to deny it in others.

[lvx35]

61. Its the most fascinating thing I can think of.

Its just wierd that the thing most central to my existence is the thing I can least understand. ITs also wierd to realize that all my experiences of the "material" world exist within my conciousness even in the most material accounts of the world. Conciousness is primal to all experience, and try as I might I can't make a logical argument that disproves the idea that it is actually the most real, basic, and primal building block of reality.

[Arianrhod]

67. And again, it depends on how one defines "experience".

Studies done over the past 20 years indicate that conscious awareness actually lags behind events by some 150-250 milliseconds. (Penrose, Edelman). Everything we experience--perceptions, decisions, thoughts--occurs unconsciously before it enters consciousness. Everything we know about existence is already in the past; we do not consciously experience a "present". The present is something we build up from memory. . . . Edelman calls it "present memory".

And apparently memory itself is not a state of mind, but rather is a set of processes that are re-engaged when we try to remember something. That would explain why our memories of events are never 100% accurate, but are colored by emotions, distortions, and even inventions. Because our minds aren't accessing something that exists like a storage depot or computer chip; rather, it has to recreate the memory from scratch! Incredible.

Add to this the fact that our eyes have blind spots that are reconstructed as "best guesses" by the visual cortex, and it's hard to believe that we're perceiving anything "real" at all. . . .

What we see is not always what we get. (Apologies to Flip Wilson)

[lvx35]

23. Totally.

That always trips my out, how all human knowledge taken as common sense is based on a pool of assumptions...Your totally right in the end, I have no idea if there is actually anybody else out there at all...I may have been dreaming you all for a very long time ;)

[manic expression]

147. Not really

Even dreams are reality. They are simply a level further away from the ultimate truth of the universe.

If you've been dreaming the entire time, it still happened and it was still real, because our bodies, words, actions and other aspects of our existence are the present manifestations of our true selves.

In a way, this is comparable to a dream when you consider the big picture. Just as we see representations of people's real bodies and deeds and characteristics in dreams, so too do we find representations of an individual's real self in the physical world.

Did that make sense? I really hope it did.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. And yet "irrational" and "imaginary" are two words sure to annoy

many theists on DU, if we apply them to their ideas. Perhaps, just as we have 'amoral' ('without morality') as opposed to 'immoral' ('against morality'), and 'atheist' ('without gods') as opposed to 'anti-theist' ('against god'), we need a word 'arational' - for ideas that do not invoke rationality, rather than ones that run against reason?

[catbert836]

17. I did think of that

but then I realized that that's what faith is: against logic, using the imagination. It doesn't matter if faith is described by these words, because that's what it is. As a theist myself, I certainly hesitated to use them to describe my own beliefs.

[lvx35]

21. faith is different from imagination

at least for me. The difference is I recognize what I imagine as not being real, I recognize God as being real. To me, even calling me "delusional" would make more sense than calling my faith imagination, because at least a person looks at a "delusion" as being real.

[catbert836]

33. Yet,

would you agree that your belief in something without proof lies outside the logical realm? Keep in mind, I don't think that logic can explain everything in this universe. That's where a lot of people get tripped up, because something doesn't necessarily have to be logical in order to exist.
I'm sorry about my use of the word "imagination". It probably wasn't the best one to use in these regards. "Delusional" has a negative connatation, so I think "arational", as Muriel says, would be a better alternative for all concerned.
Peace.

[lvx35]

46. Well, I think humans are pretty cause-effect oriented.

First of all, I respect your point, and I think the word arational, or even trans-rational or hyper-rational would be good for describing all this. But yeah belief without out proof is an important thing, but I'm not sure its not rational, or rather, all rational fields do it. I was just talking to my math professor about this, the nature of proof. Proofs are always derived from a set of axioms or assumed truths, they all take the form "assuming this and this, we can prove this" but some kind of assumption is always relavant, and the axioms themselves cannot be proven. So for me faith is a concious choice to change my axioms about the world and see what happens. With the axiom "God exists" a whole bunch of other "proofs" arise as consequence, which is religion, but like math or anything all subsequent theorems depend upon the initial axiom, which cannot be proven.

So the point is that its just something I do, and I continue to do it because I get results when I use those axioms. I use God because God works, and I think a lot of people do.

[Orrex]

69. Not precisely

belief without out proof is an important thing, but I'm not sure its not rational, or rather, all rational fields do it.

This is a charge commonly leveled against science as a means of reducing science to the status of faith or perhaps to elevate faith to the status of science. Ultimately, it's a matter of equivocation.

Science makes basically two assumption:

1. The universe exists
2. The universe can be observed

Will you grant that these two assumptions are of a far more basic, fundamental nature than to assume that some omnipotent eternal and omnibenevolent entity created man in His image? Science makes two of the tiniest possible assumptions, whereas faith (Christian faith, in this case) makes the biggest of all possible assumptions. And even these fundamental assumptions of science are subject to retraction and modification, if a sufficient case can be made against them. By what criteria might one conclude that transcendent, metaphysical Faith is inconsistent with reality and in need of revision?

In addition, mundane "faith" is starkly different from metaphysical Faith, and one should never be mistaken for the other.

And even if "belief without proof" turns out to be rational, "belief" in spite of contrary proof is irrational to the point of madness.

[Feenicks]

75. Why does science get to assume #1 if it can't explain

from where the universe originated? Science conveniently sidesteps its very own leap of faith. And BTW, how do you define "mundane faith"?

[Orrex]

78. Sorry for being a little vague

By "from where the universe originated," I take it you mean "the process" rather than "the location," right? Since I was admittedly vague, I want to be sure that I don't misunderstand you.

Anyway, about the origin of the universe, science leads us to conclude that we don't currently know the answer, without making any definite claims of future knowledge. Instead, we conclude that the universe exists, insofar as we are able to determine, and it appears to allow observation and predictions based upon those observations. We verify this by comparing other people's observations and predictions. Sure, one can argue that we're all floating in vats a la The Matrix, but that conclusion is not justified by the evidence available to us. If future evidence justifies such a conclusion, then that's another matter.

That's not a sidestep, by the way. It's an acknowledgement of the limitations of our science. However, that limitation does not justify or validate a belief in any god or other supernatural phenomenon.

Faith in a deity allows none of these things. Barring divine revelation, Christianity can never discover where God came from or predict how God will behave. That's because science is an explanatory tool, while Faith is a means of obscuring knowledge.

"Mundane faith," as I term it, is what's commonly described as "faith," such as "I have faith that the car will start" or "have faith that Bill will show up with the pizza." These are not leaps of transcendent Faith but are instead guesses based on verifiable data and previous experience. Is that clearer?

[Feenicks]

79. Okay, got your "faith" term squared away

By "from where the universe originated," I take it you mean "the process" rather than "the location," right? Since I was admittedly vague, I want to be sure that I don't misunderstand you.

Yes.

Anyway, about the origin of the universe, science leads us to conclude that we don't currently know the answer, without making any definite claims of future know

I don't see how science could ever hope to discover the answer. Are you actually implying that it is theoretically possible?

That's not a sidestep, by the way. It's an acknowledgement of the limitations of our science. However, that limitation does not justify or validate a belief in any god or other supernatural phenomenon.

I would argue that science is indeed limited by what it can explain and that Creation is beyond its ability. I agree that that doesn't necessarily point to Creator God, but my point is that it is just as much a transcendent leap of faith to take the universe as a given as it is for a person to believe that a God created it. Even if I granted that somehow, the universe always was (and avoid the infinite regression stuff), the laws of the universe had to come from somewhere. Fingerprints of God, I'd metaphorically say.

[Orrex]

87. Still not the same

I don't see how science could ever hope to discover the answer (re: the origin of the universe). Are you actually implying that it is theoretically possible?

I agree that, under our current understanding of physics, the explanation is not possible. But I have no basis for making definitive claims about future developments in physics, so I must withhold any ultimate answer to that question.

However, I would say that, if the answer can be known, then it is theoretically possible that we will one day know it.

I would argue that science is indeed limited by what it can explain and that Creation is beyond its ability. I agree that that doesn't necessarily point to Creator God, but my point is that it is just as much a transcendent leap of faith to take the universe as a given as it is for a person to believe that a God created it. Even if I granted that somehow, the universe always was (and avoid the infinite regression stuff), the laws of the universe had to come from somewhere. Fingerprints of God, I'd metaphorically say.

I would counter that the existence of the universe can be demonstrated in a way that one can't demonstrate that a Creator created it. The fact that we are having this conversation at all is stronger and more direct evidence that the universe exists than has ever been put forth in support of a Creator's existence.

Here are, as far as I can tell, the two different assertions:

1. The universe can be shown to exist with a high degree of reliability

2. The universe exists, so therefore God created it

Statement 1 is supportable by evidence, but Statement 2 is only true if Statement 1 is true and at least two additional unproven statements are assumed to be true.

Statement 1 simply does not require "just as much a transcendent leap of faith" as Statement 2. Statement 2, being predicated on Statement 1, requires at a minimum the same amount of "transcendent faith" as Statement 1 plus additional "transcendent faith."

[Feenicks]

90. It's the Same, just Different

I agree that, under our current understanding of physics, the explanation is not possible. But I have no basis for making definitive claims about future developments in physics, so I must withhold any ultimate answer to that question.

However, I would say that, if the answer can be known, then it is theoretically possible that we will one day know it.

Do you hold the same degree of open-mindedness when it comes to the possibility that the universe was created by a Supernatural Entity?

"I agree that, under my current understanding of God, the explanation is not possible. But I have no basis for making definitive claims about future developments in my belief in God, so I must withhold any ultimate answer to that question."

Would you sign that statement?

Here are, as far as I can tell, the two different assertions:

1. The universe can be shown to exist with a high degree of reliability

2. The universe exists, so therefore God created it

Statement 1 is supportable by evidence, but Statement 2 is only true if Statement 1 is true and at least two additional unproven statements are assumed to be true.

Statement 1 simply does not require "just as much a transcendent leap of faith" as Statement 2. Statement 2, being predicated on Statement 1, requires at a minimum the same amount of "transcendent faith" as St

We both can accept statement 1. But where I am trying to trap you :evilgrin: is in your acceptance of the latter part of statement 2. You say that the conclusion "so therefore God created it" requires an additional leap of faith, but I would counter that any conclusion in that position would require an additional leap of faith. You admit that science isn't currently equipped to address the question (if ever), and so we both are taking leaps together, although in opposite directions. Is this not true?

[Orrex]

92. It's different. Just different. 8^)

Do you hold the same degree of open-mindedness when it comes to the possibility that the universe was created by a Supernatural Entity?

"I agree that, under my current understanding of God, the explanation is not possible. But I have no basis for making definitive claims about future developments in my belief in God, so I must withhold any ultimate answer to that question."

Would you sign that statement?

Well, the statement I've made numerous times (in threads that I don't expect you to hunt down!) is that all current evidence provides insufficient justification to conclude that God exists. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, I am atheist, though I make no definitive claims about future evidence. I'll sign my statement, if you think it'll help.

Heck, it might be worth it for me to track down the threads in which I've made that statement, because it's surprisingly close to what you propose!

We both can accept statement 1. But where I am trying to trap you is in your acceptance of the latter part of statement 2. You say that the conclusion "so therefore God created it" requires an additional leap of faith, but I would counter that any conclusion in that position would require an additional leap of faith. You admit that science isn't currently equipped to address the question (if ever), and so we both are taking leaps together, although in opposite directions. Is this not true?

It's true that making any statement about the origin of the universe when one lacks any supporting evidence would be a leap of faith (though I'd add that the injection of a supernatural entity into the mix makes it a leap of transcendent Faith). But science does not draw any conclusion as to how the universe formed, whereas "Faith in a Creator" does make that claim (with certainty, no less!). Instead, science offers possible explanations, any of which can be strengthened or overturned by subsequent evidence. That's an absence of faith, rather than a confirmation of it.

[Feenicks]

96. Except that I don't think there exists any type

of evidence that would satisfy you ("conclusive evidence").

Well, the statement I've made numerous times (in threads that I don't expect you to hunt down!) is that all current evidence provides insufficient justification to conclude that God exists. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, I am atheist, though I make no definitive claims about future evidence. I'll sign my statement, if you think it'll help.

As you have set up your belief system (or lack thereof, relying soley on science), you effectively negate any possibility that something could exist that isn't provable (such as a concept of a supernatural God). Put another way, I don't believe you:-) So tell me (or yourself) what it would take to get you to believe in God. I'm guessing "nothing".

It's true that making any statement about the origin of the universe when one lacks any supporting evidence would be a leap of faith (though I'd add that the injection of a supernatural entity into the mix makes it a leap of transcendent Faith). But science does not draw any conclusion as to how the universe formed, whereas "Faith in a Creator" does make that claim (with certainty, no less!). Instead, science offers possible explanations, any of which can be strengthened or overturned by subsequent evidence. That's an absence of faith, rather than a confirmation of it.

I cry "foul!" Science has absolutely no right to offer any explanation about creation, because it is pure conjecture, no more plausible than the explanation that a God created it. The "Big Bang" theory is a sham! Science cannot seriously offer the explanation that the universe was a tiny something and it suddenly exploded! Sure, emperically, the universe is expanding, but I really object to science offering "explanations" and conveniently omitting the good part (what finally made the Big Bang decide to Bang?). Or to offer the explanation that the "universe always was" (which is totally unscientific).

Science is a great tool. Coupled with reason and logic, it is how we define and explore our world. But they are not the only tools And using those tools for certain jobs is pointless, just as my new laser level doesn't get me far to shoveling snow off of my driveway.

Hmm. My point. My point is that being an atheist because of a lack of evidence is a bogus reason IMO, because the only type of evidence they will accept is using a method that is unable to do the job (to split? a metaphor). But the ONE compelling piece of evidence that I can offer (creation) is simply glossed over. Creation is the crux.

[Orrex]

99. Plenty of evidence!

As you have set up your belief system (or lack thereof, relying soley on science), you effectively negate any possibility that something could exist that isn't provable (such as a concept of a supernatural God). Put another way, I don't believe you So tell me (or yourself) what it would take to get you to believe in God. I'm guessing "nothing".

I may have been imprecise in a previous post. I don't rely on science for every explanation, but as far as possible or likely origins of the universe, I'll take an explanation that is consistent with science over an explanation that requires beleif in a divine Creator.

I could be made to believe in God through a number of ways, all of which are readily within the power of an omnipotent deity.

Suppose that Average Shirley and Average Bob are in the room with me, about both of whom I have general expectations re: appearance, voice, etc. If they address me in turn, I'd say that it's at least pretty darn likely that I can discern one from the other, barring some willful subterfuge on their part. If two Average Folks can pull this off, I'm confident that God could manage it, at least to the point of convincing me that he's sufficiently close to "God" to call him that. And it wouldn't even violate the doctrine of so-called free will.

God could also demonstrate a logical impossibility, such as showing me two people who are simultaneously taller than one another, or an entity that raised himself from the dead, or a square that has five sides, or an infinitely just and merciful God who allows permanent, infinite suffering for a fleeting, finite transgression. Christianity is comfortable with all kinds of logical impossibilities, so it should be no trouble for God to show me one.

God could simply implant the knowledge in my head that he exists, in a fashion that is irrefutable, does not undermine Faith, and does not violate free will. If he's omnipotent, then he can manage it.

That's just three ways, off the top of my head. There are many others.

I cry "foul!" Science has absolutely no right to offer any explanation about creation, because it is pure conjecture, no more plausible than the explanation that a God created it. The "Big Bang" theory is a sham!

I'm not comfortable with the term "creation" in that statement, because it undeniably muddies the waters, even when intended as an abbreviation for "the origin of the universe."

But it's simply false to assert that the Big Bang theory is a sham. There have been numerous phenomena observed that are predicted by and consistent with the theory. Science doesn't assert what happened "before" the Big Bang, except to point out that "time" appears to have come into existence with the Big Bang, so there is no "before." Science likewise makes no claims about the "why" behind the Big Bang, because that's not the point of science.

to offer the explanation that the "universe always was" (which is totally unscientific).

I disagree. If we define "always" as "through the entirety of time," then it's perfectly consistent to say that the universe has always existed. The universe is not a thing in time or space; it is time and space. Claims about any thing with the universe cannot be readily applied to the universe itself, just as claims that can be made about any particular number cannot be applied to the set of all numbers.

Hmm. My point. My point is that being an atheist because of a lack of evidence is a bogus reason IMO, because the only type of evidence they will accept is using a method that is unable to do the job (to split? a metaphor).

That's only true if we posit that an omnipotent God would be unable to demonstrate himself, and then he's hardly omnipotent. Let him step forth and remove all doubt, and then I'll believe in him. I have no interest in nor respect for an entity that favors Faith over reason, and such an entity is certainly unworthy of my worship.

Any belief based specifically on a lack of evidence (ie., concluding X only because there is no evidence that Y is true) is irrational.

But the ONE compelling piece of evidence that I can offer (creation) is simply glossed over. Creation is the crux.

On the contrary, "creation" is glossed over because it is, in itself, evidence of nothing except itself. All conclusions about "creation" must be drawn from evidence within it, because if we appeal to an outside and apparently fundamentally unknowable agency, we're no closer to understanding than we were when we started.

[Feenicks]

117. I remain skeptical

I may have been imprecise in a previous post. I don't rely on science for every explanation, but as far as possible or likely origins of the universe, I'll take an explanation that is consistent with science over an explanation that requires beleif in a divine Creator.

I don't see how one explanation outside of science could be any more palatable than another. I mean, you either start with absolute nothingness, and suddenly a universe appears, or you start with an eternal Creator who causes it to be. Personally, I like the idea of some divine Creator behind the curtain rather than nothing. Why wouldn't that be more desirable?

I could be made to believe in God through a number of ways, all of which are readily within the power of an omnipotent deity.

Suppose that Average Shirley and Average Bob are in the room with me, about both of whom I have general expectations re: appearance, voice, etc. If they address me in turn, I'd say that it's at least pretty darn likely that I can discern one from the other, barring some willful subterfuge on their part. If two Average Folks can pull this off, I'm confident that God could manage it, at least to the point of convincing me that he's sufficiently close to "God" to call him that. And it wouldn't even violate the doctrine of so-called free will.

Apparently, and I'm speaking empirically, God doesn't choose to do it that way. And I'm not so sure it wouldn't violate our free will, either. And I'm not so sure that you'd be convinced, either. Your brain would be screaming "IT'S A HOAX!!!" the entire time. Because what if God really does do that, and "Shirley and Bob" are actually Jehovah's Witness members? :D

God could also demonstrate a logical impossibility, such as showing me two people who are simultaneously taller than one another, or an entity that raised himself from the dead, or a square that has five sides, or an infinitely just and merciful God who allows permanent, infinite suffering for a fleeting, finite transgression. Christianity is comfortable with all kinds of logical impossibilities, so it should be no trouble for God to show me one.

Two people who are simultaneously taller than one another.... I could do that with a few select herbs:hippie: As far as an entity that raised himself from the dead, I think it is germane to consider that not everyone to whom Jesus directly spoke believed in Him or His miracles. I happen to find that VERY interesting. Now, a square with five sides-- how about a square that has squares for sides, AKA a hypercube. The idea is that any logical impossibility probably wouldn't be recognizable by your limited, 3D perception.

God could simply implant the knowledge in my head that he exists, in a fashion that is irrefutable, does not undermine Faith, and does not violate free will. If he's omnipotent, then he can manage it.

If it were irrefutable, then I'd argue that it would violate your free will of choice. I would also argue that, if you remained open to the idea, it would eventually happen. But the key I believe is keeping an open mind and not insisting on shoveling snow with a laser level:-)

[Zebedeo]

135. Under your own definition, your belief in atheism is irrational

Any belief based specifically on a lack of evidence (ie., concluding X only because there is no evidence that Y is true) is irrational.

Given the lack of conclusive evidence, I am atheist
Your Post #92

[Feenicks]

138. Hmmm, I think he'd say he's an atheist

because of a lack of evidence, not that since there is no evidence, he's therefore an atheist. Is that playing semantics?

But I wouldn't speak for him of course.

[Orrex]

141. Feenicks gets it close to right in #135

It's not that the lack of evidence leads me to conclude that God doesn't exist. Instead, the (I would say utter) lack of evidence maked it impossible for me to conclude that God does exist.

Because I can not conclude (and do not believe) that God exists, I am atheist.

[Silent3]

94. Was the term "excluded middle" invented to explain religious thought?

but I would counter that any conclusion in that position would require an additional leap of faith.

If someone were stomping his feet insisting that there is absolutely, positively no God, no way, no how... that might be called a leap of faith.

But any agnostic, and even most who call themselves atheists, are not so emphatic. These people will admit both possibilities (God, no God) in varying degrees, and vary in what they take these questions (Is there a God? Did God create the universe?) to mean.

One person looks around and says, "Looks like there has to be a God." Another looks around and says, "I see no compelling evidence of a God." Now who is drawing a conclusion, and who is simply refraining from making a conclusion?

There is either a pink elephant living in a special environmental chamber, buried three kilometers below the surface of Mars... or there isn't. There is either a mystical psychic ability to predict the winners of Vermont elementary school spelling bees, three years in advance, gained by eating 133 radishes per day while standing in a bowl of swamp water (but only if you TRULY BELIEVE!)... or their isn't.

Does this make every single is/isn't decision a "leap of faith"? Even if all of these choices are called leaps, isn't there something to be said about the magnitude of these leaps?

[Feenicks]

97. Magnitude.... hmmm

There shouldn't be any leaps of faith in science, no matter how small, no?

I don't see how refraining from answering a difficult question is being any more honest than someone drawing a conclusion that is unscientific.

My point to Orrex is that no amount of evidence would be sufficient to prove that God exists for him because God isn't scrutinizable by the scientific method, which is the only method he is willing to use to examine the question of the existence of God. So, in essence, "true" scientists are forced to become atheists, which I think is bogus.

[Arianrhod]

102. The scientific method applies only to the Universe

and to nothing outside of it.

Is your god a part of the Universe? Then the scientific method will reveal him/her/it.

Otherwise, it will not.

This is an essential point that you Christian Creationists simply refuse to understand. It is your biggest error.

Science is not concerned with conjecture beyond its scope, which is the Universe. You can posit anything you like outside of existence, but whatever you posit is outside of existence. It is therefore unprovable.

Anything that is unprovable is by definition not science.

There are therefore no "leaps of faith" in science, because science deals strictly with what is, and ignores what is not.

I really don't understand why you guys have such difficulties with this.

[Feenicks]

106. In all fairness

to me, I have never once mentioned that I am a "Christian Creationist" (whatever that is). So please don't label me as such. Although you are correct in your assumption that I am a Christian, it is not my intention to thrust my beliefs on you, but to understand your beliefs (or lack thereof) more fully (assuming you are an atheist). I am just trying to understand some inconsistencies which I believe to exist, that is all.

I really do understand what you have stated, and that is why I am driving at the origin of the universe (before the universe began, which we both agree it beyond the scope of science). It is in that arena that I want to explore.

[Arianrhod]

118. I apologize.

I mistook you for someone else. I really need to pay more attention to the names when I respond. I have a tendency to follow trains of thought rather than who's driving them.

I'm not an atheist, though. My ultimate beliefs are probably not that far off from yours, although the details are obviously going to differ quite a bit, since I'm also not a Christian.

Didn't mean to offend. It was getting late for me and I was a bit punchy. Again, I apologize for the error.

[Feenicks]

122. No worries! Apology accepted:-) n/t

[Zebedeo]

136. Welcome to DU, Feenicks

Could be he was thinking of me. :)

Your arguments remind me of mine. :)

[Feenicks]

137. Thanks! Time to dust off the ol'

saw "great minds think alike" :hi:

[Orrex]

103. Hi, Feenicks!

Welcome to DU! But beware of all the kissing!

:hi:

[Feenicks]

105. Thanks! I most certainly will!

:evilgrin:

[hunter]

48. "Irrational" and "imaginary" annoy everyone...

In a flippant way, I would say that all humans are irrational creatures. I often see more "rational" behavior in my pets and wild animals than I do any human.

If I'm catagorizing irrationality, there are people who's irrationality is predictable and creative, people who's irrationality is unpredictable and sometimes destructive, and people who's irrationality causes them to be a danger to themselves and others.

Theists and atheists occupy all three catagories.

An atheist "rationalist" might believe they occupy some fourth, more superior catagory, but when you "do the math," as Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing did, it turns out that logic and reason do not have any seperate standing in the universe. Everything we "understand" about the universe is entirely inside our heads. All of our understanding, logic and reason included, arises from our imagination; it is always a matter of accepting some idea on faith, and moving out from there.

Of course, some of our ideas are more constructive and less destructive than others.

If it helps to use a negaitve example of why atheism is not a socially superior personal philosophy, recall the sorts of damage done by atheisic sociopaths and violent religious fundamentalists. (Also note there are many cases of atheistic sociopaths masquerading as religious fundamentalists.)

On the "good" as opposed to the "evil" side of the vast spectrum of human irrationality, note the positive social contributions made by very outspoken atheists and by very religious people. It's not difficult to find examples of each.

[Desertrose]

27. Good post, catbert, makes a lot of sense.

Thanks..it truly is like trying to compare apples to oranges.

How can there be a discussion if there is no point of agreement anywhere....definitely irreconcilable views that I don't seen really changing.



DR

[catbert836]

34. Thank you...

This discussion is moving in a positive direction, I think. It's managed to avoid the pitfalls of most athiest/theist discussion. To use the cliche, we have to "agree to disagree"... we may not like it, but that's all there is to acceptance of each other.
Peace.

[greyl]

85. "there is no point of agreement anywhere" ?

I see that as defeatist.

Come now, there are points of agreement all over the farging place.
For one, I'm fairly certain we're all human.
That fact allows discussion.

[catbert836]

42. Thank you for your responses

They have been intelligent, non-argumentative and thoughful all around. I'm glad we haven't degenerated into the usual Athiest/Christian bloodbath that is normal for these threads. We've started a good philosphical and theological discussion here, mostly without flaming each other down. Let's hope this starts a precedent. :toast:.

[TreasonousBastard]

45. This all boils down to our abilities for perception...

and that's been argued about for centuries with little hope of resolution any time soon.

Everyone does seem to agree that our physical perceptions are pretty much limited to what our senses can detect in the three-dimensional universe we live in. At least the perceptions we can trust to work in that universe. We don't know a thing about higher dimensions, other posssible universes, or stimuli that we can't sense.

Bringing up quantum physics, dark matter, physical and mathematical laws that work for us and other such things are largely irrelevant since they are what are known, and we are talking about what is unknown.

I don't know how much "non-rational" knowledge is any more valid than rational knowledge. Quite frankly, I don't know how much rational knowledge is valid either, since it is so limited by our physical perceptions.

[Goblinmonger]

65. Maybe this is a wording choice that

had no meaning behind it, but stuck out to me as I read it:

Why do atheists "subscribe" to their view but theists, through being "thoughtful," take the romantic view? Seems a little skewed. If not your intent, my apologies, but deconstruction is always interesting.

[catbert836]

72. It's all a difference of opinion

Both athiests and theists are very thoughtful, imho. Theists begin with the romantic view, and the theistic approach seems to be a naturally romantic one.
Thoughful atheists look at the same laws as in my OP, but unlike theists, they don't see anything there other than a law of physics. Theists see more than that, an indication of divinity or divine law.

[Arianrhod]

91. I disagree.

I don't know how anyone can read the writings of atheists like Carl Sagan, Stephen J Gould, and even Darwin himself, and not see the passion, the wonder, the excitement--ie, the Romanticism--that characterized these men's lives. It pours forth from them like gushing streams from melting snow.

The confusion arises, I think, from the fact that atheists approach the question of existence from the objective standpoint of science, while theists approach it from the emotional standpoint of personal experience. But as I've written somewhere (I'm losing track of all my threads!), we must be very careful about how we interpret the spiritual/religious experiences we have. These experiences are colored by our genetics, our breeding, our culture, our education--even our expectations. As Timothy Leary pointed out, we must be certain of "set and setting" in our psychological explorations. Given the wrong conditions, horrifyingly wrong conclusions will be drawn.

I've listened to hundreds (literally) of Christian "testimonies" from individuals who have been "saved". Almost every one of these people converted to Christianity at a time when they were at the lowest point of their lives, lost and confused and sometimes in personal danger. Yet not a one of them ever even considered that Buddhism might save them just as certainly as Christianity would. They were all conditioned to turn to the cultural standard when they needed somewhere to turn. The vast majority of them either had been nominal Christians at some earlier point in their lives, or were raised in Christian homes. This is to be expected in America. But it casts a long shadow on the "truth" of what they have found.

So we need to be careful in our generalizations. While there are cold, calculating atheists around, there are also cold, calculating theists around. (Pat Robertson, anyone?) And just as there are exuberant, life-affirming theists, there are also exuberant, life-affirming atheists.

[catbert836]

109. Yes, that's correct.

I misspoke. I seem to be doing that a lot lately. What I meant was that athiests approach the question of EXISTENCE and how to understand the universe from a logical viewpoint, while theists use, as you said, personal experience and emotion. I didn't mean at all those are the prescribed ways for theists and athiests to live their lives.

[Arianrhod]

119. Oh, we all do that.

I just had to apologize too. I get caught up in a fascinating conversation, and then my natural stupidity takes the reins.

I'm enjoying this thread immensely. It's been a long time since I've found such a reasonable discussion on this topic among people who see things so very differently.

[catbert836]

125. Yes, I've noticed that

Usually, threads like this end up hijacked by what passes for an athiest/theist "dialouge". It's sad that us progressives can't discuss things reasonably with each other, but I think we've made some progress on this thread.

[Strong Atheist]

68. "(by using their IMAGINATIONS)"

It has been shown in scientific experiments that people see patterns where there are none; in Rorschach ink blots for instance ...

[hunter]

70. Perhaps we are all inkblots...

...no more significant than any other natural phenomena; mere ripples on a pond.

The first assumption we make is that our own patterns as individuals are somehow more important than the inkblots of a Rorschach test.

If we are not important, then there's not much point to getting out of bed in the morning. That's the first leap of faith we all make; that somehow the intricate patterns of our lives have some meaning.

[Strong Atheist]

71. As far as I am concerned, life has the meaning you

(or I) give it, and no more...

[Arianrhod]

93. I'm not sure that's true.

A lot of people get out of bed simply because it takes too much energy to overcome the inertia of not getting out of bed. We are driven by the compulsion to do things; it doesn't really matter what these things are, but we are unable to keep ourselves from doing them.

Overcoming the Sisyphean grind of "normal" life often takes the courage and discipline of a saint. . . .

[hunter]

100. All these human compulsions...

I write from the perspective of someone who has some very mild obsessive-compulsive disorders. As a kid going through the day I always tried to keep my paths from "winding up." I was very uncomfortable if I got too far clockwise or too far counterclockwise. If I spun around one way, I had to spin back the other way. By the time I was in high school this was getting me in trouble, so I started to delibrately "wind up" my pathways. Lo and behold, nothing broke, but sometimes I still hear the voice in my head.

I also don't seem to have a strong sense of hunger. I can easily forget to eat, and there have been times in my life where this has caused me health problems, especially when I was living alone. It's not anorexia, because I can happily eat a lot when I am eating, it's simply that "feeling hungry" doesn't seem to bother me nearly so much as much as it does most people. I don't need the "discipline of a saint" to keep myself from becoming overweight, or any particular discipline to keep myself from loosing weight either if I can simply remember to eat.

Is it true that we are "unable to keep ourselves from doing" the things that make us human? Is meaning of our lives simply a property of our human instincts and compulsions? Is this meaning any different than it is for other animals? I think that's the heart of this discussion. Is there anything special about human intelligence?

Many religions claim this is so. From Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness..."

[Arianrhod]

101. I do think we are unable to stop ourselves, for the most part.

But I'm talking about everyday life. Our culture and the way our society is set up make such compulsions unavoidable: We have to work, we have to conform in order to keep our jobs, we have to reflect what the neighbors are doing in order to keep from being ostracized, etc etc. When I say we must overcome the inertia of not getting out of bed, it is these things I'm referring to. How many of us will lie in bed every day and night for even a week? Can you do that without having a single thought that maybe you should get up and do something with your life? I know I couldn't--and I have relatively little interest in this life, being both a mystic and a manic-depressive. . . .

Then comes the question of whether going to a 9-to-5 job every day in order to earn money is really one of the things that "make us human". Certainly it is a strong part of human behavior; but is it really the human essence? I think most spiritual people would answer that in the negative.

Even Jesus said so (since you refer to the Bible, so will I hahaha): "Be ye not anxious for what you will eat, or what you will wear." All of the things we consider "normal" about life are really only "normal" for Western capitalistic society. They have nothing to do with biology or even with basic survival. And they certainly have nothing to do with ultimate Truth.

As to the meaning of human life, I don't subscribe to the philosophy that says there is any. I'm an existentialist by nature, and so think that any "meaning" that might exist is there solely because we have projected it onto existence. We are different from other animals only, as Carl Sagan pointed out, in the degree to which we experience our existence. And, IMO, even that can't be completely proven. Who's to say that bonobos don't experience a human level of self-consciousness, but are unable to express it to the depth of nuance that we do?

And who's to say that our "specialness" isn't more of a curse than a blessing? At least bonobos aren't sending suicide bombers into family restaurants. . . .

[hunter]

104. It's all about the storytelling...

I suspect my dog's "experience of existence" is greater than my own, and that the only significant difference between me and my dog is that my dog doesn't tell stories about it. My dog certainly does not behave in some irrational way and then justify that irrational behavior by some story.

Drawing this back to the original post, I think the difference between rationalism and romanticism is that one is a story told from a more logical point of view, and one is a story told from a more intuitive point of view. One can take any human behavior, any behavior at all, and describe it from a rational or from a romantic perspective.

In "everday life" humans behave in an intuitive fashion. They don't think about their reasons for doing things, they just do them. There is no story, no reason, until someone tells it.

[Arianrhod]

120. That's a good point.

Human experience is after the fact; that is, we behave in a particular way, and then we justify that behavior by telling ourselves a story. And the more often we tell that story--whether in our own minds or to other people--the more convinced we become that that is exactly the way it happened. We do this with everything.

This is a good observation on your part, and it reinforces my earlier statement about needing to be very careful about how we interpret our religious experiences. I've recently subscribed to the theory of Gerald Edelman that our conscious awareness is both in the past and utterly a creation of the mind. That is--to reiterate once again, if you'll pardon my doing so--it takes 150-250 milliseconds for any stimulus to enter our consciousness (hence the past); and each act of conscious awareness is a building up of neuronal patterns that do not exist in and of themselves. That is, there are no structures that "hold" a memory or an awareness in our minds. Rather, there are only tendencies for certain groups of widely distributed neurons to fire. And it is the pattern of this firing that is recalled when we bring up a memory of an awareness, as opposed to some data dump stored in a particular set of neurons (which is the basis of AI. See Penrose). This theory strongly explains many aspects of our consciousness, including the deterioration of memory over time; the coloring of memory by emotions, other beliefs, and error; and the persistence of memory even when the original neurons that created it have died. It also explains why, say, a Christian will interpret a given religious experience differently than a Buddhist will. Their interpretation is based on a myriad factors that include genetics, culture, education, and even one's mood at the time it occurs.

The simple truth is, it may not actually be possible for us to know the truth. :(

[catbert836]

73. To you, maybe not

You don't see the same patterns I see. Simple as that. It all depends on viewpoint.

[Strong Atheist]

74. Completely changed this post.

Ok., fine. I don't think the patterns you see are valid patterns. I think they are like the ink blot "patterns", which I guess agrees with what you are saying, we disagree on that point.


EDITED to complete change my post.

BTW: I think most other atheists would agree with me, and most other theists would agree with you. Fair assessment?

[Desertrose]

76. How can you determine what is valid for someone else,

if everything is viewpoint and/or perception?

If we are coming from our own pov, it seems that we determine what is valid for us...and again, never the twain shall meet with those who see things differently...but is it necessary then, to negate what works for another in order to validate our own views?

DR

[greyl]

84. IS everything viewpoint and/or perception?

I don't think so, and I don't think that idea is synchronous with other ideas I've seen you offer.

What value does the viewpoint of someone with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder have while they are lashing out at loved ones, whilst later, upon rational reflection, they regret it?
How valid is the POV of someone who brutally murders a family of four for money?
Can you find any "good" in the perception of those that worship limbaugh and o'reilly? Aren't you, like I am, compelled to give them a good talking to and communicate your most assuredly "more good" point of view? :)

"How can you determine what is valid for someone else"

I have hope that you'll agree that it's not really about determining/judging what is valid for someone else at all. It's about offering alternatives of viewpoint and wisdom of experience. It's about what works in our world and what doesn't work in our world.
It's not about right or wrong, it's about faulty or sustainable.

We can do better.

[Arianrhod]

95. "What value does the viewpoint of someone with Post Traumatic Stress

Disorder have while they are lashing out at loved ones, whilst later, upon rational reflection, they regret it?"

There is a difference between a viewpoint having value, and one being based or not on reality. These are two different questions.

The only real "value" that is relevant to the discussion of "what is real" is, tautologically, whether the viewpoint accurately reflects reality or not.

But we don't perceive reality directly, so every viewpoint we have is going to fall short of that value. The objective of science is to produce a description of reality that is as close to being accurate as possible.

In short, then: Yes, everything is perception.

And yes, we can do much better.

[greyl]

116. I think reality is composed entirely of value.

Subjects and objects are secondary to value, not the other way round.

[Arianrhod]

121. Hm, I like that thought very much.

Would you be willing to elaborate a bit on it?

[greyl]

126. If you like the thought,

why not go ahead and elaborate on your own first? :)


°What's the difference between a subject and an object?

[Arianrhod]

131. Well, it's not exactly polite debating procedure, but I guess

that doesn't really matter.

Positing value before objectivity suggests that nothing exists until it is judged. This is an interesting twist on Quantum Mechanics, but it does rather closely follow Sartre’s existentialism and Hume’s Idealism, the first of which says that there is no meaning in the world apart from human meaning, and the second, that nothing at all exists unless some human being is observing it. (See Berkeley for the most famous explication of this philosophy.) Both of these philosophies posit subjects before objects—which is what prevents them from being accepted into the realm of mainstream physical science.

QM, OTOH, might welcome them.

The only problem I have with your statement is your implied insistence that values somehow exist in and of themselves, that, in fact, they are what constitutes the Universe. This is pure Platonism, and while there are one or two scientists out there who accept this concept in its literal form (such as Penrose), I find it hard to swallow from a rational, logical, scientific viewpoint.

Leaving such a viewpoint behind, though, and entering a religious or spiritual one, I have no problem with positing such a Universe. From a Gnostic perspective, the Universe is a Dream; and, as we know from our Freud 101, dreams consist solely of symbols that represent various values to us. Looked at in this way, then, the Universe is a symbolic representation of events that are ascribed certain values by the Dreamer. These values can enrich our lives if we allow them to—and may even be instrumental in leading us to Enlightenment.

As to my own statement, I think it’s rather obvious what it says, since all it says is that in order to posit values in the Universe, there must first exist both a Universe and a being capable of positing values. Your viewpoint is the harder one to extrapolate.

[greyl]

145. moq

"Positing value before objectivity suggests that nothing exists until it is judged."

I don't see any such suggestion.

"Excitement mounted as Einstein rose to speak. He did not keep them long in suspense. He did not like uncertainty. He did not like the abandonment of `reality.' He did not think Complementarity was an acceptable solution, or a necessary one. `The weakness of the theory lies in the fact that on the one hand, no closer connection with the wave concept is obtainable,' he said, `and on the other hand that it leaves to chance the time and the direction of the elementary processes.'

"A dozen physicists were shouting in a dozen languages for the floor. Individual arguments were breaking out in all parts of the room. Lorentz, who was presiding,...


http://www.quantonics.com/Pirsigs_SODV.html

[Desertrose]

98. Why not?

Why do you feel everything isn't a matter of perception?

And why do you feel this is not synchronous with other ideas I've offered...(hmm... didn't realize I was being read so closely.)

What value does the viewpoint of someone with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder have while they are lashing out at loved ones, whilst later, upon rational reflection, they regret it?
How valid is the POV of someone who brutally murders a family of four for money?
Can you find any "good" in the perception of those that worship limbaugh and o'reilly? Aren't you, like I am, compelled to give them a good talking to and communicate your most assuredly "more good" point of view?

The point of validity (truth) - not the same as value (worth), btw- is that clearly the pov is valid to the person who holds it. As far as someone having a PTSD outburst, I have no right to judge what seems valid to them or for that matter holds value for them. Someone who commits brutal murders- again, their reasons are valid for them. I can't imagine a scenario where those same reasons would be valid or true for me but I have no right to judge what causes the actions of others. Do I have my own opinion on these things. Of course I do.

What you don't seem to realize, is that it is not up to me to deteremine whether there is good or not in the perception of those who worship o'reilly or any other "god" of their choosing. Do I have to agree that these same things would apply to me? Hell no, of course not. Am I compelled to tell another that my point of view is better...more valid...or is of more value? No, not at all. Would I like to talk with them? Sure, if the opportunity presented, but I have no desire to force or evangelicize my pov as being better than another's. If I felt there was an opportunity for real communication and was sincerely asked, I'd be happy to share.

I have hope that you'll agree that it's not really about determining/judging what is valid for someone else at all. It's about offering alternatives of viewpoint and wisdom of experience. It's about what works in our world and what doesn't work in our world.
It's not about right or wrong, it's about faulty or sustainable.
We can do better.

Maybe we are discussing two different things here. As far as sharing other viewpoints & wisdom of experience, yes. I'm all for that....and for what works as well...of course I suppose that might depend on what one is working towards. :)

Yes, sustainable is good...but there is better than just being sustained so why not try for that? :)

DR

[greyl]

108. Thanks. The point is

you use the phrase "How can you determine what's valid for someone else" as a defense of a POV that you have sympathy for, and an attack of sorts to quiet those who are arguing against that POV.
But I doubt that you've ever defended bush by saying something like "His point of view is valid for him, stop being critical of it. There's no point in discussing it."
Also, it's not "up to you" to determine if there's good in others' perception, but you are allowed to make those determinations. You are also allowed to express them.

[Desertrose]

112. Not sure how you get this....

"you use the phrase "How can you determine what's valid for someone else" as a defense of a POV that you have sympathy for, and an attack of sorts to quiet those who are arguing against that POV."
....defense? .....attack? ...???

As for defending bush (which I don't spend time doing except in this thread btw) ...well, I would agree that his point of view is valid for him. The point whether you or anyone is critical of it.....still doesn't change the fact that his pov is valid to him....and has nothing to do with whether I agree with it or not. ( which, although you didn't ask, but have implied you'd like to know, I do not agree with just about anything about bush's perspective.)

Where did I ever say not to discuss these things? All I said was I don't feel compelled to share my point of view unasked

"Also, it's not "up to you" to determine if there's good in others' perception, but you are allowed to make those determinations. You are also allowed to express them. "

I can only determine the good in other perceptions as it pertains to me, from my pov...I can have an "opinion" on it. And of course I am allowed to express that opinion. I just don't always feel the NEED or choose to do so.

[greyl]

115. I think you are sure.

"How can you determine what is valid for someone else, if everything is viewpoint and/or perception?
If we are coming from our own pov, it seems that we determine what is valid for us...and again, never the twain shall meet with those who see things differently...but is it necessary then, to negate what works for another in order to validate our own views?"

C'mon, that's clearly an attempt to invalidate someone's who has the view that rational discussion is valuable. It's the classic technique born of having no argument, so all dissenting views are deemed worthless and threats are told to stay out of it.

"Where did I ever say not to discuss these things?"

To avoid getting too personal, I won't post the dozens of examples of you suggesting that people with views different than your own should just stay out of certain threads or even entire Rooms.

"I can have an "opinion" on it. And of course I am allowed to express that opinion. I just don't always feel the NEED or choose to do so."

That's clear ridicule of people who enjoy having critical discussions here about issues that you enjoy protecting. "I just don't always feel the NEED" ? In your attempt to distract from the actual dialogue, you imply that "they" always feel a "need" to belittle any logically valid point of view that they have successfully expressed.

Finally, the fact that gw's, limbaugh's, o'reilly's et al POV is "valid for them" should illustrate how meaningless and ridiculous it is to defend a POV by using that statement.
To assert that POVs are some holy ground by default is wrongheaded.
Some POVs just plain fucking suck, and you know this.

[Desertrose]

123. What do you want me to say?

The most interesting part about your posts, greyl, is watching how you re-interpret my words to fit your perceptions of me.

No where did I claim that some (or any) pov are holy ground. No classic attempts at anything.
Nor did I attempt to invalidate, ridicule or belittle anyone's pov. You are the one attempting to negate what I am saying by (deliberately?) misinterpreting. You claim that I am trying to protect some critical issue here? Actually I was attempting to make a point, which you clearly missed.

You tell me I should express an opinion and then where I do that, you have problems with it. You bring other conversations into this discussion that really have no bearing here.

Why would you even care if I tell you I don't *always* have the need to share my opinion?
Do you feel the need to share you opinion with everyone you meet out in the world?

I think there is nothing I can say here that would not be twisted by your perception of me, which, in a way, makes my point. (What you think of me is valid to you, right? Doesn't necssarily make it true, but it is your right to hold those views.)


I don't disagree that by my truth there are most definitely numerous pov's that I could never in a million years, come around to claiming as valid for me. But then nowhere did I ever say that I agreed with them....

DR

[Silent3]

124. The idea of "my" truth is what gets a lot of us going.

Truth is truth. There's not one for you and one for me and a few billion others for everyone else. Casual or figurative uses of the word "truth" aside, truth is the same for everyone.

Of course, none of us can be sure if we're in possession of that truth or how close our own views are to truth, but I contend that treating the word "truth" as if it weren't something objective, as if the word is nearly interchangeable with "point of view" or "perspective," devalues the word and creates needless confusion.

If you lent me $100, and later try to collect the debt, and I tell you that I don't remember you lending me anything and that I don't own you anything, I think I can make a fairly strong guess that your top choices for what's really going would be, (1) I have a bad memory, (2) I'm trying to cheat you, or (3) you have a bad memory. The particular ranking of those three might vary depending on your opinions about yourself and myself, but those are the top three explanations I see being in play.

Way, way down on the list are you going to imagine that you and I have separate "truths" about this $100, as if reality were compartmentalized in some bizarre system of parallel universes with different personalized sets of factual events in each for each of us.

Now why should the disposition of a $100 debt -- a triviality in the grand scheme of things -- be the kind of thing nearly every person on the planet becomes a hard-nosed skeptic about, with little patience for metaphysical bobbing and weaving, yet the potentially far more important existence of gods and angels and psychic powers escape such accountability?

I contend that if we take the word "truth" to have greater value than a mere synonym for "perspective" or for "whatever gets me through my day to imagine", and we hammer on what both of us mean by a word like "God" long enough to know were using the same definition and talking about the same thing, then that particular "God" either exists or does not exist. Period. Same truth for you, same truth for me. That neither of us can be certain of the real answer doesn't change the fact that whatever that answer might be, it's the same for both of us.

I cannot prove the existence of a common objective reality shared by everyone. If one wants to play Philosophy 101 games, I can't prove anything at all. I can't prove to myself that you're real and not just a figment of my imagination, and I can't prove to you that I'm not a figment of yours. But I contend that in the very act of behaving as if it's possible to communicate, and by the very nature of the way nearly all of us with a glimmer of sanity treat those aspects of daily life where we expect a certain kind of consistency from the external world and how we all relate to it, that there's an implicit agreement to function as if there is such a thing as common objective reality. We might as well preserve the word "truth" as a way to discuss that common reality.

[greyl]

128. Nothing in particular.

But thanks for your elaborations.

[Strong Atheist]

86. I see three piece to facts/ideas/opinions;

see this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=41704&mesg_id=43100

I do not see these "deeper patterns" as accurately (read: validly) reflecting FACTS. (category #1).

Therefore, they are ideas (category#2) that are FALSE, ie:invalid.

[catbert836]

107. Yes.

It is.

[Strong Atheist]

111. Cool.

:toast:

[immoderate]

77. Very romantic.

"Everything is everything" --Maynard G. Krebs

--IMM

[Zhade]

80. The key word in your post may be "imagine".

As in, this alleged higher order may all be in the believer's imagination.

You've made something of a an error, I think, in asserting (even if unintentionally) that atheists have little imagination. We do. We just don't conclude our imaginings are fact.


"In the end, it's useless to try and prove divinity through logic, because of this fundamental difference of opinion."

Or because of the fundamental possibility that there may BE no divinity to prove.

Just a thought.

[greyl]

127. "We just don't conclude our imaginings are fact."

Important nuance, that.

[ozone_man]

132. Reaching "conclusions" through imagination

This is mainly addressing the OP, but you've hit the nail on the head Zhade.

"I think what we have here is confusion between LOGIC, that something can be proved beyond a doubt, and IMAGINATION, which uses logic often to draw varying conclusions, of mixed provability."

I do think it's normal and healthy to use one's imagination to ponder the natural order and chaos of nature, both on Earth and in the cosmos. But to reach conclusions from one's imagination seems not a good thing.

"Instead, I take it on my imagination and FAITH that such an order exists."

You don't have to take it imagination or faith. Order does exist, along with chaos, in the universe. There are no indications that there is a divine being behind that order though. I think a key difference between an atheist and a theist is that the atheist will use imagination and reason to gain an understanding and wonder about that which he cannot understand, while the theist, will react more from intuition and take a leap of faith to believe a divine being is behind that which is not understood. Atheists want reasons to believe in something. If there is evidence for a divine being, we will be apt to give it serious consideration, but until then, order and chaos are part of nature, and nature is all. Isn't that enough? :)

[manic expression]

143. I agree and disagree

One can show parallels, similarities and connections between that which is readily observable (science, etc...) and the deeper levels of existence. Those things point to the higher order, and using them does use logic in a major way. Through this, it is possible and reasonable to use logic to show the "higher order".

I would say this is not imagination, for it takes the same exact truths and applies it to another level. These truths are pervasive throughout all forms of existence, so it is not a stretch to do that.

It does come down to difference in opinion and belief, but the fact remains that showing the higher level of existence (aka "divinity") can and does use logic and reason.

By the way, your post made a lot of sense, and I thorougly enjoyed it. Thank you.

[Solve_et_Coagula]

146. Thank you so much, it makes a lot of sense to me...

Thank you so much, it makes a lot of sense to me...

best wishes from Switzerland

lwwb
Roger