Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is it VERSUS?
Trae
Member (Idle past 4336 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 74 of 103 (603363)
02-04-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by GDR
02-01-2011 12:52 AM


Re: Revised proposal edit
GDR writes:
Here is a Lewis quote:
quote:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts i.e. of materialism and astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
Well so much for mathematics, physics, chaos theory, blood-splatter analysis and so on.
It seems as if he’s saying one accident invalidates all which follows, but wouldn’t the alternative be predestination which would mean that God is a tyrant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by GDR, posted 02-01-2011 12:52 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by GDR, posted 02-04-2011 2:30 AM Trae has replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4336 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 78 of 103 (603920)
02-09-2011 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by GDR
02-04-2011 2:30 AM


Predestination.
My point is that It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. doesn’t hold the same water now that it did when he wrote those words. From the accidental splash we can know far more than Lewis could have ever imagined.
I just don’t get the quote you posted, the science and logic behind it just seem pure crap to me. Big red flag is the use of ‘why’ as opposed to ‘how’, and insertion of the word ‘mere’.
I come to the conclusion based on what you quoted. His point seems to be that if there was an accident then the rest of any chain must also accidents This seems a highly questionable claim, but let’s run with it. He’s clearly saying that we can’t be here because of accidents, so we must be here because of the actions of his particular ‘god’. Now, if he actually believes that any accident in a chain makes all that follows an accident then God always has to act on everything. This would seem that God had to control everything least an accident creep in. If there are no accidents, that sounds like predestination to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by GDR, posted 02-04-2011 2:30 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 12:48 AM Trae has replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4336 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 91 of 103 (604077)
02-09-2011 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by GDR
02-09-2011 12:48 AM


Re: Predestination.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
GDR writes:
I see him as saying that if everything from atoms, to molecules, to cells, to complex life forms and consciousness just occurred by chance or by accident, then we have no reason to be able to trust the reason that was produced by that process.
I am not sure I’m willing to concede the point he seems to be trying to make. While we might be wrong I’m not sure that means we must in all cases be wrong. Certainly our reasoning seems to be valid on many occasions. If I am correct in that, then isn’t his quote then implying, therefore the ToE can’t be correct and there must be Goddoneit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 12:48 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 11:51 PM Trae has seen this message but not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4336 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 92 of 103 (604078)
02-09-2011 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by GDR
02-09-2011 1:38 PM


Re: Predestination.
GDR writes:
I guess the question is why does the universe have consistent properties in the first place.
In any Universe where 'stuff happens', then properties would have to be either consistent enough for said stuff to happen or if completely inconsistent, nothing could evolve to the point to recognize that stuff was happening. Seem like this touching a bit like the puddle being made just right for the pot-hole analogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 1:38 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by GDR, posted 02-10-2011 12:27 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024