|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My Beliefs- GDR | |||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Straggler writes: So do you consider a human (i.e. the created) to be more complex than God (i.e. the creator)? Or not? I have no idea how to answer that but that wasn't my point. My point was that I contend that our perceivable universe is part of a greater reality that our 5 senses don't perceive. I also contend that within that greater reality there exists a moral intelligence that is responsible for our existence. I find that answer less complex that the idea that we have evolved as sentient beings with a sense of morality from mindless particles, even without dealing with the question of the origination of the particles in the first place.
Straggler writes: QuestionsWhich, in your view, is more complex? A) A universe containing interracting partcilesB) God Sure the way you view it interacting particles are less complex than God. The question can be phrased another way. Are the interacting particles dependant on God to create them in the first place? On the other hand I suggest that there is the possibility that the interacting particles are just a manifestation of something greater as I pointed out in my last paragraph.
Straggler writes: Which, in your view, is more likely to be the 'something' that just exists rather than nothing? A) A universe containing interracting particlesB) God Pretty much the same answer as before but I'd add that either one is completely improbable from our perspective. For that matter we have no idea of how to even conceive the idea of "nothing" existing.
Straggler writes: Again - My astonishment in and of itself is not so much an argument but more an expression of bafflement at the positions theistic beliefs require those that hold them to adopt. Positions regarding complexity and probability and the like. I know that. It is just that I am so often accused of arguing from the point of "incredulity" that I can't pass up an opportunity to turn it around on you atheists.
Straggler writes:
Yes, but that is a subjective conclusion.
Do you think God objectively exists? Straggler writes: Unless you are able to discern the objective existence of something more concrete using this "knowing through our heart" method why would anyone think you could possibly discern the objective existence of something as ethereal as god using this same method? Heart knowledge is one thing but I don't suggest that is the only reason. I gave a number of other reasons in the OP. Actually in the end we can't know anything objectively. It all boils down to a degree of subjectivity until at some point on that scale we wind up calling it objective. Some things we can be very sure of, some things pretty sure of and some things very unsure of.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
NoNukes writes: Wouldn't you want to see how he did it before you jumped to that conclusion. If the scientist of the future manages to create a cell by simply mimicking natural, unintelligent, processes, then that would seem to show exactly the opposite of what you suggest. There are obviously natural processes. What I don't think is so obvious is that there ere "unintelligent processes". In fact I'd suggest that the term "unintelligent processes" is an oxymoron. For example we can have an assembly line that produces widgets where it is left to run while everyone goes home. It happens all on its own without any human input. However, it did take intelligence to bring it into existence. If some future scientist mixes some chemicals in a petri dish and creates a cell it will only show that in that case it took sentience to put those chemicals together and also note that the chemicals had to exist in the first place.
NoNukes writes: Even taking what you say at face value, what you describe would not require that some funky thing to happen to time. A change in the way humans perceive events would be sufficient, and might not require any suspension of natural law. Actually I agree with that. I wasn't suggesting that God intervened to make it happen, I'm saying that our understanding of time has a long way to go, with the suggestion that the idea of experiencing time differently than we do is not that strange of an idea.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ringo writes: If the question is, "Does a car require a DVD player?" the default answer is, "No." You need a compelling reason to claim a requirement. You seem to be admitting that there is no compelling reason. Essentially, you're saying that your car "needs" a DVD player because you want one. From our perspective we can't know whether there is a compelling reason or not. We just know how things are and we come to our own subjective conclusions. Yes, I believe that our existence is dependant on an external intelligence, and I have given my reasons for coming to that conclusion but I acknowledge that there are those like yourself who have come to a different conclusion with your own reasons.
ringo writes: It's a psychological phenomenon, a pretty common one. When we need "more time" to find a solution to an emergency, our brains often go into a more efficient mode in which we seem to have more time to figure it out. It might be interesting to examine how that evolved as a survival mechanism.Thinking of it as a suspension of natural law is, frankly, kinda bizarre. As I said to NoNukes I agree with that position, but as I said to him, (on the assumption it is a him), I think it is because when it comes to understanding time, (how we perceive change) we have a great deal to learn. My only point was that either the natural law was suspended or we don't fully understand the natural law of time and I go with the latter. Certainly it has something to do with how the brain perceives change and I agree with Penrose and others, (not that I understand much of what Penrose has to say - what a brilliant mind eh?) that our experience time is a function of our consciousness. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
AZPaul3 writes: As Ringo was saying, when we are in danger the hypothalamus releases hormones, the adreanals release adrenaline, breathing increases, oxygen floods the blood and muscle tissue and the brain shifts into overdrive (sorta). This is the Fight-or-flight response. It is a well known phenomenon. The perception of time slowing is well documented and has nothing to do with any spooky quantum time anything. As a survival mechanism long ago, like millions of years, our brains adapted to a dangerous world by increasing, in times of perceived danger, our sensory reception (visual acuity, hearing, tactile) and increased the sampling rate at which we process these signals. There is no time shifting, not time distortion, no time dilation. Only perception of such. I frankly think that or something close to it is correct. The key though is in your last couple of sentences. Our perception changes. Time or change is viewed in the way that we perceive it. If our perception changes time changes. I have no doubt that I perceive time differently as I grow older. As I said, I think we have a great deal to learn about time. My perception of time definitely slowed down as it has for many others in similar circumstances. It seems fairly clear to me that time is a lot more abstract than how it appears to us.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Phat
Here is a guy whose material I think you would enjoy reading or listening to. His name is John Lennox although not related to our discussion on time.
Phat writes: This is logical. For a five year old, summer seems to last a long time, as does winter. Reason? I fgure that 3 months is a bigger percentage of a five year olds lifetime than it is of a 60 year old. I've heard that suggestion before but I don't think that it is correct. Here is a piece from this wiki article quote: Here is another article on the subject. Here is a piece from Julian Barbour's web site on his take on time.
quote: Time it turns out is definitely something of an enigma. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ringo writes: If the question is, "Does a car require a DVD player?" the default answer is, "No." You need a compelling reason to claim a requirement. You seem to be admitting that there is no compelling reason. Essentially, you're saying that your car "needs" a DVD player because you want one.GDR writes: From our perspective we can't know whether there is a compelling reason or not. We just know how things are and we come to our own subjective conclusions. Yes, I believe that our existence is dependant on an external intelligence, and I have given my reasons for coming to that conclusion but I acknowledge that there are those like yourself who have come to a different conclusion with your own reasons.ringo writes: Sure we can. Note the word "compelling". If we don't know of a reason, it can't be compelling. If you don't know there's a good reason to eat a pile of leaves, you don't feel compelled to do so.If there is no compelling reason to think intervention is required (for abiogenesis, evolution, etc.) then we are not compelled to think there is a requirement. Thinking rationally, we can not conclude that there is a requirement. ....but we don’t know if there is a requirement or not. Take evolution. We can observe the natural process of evolution in our world but we can’t know whether or not it required an intelligent designer. We aren’t compelled to seek an answer so from that point of view I agree. You used the word compelling so I went with it but it would be more accurate to ask if an external intelligence is necessary. Scientists can uncover all the natural process they like but it can’t be determined by the scientific method, even if we know how it was all done, whether or not the processes required an intelligent designer. We have natural laws and in our experience laws require a law giver and so in that sense the atheistic position requires relief from natural law.
ringo writes: (Your beliefs would probably go unchallenged here if you didn't constantly try to link them with rational thinking. ) Webster’s definition of rational:
quote: I have given such a reasonable account of my position that it is completely irrational that you don’t agree with it. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Straggler writes: But I thought your considered human intelligence and morality to be too complex and elaborate to have developed without external intelligent input. I thought this formed a large part of your argument. If this is the case you must have some view on how complex or elaborate both the created and the creator are relative to each other mustn't you? I get your point that if God is more complex than humans then the natural complex is simpler and Occam tells us we should go with simpler. I just don’t believe the question can be framed like that. No matter how much more complex God is than the natural processes it tells us nothing about whether or not God is necessary for the processes to exist in the first place.
Straggler writes: Not if causality is an emergent property of our universe. But I’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting that we are an emergent property of a greater reality and out of that comes our first cause.
GDR writes: For that matter we have no idea of how to even conceive the idea of "nothing" existing.Straggler writes: Yet you are quite comfortable basing your entire argument on the inconceivable concept of eternality........ The best that we can do in conceiving of nothing is completely empty space which is still a dimensional concept. We do have a way of conceiving of eternity though. For example we have 3 spatial dimensions. As a result we can travel spatially around our universe eternally or infinitely. We can even travel infinitely around our globe. If we weren’t locked into experience time in just one direction then we can actually conceive of eternity. Spatially I can travel from here to London and then back again as we have more than one spatial direction. If we had just two time dimensions I could continue on to tomorrow and then come back to today. If there were more than two I could travel to tomorrow take a side trip to last week and then return to today. We can conceive of eternity in a different way than trying to conceive nothing.
Straggler writes: Granted it’s a fine line, and maybe its too fine so I may have to give you this one. Heart knowledge= belief. The only difference I suppose is how we arrive at our beliefs.
You call it "knowledge". On what basis do you suggest it is "knowledge" rather than belief? GDR writes: Actually in the end we can't know anything objectively.Straggler writes:
Knowledge is really just highly evidenced belief. I believe that the earth is going to continue to revolve and as a result I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. There is pretty strong evidence that I am right but I can’t know it with 100% certainty.
Then how do we differentiate between knowledge and belief? Straggler writes:
Of course there is a difference. It is quite conceivable that all mankind could believe something and be wrong, particularly, particularly on things that aren’t directly perceivable or repeatable. If things are believed objectively then presumably it is a belief of something that is perceivable and most likely repeatable. Do you think there is a difference between strongly held beliefs shared by multiple people and objective knowledge? What do you think the difference is?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Straggler
I have read previously about different theories around the relationship between the physical world that we observe with time and consciousness. Part of my thinking is that the world we perceive only exists the way it does because we perceive it that way. I think that QM tells us something like that. I went poking around on the internet and came up with this paper where a philosopher looks at taking his philosophy and then working with what the physicists have to tell him. Here is a link to the paper and a couple of quotes from it.
Space, Time and Consciousness quote: quote: quote: quote: This paper is obviously being written without any thoughts God or first causes but it does in my view correspond to what i believe in terms of life outside of the universe as we perceive it. If our consciousness exists in another dimension then what I have suggested earlier doesn't sound nearly as far fetched. Edited by GDR, : Poorly constructed sentence...He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ringo writes: Of course science doesn't claim to provide absolute answers and it certainly doesn't claim to prove negative propositions. Science produces the best answers available using human observations and human thought processes. The best answer we have is that stones roll downhill without an intelligent pusher and that molecules interact without an initelligent tinkerer. That is what science does so well. It can't tell us though whether the laws that allow for the interaction of molecules or for the law of gravity causing the stone to roll down hill required the intelligent tinkerer in the first place.
ringo writes:
You're equivocating natural law with judicial law. They are not related. I agree that it is not the greatest analogy but at the same time "natural law" had to come into existence and there is a coherence there that, at least in my mind, that suggests there was thought involved in that coherence.
ringo writes: You have provided no reasons whatsoever for your beliefs. You always retreat to, "You can't absolutely prove that I'm wrong." That isn't rational thinking; it's wishful thinking.You may as well be saying that rolling stones are pushed by invisible Bigfeet and science can't prove otherwise. I did provide reasons for my belief in the OP.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Straggler writes: I know it is not your intention to suggest that. But how can you talk about cause without relying on the notion of time? Causality is an internal property of our universe because time is an internal property of our universe. Furthermore given that you are basing your argument for eternity on time reversibility at the quantum level you really also need to consider what effect time reversibility has on causality with regard to this notion of "first cause" which you are so beguiled by. I can't put it better than cavediver has previously so I'll just quote him: That is a really good point. The Bible tells us that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I have just sort of run with that without putting a lot of thought to it. I have always put it in terms of "first cause" but in light of what you say I think that is the wrong way to look at it, which I think is closer to what science would suggest. If what I have speculated about is anywhere close to the truth then the universe wasn't created at all. It just always existed but as part of something greater than the 4D universe that we perceive. In one sense using the term "first cause" is correct in that I am talking about a first cause for the universe as we perceive it, but the problem is that it also implies the idea of creation from a previous nothing. What I should be talking about is God who is the intelligence that is responsible for our existence in the way that we perceive it. We are at present created beings who "see through a glass darkly" only perceiving a limited part of the total reality with our 5 senses.
Straggler writes: If time is reversible, causality is an internal property of our physical universe and notions of cause and effect are just the result of macroscopic anthopocentrci experience where does God fit in? The first part of that sentence really helped me to think my previous paragraph through in understanding that we really don't need a creative intelligence for our universe to exist if it always existed. Thank you. The fact still remains, (from my POV both scientifically and theologically), that we only perceive a part of the whole. I agree that I am taking theological answers from that that aren't scientific, but they are just theories that can be adjusted as we learn more. That article I quoted essentially talks about time being dependant on our consciousness which exists externally to our 4D universe. That doesn't have to be true, but it does open up ideas of how we could connect with God in ways that aren't directly perceivable to us.
Straggler writes: The question simply boils down to what it is that exists. And whilst we have some rather emphatic evidence that the universe does exist we have neither evidence nor reason to conclude that some hyper-complex-intelligence just happens to exist as well. I agree that we don't have direct evidence of a higher intelligence but I do believe we have reasons to come to that conclusion. There is the argument of how finely tuned the universe is; the idea that an idea is real but not physical, the fact that we perceive beauty, joy, compassion etc, and even the the fact that human minds of been able to unlock so many hidden scientific truths about our existence. I find the argument convincing - however it seems you a little less so. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ringo writes: No, and I haven't done that.
In your mind. When a subjective opinion disagrees with objective conclusions, is it "rational"? ringo writes: Natural law didn't "have to come into existence" any more than a pile of sand has to come into existence. The pile is the natural shape of a quantity of sand. There are various forces at work which cause sand to form piles. Any "coherence" in the pile is a figment of the imagination. It doesn't require an intellgent piler. Sure, but we can understand the forces that formed the sand. We can't say that about natural laws. Actually, if you read my last post to Straggler you can see that his post caused me to change my view somewhat. If we are indeed an emergent property from a greater reality, and if that greater reality experiences time or change in such a way that it is eternal, then that could mean that our natural laws are also eternal thus not requiring a first cause.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ringo writes: Like the creationists, you keep saying "can't" when you should be saying "don't". If we don't understand something yet, it doesn't mean we can't understand it ever. Ya I know....science of the gaps.
ringo writes: What you can't do, as far as I can tell, is point to a fundamental dfference between putting an intelligent designer under the microscope and putting a grain of sand under the microscope. The grain of sand is directly perceivable and the intelligent designer isn't.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ringo writes: The difference is that science is advancing into the gaps while religion is retreating into the gaps. I disagree with that. I would say that both are advancing into the gaps. My personal view which is far from unique is that science is essentially a natural theology. As science advances our knowledge of the world I as a theist continue to be amazed at the wonder of our existence.
ringo writes: If the designer isn't perceivable, you can't rationally conclude that he exists. Of course I can. I can't objectively know but I can subjectively conclude that he does.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ringo writes: Then you don't seem to understand the God of the Gaps idea. The gaps, by definition, are the areas where religion has not been proven wrong (yet). They are a dwindling set of last resorts, not a desired goal. But I do. You don’t understand the point I was making. There are only gaps when we understand the holy books of any faith to be inerrant and then understood to provide scientific information. My theistic beliefs when boiled down to their essence are that our existence is the result of a greater intelligence that is not directly perceivable to us and that this intelligence is perfectly loving and perfectly just. I am a Christian so I refer to that greater intelligence as God. I also believe that God has created us to image His love to the world. Those beliefs are all taken on faith. Tell me how science can either prove or disprove those beliefs. What makes me a Christian is belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The belief that Jesus was resurrected into a new bodily form, which is a precursor of what God will do for all creation when time as we know it comes to an end is something else that science can’t investigate. The resurrection of Jesus as per the Christian faith is a onetime only event in the middle of history. Science can say that we have no evidence for such an occurrence or it can say that no matter how hard we try we can’t replicate it. As a Christian I agree that there is no empirical evidence to support the claim and that it is a matter of faith, and so again it isn’t a gap as it is something if it happened is contrary to natural law. I mentioned that I see science as a natural theology as it is through scientific study, not the study of any holy book, that we learn how it was that God brought life into existence, so as far as I’m concerned when science makes a new discovery it is in some way both a scientific and theological advance. There is also another way that I see science as theology. The Christian belief is that at the end of time God will renew all creation including our planet and in that renewal bring about perfect healing for all in the same manner that He did with Jesus at the resurrection. IMHO the healings that God brought about through Jesus are a foreshadowing of the full renewal of all things. Science has been responsible for advancements that have almost miraculously brought healing to millions. Those healings too are a foretaste of God’s renewal. That is what I meant by both science and theology advancing into the gaps.
ringo writes: I would like to raise rationality closer to the level of objectivity. If you can't convince others that your ideas are reasonable, I wouldn't consider them strictly rational. But that isn’t a reasonable argument. My beliefs can only be reasonable if we as a pre-condition accept the possibility of God. If one holds to a strictly materialistic belief then it is impossible to view my views as reasonable. The views that I hold are also the views of many highly intelligent individuals including many very highly intelligent scientists which I don’t maintain proves them, but it does indicate a degree of reasonableness and/or rationality.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
ringo writes: The lack of empirical evidence is the gap. The God of the Gaps supposedly controls all of those things that our empirical knowledge doesn't explain. Your God, who operates outside what we understand - not necessarily outside what we can ever understand - is by definition the God of the Gaps. And the gaps that He inhabits are constantly dwindling.Theology is constantly retreating from science. It wouldn't have to if it didn't pretend to be reasonable. You can keep asserting this but if you actually read what I wrote it would help. My theology does not retreat science it advances with science. Science examines that which is in one way or another perceivable by us. Your argument rules out any position except for a completely materialist world view, and then calls every other position unreasonable. If that's how you want to define reasonable that's ok by me but don't expect me to agree.
ringo writes:
.....which is true for people who agree with your beliefs, that only your beliefs are reasonable. That's my point exactly. Your beliefs are only "reasonable" to people who agree with your beliefs - which isn't reasonable.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024