Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9057 total)
109 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (4 members, 105 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,965 Year: 1,077/6,534 Month: 1,077/682 Week: 130/182 Day: 9/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(5)
Message 350 of 1482 (815827)
07-24-2017 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Tom Larkin
07-22-2017 8:53 PM


The Bigger Picture
Tom Larkin writes:

My goal is aligned with your goal, let the Bible be the Bible and let science be science. The Bible is not science and science is not faith. The reason I wrote my book (Genesis and Evolution) was that too many Christians were rejecting science, this is evident is many people thinking climate change is a hoax or fake news.

I agree with you completely that there is no reason to reject Christianity because of a perceived conflict with science. I think however that you are going about it the wrong way. You are arguing for a harmonious reading of Genesis and our scientific understanding of creation, which implies that the Bible is scientifically accurate. As a Christian I contend that misses the point. Genesis is a mythical account that tells us that good and evil exist, and that we are to choose that which is good. It tells us that there is one God and that He cares for us. It tells us we are stewards of our created world and that we have responsibility for it, and that is just the highlights.

What I see you doing is to twist yourself up in knots trying to show that the Biblical account of creation is accurate scientifically so that it consistent with an inerrant understanding of scripture in all aspects. The problem is after you have made your case you then have to contend with the much bigger issues of trying to reconcile the vast gulf between the understanding of God being able to order his people to commit genocide or public stoning for adultery and picking up firewood on the Sabbath ,with the God as we see the Word made flesh in Jesus, who tells us to love our enemy etc.

So yes, let the Bible be the Bible and science be science. You are trying to use science to make a case for your understanding of how God wants us to use the scriptures. I’d suggest that the Bible is God inspired but not God dictated. There is a huge difference between those two understandings of how God reaches us through the Scriptures, in that they present a very different view of the nature of God and how that is to impact how we live our lives.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Tom Larkin, posted 07-22-2017 8:53 PM Tom Larkin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2017 5:45 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(2)
Message 771 of 1482 (833541)
05-22-2018 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 770 by Modulous
05-22-2018 10:35 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
So if it is all created by nature who or what created nature?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 770 by Modulous, posted 05-22-2018 10:35 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 774 by Tangle, posted 05-23-2018 5:55 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 776 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2018 2:28 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 778 of 1482 (833561)
05-23-2018 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 776 by Modulous
05-23-2018 2:28 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
GDR writes:

So if it is all created by nature who or what created nature?

Modulous writes:

As I said - when you can answer 'if it is all created by god, who or what created god?' you will have answered the question you just asked me.


Exactly, we both have the same question to answer. It's "turtles all the way up" whether you are trying explain an infinite regression of natural processes or of a intelligent creator.

My answer is simply that the creator is infinite. Science seems quite happy to deal with infinities so why can't theists?

You have to explain all the unintelligent processes that started from a singularity at time=0, that without intelligence, resulted in a world with consciousnesses, intelligence and a sense of morality. I think that you have the bigger problem.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2018 2:28 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 780 by AZPaul3, posted 05-23-2018 5:59 PM GDR has responded
 Message 781 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2018 6:38 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 782 of 1482 (833568)
05-23-2018 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 780 by AZPaul3
05-23-2018 5:59 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
AZPaul3 writes:

Just an aside, GDR.

Scientists, especially physicists, more especially cosmologists, are not at all happy with infinities. They ruin everything.

Mathematicians love infinities because they can be made to produce just about anything. Physicists hate them for exactly the same reason.


This is a question and not a point of debate. I realize that mathematicians use infinities and that physicists are trying to eliminate infinities by reconciling reltivity and QM, but don't some physicists propose the possibility that the universe itself is infinite in size. (There is every possibility that I am out of my depth here. )

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by AZPaul3, posted 05-23-2018 5:59 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 801 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2018 8:01 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 783 of 1482 (833570)
05-23-2018 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 781 by Modulous
05-23-2018 6:38 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Modulous writes:

I disagree.


I thought you might.
Modulous writes:

First of all in an infinite universe the processes didn't start, they just continued. In a finite universe they didn't start either, T=0 is just an interesting feature of the geometry of the universe.


Fair enough but that still doesn't make a case for either an intelligent cause or a non-intelligent cause. It could still be either.
Modulous writes:

Evolution explains a world with consciousness so that's covered.

Again, that could be by intelligent design or not.
Modulous writes:

You however, have to explain a conscious god somehow existing eternally without being able to reference prior states. You can't do this so you can't explain consciousness at all by definition. That's a bigger problem. You have to assert consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe, whereas science is looking at far simpler fundamentals from which evolution can develop in a well understood fashion.

Mathematics tell us that time should be able to flow in either direction even though we only experience it in one direction,(or so I've read). Things like string theory involve multiple dimensions of time. If change can be experienced in more than one direction then we should be able to experience change infinitely as we are able to move around infinitely in our 3 spatial dimensions.

If consciousness is simply something that is a result of the evolutionary process then what is the process that produced evolution and so and so on and so on.? When we want to argue the support for our opposite opinions we are both faced with the same problem.

As I've said before, I contend that it is far more reasonable to believe that the intelligence that we experience in our world is the result of intelligence as opposed to it being produced by chance from mindless particles.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 781 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2018 6:38 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 784 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2018 8:14 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 800 of 1482 (833663)
05-24-2018 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 784 by Modulous
05-23-2018 8:14 PM


Meaning of life
That is a great post Modulous and thank you for it.
Modulous writes:

I am simply pointing out that appealing to a deity doesn't solve the problem and ascribing special properties to said deity either present their own problems, or could equally be applied to nature. Thus an appeal to a deity does not solve any problem that an appeal to nature could not also.

I agree, but it isn’t about trying to solve a problem. The question, for which there is no certain answer, is whether or not we are the result of intelligence. It becomes a matter of belief. Ascribing special properties to a deity is a separate issue.
Modulous writes:

It certainly opens up the possibility, but the extra dimensions could all be spatial. I think this is the general consensus, though some physicists have had some successes with additional time dimensions so it's still an open area of investigation.

My point would be that physicists speculate about some of the same things that a theist might. For example there was a headline on the cover of Scientific American that read, “Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter – An entire universe may be interwoven silently with our own”. Essentially this is roughly how I speculate about my theistic beliefs. I see our world with our 5 senses as being an emergent property of a greater reality. Physicists tell us that there is a form of connection between the world of dark matter and our own. As a theist I see God’s universe/dimension as somehow connecting with our own, but I agree, not in the same way.
Modulous writes:

The geometry of spacetime does place limitations on our movement determined by the speed of light. It is possible for a region of spacetime could exist in which we are free to move around through the time dimension - but in such a case we would be constrained to a directional spatial situation. That is, we'd be able to go back in time, but we'd continuously be moving in a particular dimension. Examples of such possibilities would be beyond the event horizon of a black hole where the descent into the black hole's centre is an inevitable path through space that cannot be escaped and space time is very curved. But the mathematics is tricky.

Well, that puts me way out of my depth. I would only ask the question of wouldn’t it make sense that if there were 3 dimensions of time we could move in time infinitely, in the same way that with our 3 spatial dimensions we can move around infinitely in space.
Modulous writes:

Though I think a prediction that the base of all these questions would be fundamental in nature. Just as a river flow is dynamic and interesting but is ultimately just jostling molecules which are themselves perturbations of a field.... I have no problems with there being a fundamental fact that has no prior explanation, but I expect the answer won't be a thinking being with motivations.

We all have a personal history that forms our motivations which of course influences our conclusions. I had an Anglican church background growing up but became agnostic in my teens. In my thirties I decided that I wanted to come to my own conclusions and did some research, (mainly CS Lewis), which resonated with me. Since then I have quite seriously studied pretty much all aspects of my faith, and my views have continuously been revised and sometimes by this forum. I like you are merely trying to sort out what we believe to be true while knowing that it will always be what we believe and can never know absolutely.

Modulous writes:

An answer that has been given for many phenomena, but closer examination has shown it to be false. Our brains are wired evolutionarily to infer intent, it's been termed the hyperactive agency detection - it's a useful survival mechanism that causes us to be wary of a rustling in the bushes...but feelings don't mean truth.
If you suppose our intelligence must come from another intelligence you are engaging in this practice. It may feel right, but we need more. We know that intelligence does come in a scale, we know its the product of an organ and we know that organs evolve and there is no need for this evolution to be directed.

I use to argue that God might well have intervened for His own purposes in the evolutionary process. Well I still consider it a possibility I am now more inclined to believe that even with all the randomness of the process, everything needed was in place from the beginning. (I don’t mean that from a deistic POV as I do believe that God is involved with our world but primarily through His created creatures.)
I think that there is intent in the evolutionary process to a greater degree than the instinct for survival as in the rustling in the bushes. I would contend that the universe was brought into existence with the high probability through randomness that it will eventually bring into existence creatures that are able to act and love sacrificially. I also contend that the point of that, is that ultimately that will bring about a world where sacrificial love is the overriding feature of existence. That belief is something that has evolved for me through study and life experience. You might characterize it as a feeling but I don’t think that is the same as belief. It does for me make sense of my world and my life.
Modulous writes:

As I said - proposing an intelligence to explain intelligence doesn't explain intelligence.

No, but neither does a simply materialistic belief. I do contend though that intelligence from an intelligent root is more reasonable than believing that it has risen from a non-intelligent root. That of course says absolutely nothing about the methodology in either case.
Modulous writes:

Is the explanation of the highly dense energy's existence likely to be a primordial sea of all seas who loves seas so much he'd create a universe with very apparently few of them relative to its size? Seems a bit far fetched.

But if we are going to achieve the aim of producing creatures that love sacrificially through randomness then a large universe becomes necessary. I’d also point out that it appears that the universe is likely infinitely large but that at one point it was infinitely small.
Modulous writes:

To conclude, proposing a deity doesn't explain anything. We know nature exists so proposing that isn't controversial. If you want to propose some new thing, you need to do better than say, 'I can think of no other way feature x could exist'. That's just a rationalization for giving up the search for an explanation borne out of owning an ape's brain. This is not to say this therefore proves God does not exist, but simply to point out that a lack of understanding does not justify resorting to some supernatural mind being responsible. Not a thousand years ago, not today.

But I’d suggest that you are only looking at it from a scientific POV. There is also the philosophical. The question remains – are we teleological beings. Ultimately are our lives meaningful? Certainly materialists can find meaning in work, family, acquiring things, helping others etc but ultimately does it matter? As a theist I believe that it does and that ultimately our lives do have meaning beyond what we are able to find in this life, and that lives that are based on sacrificial love or if you like the Golden Rule, do have ultimate meaning and purpose.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 784 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2018 8:14 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 802 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2018 8:02 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 803 of 1482 (833667)
05-24-2018 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 801 by AZPaul3
05-24-2018 8:01 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Thanks for that post AZPaul3. Frankly most of it is beyond me but the idea of infinity is intriguing. I do use it though as a way of understanding, rightly or wrongly, a creative intelligence beyond our 4 dimensional world.

The video was interesting but frankly as the minuscule knowledge I have is from reading guys like Greene, Hawking etc, I'm kinda left in the dust. I can only grasp things conceptually.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 801 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2018 8:01 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 804 of 1482 (833669)
05-25-2018 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 802 by Modulous
05-24-2018 8:02 PM


Re: Meaning of life
Modulous writes:

I don't think we can move infinitely in 3 spatial dimensions. We can move along three axis. If there were 4 dimensions we could move along 4 axis.

If there were 3 dimensions of time, it'd be the same kind of deal. We'd have more axis of time to progress along.

I mean if the universe was two dimensional - one space and one time. We could 'move infinitely' along the spatial direction but still be constrained in the time direction. The directionality of time seems to be related to entropy and probability more than the fact that there is only one dimension of it.

I realize this is rather wild speculation but here goes. I'm not at all sure why you say we can't move infinitely in our 3 spatial dimensions. Even if there were just 2 I could infinitely circle the globe either backward or forward. With 3, I have the additional possibility of getting airborne.

Modulous writes:

To what end? The problem with implying a plan of sorts is that it's got to make sense, right? Cui bono, as they say. If there was only God in the beginning, and God is a being of supreme sacrificial love - then it was already the overriding feature of existence. Why all the extra stuff if the goal is to arrive where you started from?

Well, not being a Biblical literalist I don't go along with the idea that this all started out that way. I do think though that there is a plan and it does ultimately wind up with a recreated world where sacrificial love is the norm. As a Christian I see Jesus as being the first citizen of that recreated world but this is getting off topic.

Modulous writes:

But it's not simply materialistic - it's quite detailed and complex, coherent, consistent and testable that results in predictions, advances in technology....

It's all of those things but it still does not answer the question of what if anything is behind it all. To go back to the compatibility of religion and science I do not find any part of science that is not compatible with my religious beliefs. For that matter I understand science as part of a natural theology which informs my religious beliefs but my religious beliefs do not have any impact on what little science I know.

Modulous writes:

I understand that you believe it, but on what grounds is it more reasonable? I already gave my argument as to why it is not, so what is your argument in favour - if its not just a gut feeling but one based on reason?

IMHO it is far more likely that intelligence would have an intelligent root as opposed to the chance combination of mindless particles that have combined together to bring about conscious intelligent beings with a sense of morality. I can't prove that as we know, but in my mind it is logical.

Modulous writes:

Well the question really then is, what makes the mattering ultimate. If the final thing that cares about what matters is us - then it does ultimately matter.

This world as we know it will to come to an end whether it is the sun burning, the big crunch, a nuclear holocaust or whatever. When all of sentient life is gone from the planet then there is no ultimate meaning. If however, if God is going to recreate our world, where existence is characterized by sacrificial love then there is an ultimate purpose.

Modulous writes:

And you are of course, welcome to your belief.

However, from a philosophical position - asserting your belief isn't much. Is it possible to defend or support it beyond 'I just believe it?'


We both have our beliefs, and we both do what we can to explain our rational for what we believe. In the end though it is belief, as neither of us has absolute knowledge.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 802 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2018 8:02 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 805 by Modulous, posted 05-25-2018 8:57 AM GDR has responded
 Message 806 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2018 10:38 AM GDR has responded
 Message 808 by Stile, posted 05-25-2018 11:49 AM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 824 of 1482 (833724)
05-25-2018 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 805 by Modulous
05-25-2018 8:57 AM


Re: Meaning of life
GDR writes:

I realize this is rather wild speculation but here goes. I'm not at all sure why you say we can't move infinitely in our 3 spatial dimensions. Even if there were just 2 I could infinitely circle the globe either backward or forward. With 3, I have the additional possibility of getting airborne.

Modulous writes:

Well exactly - the number of dimensions doesn't impact our capacity to move through them. Thus adding more time dimensions would not necessarily grant us more freedom to move through them than we do the one time dimension that we have.


Again I agree that this is wild speculation but even with two dimensions of time ,as the mathematics suggest we should have, we could go backwards and forwards reversing entropy and would mean that we could be eternal.
GDR writes:

Well, not being a Biblical literalist I don't go along with the idea that this all started out that way. I do think though that there is a plan and it does ultimately wind up with a recreated world where sacrificial love is the norm.

Modulous writes:

So God is just making do?

Not at all. If I am right it is part of the long term plan to create an eternal society of those whose hearts love sacrificially.
GDR writes:

It's all of those things but it still does not answer the question of what if anything is behind it all.

Modulous writes:

But it does. You just don't like that answer

It's not that I don't like the answer that you come up with, I just don't agree with it. Are you saying you can prove there is no god?
GDR writes:

IMHO it is far more likely that intelligence would have an intelligent root as opposed to the chance combination of mindless particles that have combined together to bring about conscious intelligent beings with a sense of morality. I can't prove that as we know, but in my mind it is logical.

Modulous writes:

But "more likely" and "more reasonable" have meaning. I'm not asking you to prove that intelligence was the root - but I am asking you to justify your stance on likelihood and reasonableness. Otherwise, it's just a feeling - however compelling that feeling is.

I'll go back to Paley's watch He was saying that when we find a watch that we can assume it was built with intelligence as an argument against evolution. I wouldn't use it that way as I am prepared to accept evolution as a natural process without divine intervention in the process. However where it becomes much more of a grey area is when we consider the question of why the evolutionary process came into being in the first place. If we then discover what process initiated evolution then we ask what process initiated that and it is turtles all the way down.

I am simply looking at the fact that we exist with intelligence, a sense of morality and with the desire to answer these questions that we have. Sure we can believe that it is all by chance from mindlessness without even asking why is there something instead of nothing.We can choose a mindful or a mindless origin of our world. You choose one and I choose the other, by belief, as we do not have empirical evidence that proves the issue one way or the other.

GDR writes:

his world as we know it will to come to an end whether it is the sun burning, the big crunch, a nuclear holocaust or whatever. When all of sentient life is gone from the planet then there is no ultimate meaning.

Modulous writes:

But is there a purpose to recreating the world in this way? Some purpose that transcends God? If not, then I don't see how it more meaning than the meaning we give things - just because some other entity also gives meaning doesn't mean our meaning is any greater or lesser.

If life as we know it is all there is then yes our lives can have meaning, but it is temporary. If sentient life were to cease then the meaning that we have in our lives now will cease. Ultimately it would all be meaningless. This of course doesn't prove anything. It may well be true.
However if this is a formative stage for a recreated world then our lives can have an ultimate meaning.
Modulous writes:

Naturally (heh) - but we can put forward a defence. Simply saying 'I believe' doesn't get us anywhere.

We are both putting forward a defence, but it is about defending what we believe knowing that there is no absolute evidence for either of our positions. I do prefer to say the "I believe" to saying that this is how is, out of honesty.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 805 by Modulous, posted 05-25-2018 8:57 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 828 by Modulous, posted 05-25-2018 8:24 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 826 of 1482 (833726)
05-25-2018 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 806 by NoNukes
05-25-2018 10:38 AM


Re: Meaning of life
NoNukes writes:

You've said such things before, and I have to admit that I find this form of argument very unsatisfying. You are just layering belief on top of belief on top of how you feel. "To my mind it is logical," says absolutely nothing.


Again, I put it that way as I know the conclusion that I draw is not confirmed by absolute evidence. We exist. We can consider the fact that we are made up of particles that have formed incredibly complex cells and have then created sentient beings with consciousness, intelligence and morality. We can consider the anthropic principle. It is those among other things that have influenced my conclusions.

I find it unsatisfying as well, as I know I don't have irrefutable evidence for my conclusion so I'm am left with only being able to say that "to my mind it is logical" I agree that Modulous could say that as there is insufficient evidence in his opinion for a deity and I suppose he could say, (not trying to put words in his keyboard ), that to his mind it is logical that we are the result of nothing but mindless processes.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 806 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2018 10:38 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 827 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2018 8:17 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 829 of 1482 (833729)
05-25-2018 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 808 by Stile
05-25-2018 11:49 AM


Re: Meaning of life
Stile writes:

My understanding of what you're saying here is that "ultimate purpose" is the purpose you were created for.
God created the world, and people... for a reason. That reason would be our "ultimate purpose."
If no intelligence created the world, and people... there would be no reason. Therefore, no "ultimate purpose."
Does that sound about right?


Yes. I would just add that it isn’t the reason that “I” was created. It is for all of us regardless of our beliefs. If all conscious life were to end, then all of the things that we find meaningful in this life are now ultimately meaningless.
Stile writes:

But what if we don't care about the reason we were created for?
What if we go beyond that reason anyway?


In a very real sense I don’t care about the reason that we were created. It is a conclusion that I have come to. I just live my life in the here and now trying as best I can, although most inadequately, in living a life guided by a heart that loves and respects others, and that genuinely wants the best for them even at my own expense. How this fits in ultimately I don’t know but it is all that I can do in this life. As I say, it sounds great in theory but I know that I fall far short of the mark.

My favourite theologian is NT Wright. I’ll paraphrase something I read of his.

A master stone mason comes up to a junior stone mason and asks him to carve a stone with specific dimensions and other characteristics. The junior stone mason doesn’t really know why or how this stone is going to be used but dutifully goes ahead with the job. Eventually the master stone mason comes back and takes the finished piece of work from the junior stone mason and goes away. Years later the master stone mason comes back and takes the junior stone mason by the hand and leads him away and there before them is this magnificent cathedral and there up in the top corner is the stone that the junior stone mason carved as part of this great enterprise.

He didn’t know the ultimate purpose but did it because that is what he believed he was called to do. In that sense I don’t really care about the reason we were created as I agree it doesn’t really matter.

In a sense then the ultimate meaning for the junior stone mason was to get his assigned task completed, but in the end found that the stone he carved was part of a much bigger enterprise. I would say that the discovery of penicillin is something like the carving of that stone. It was a good and beautiful thing in and of itself in the present, but it also meant that people could live better and longer in the future.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 808 by Stile, posted 05-25-2018 11:49 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 906 by Stile, posted 06-07-2018 12:01 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 830 of 1482 (833730)
05-25-2018 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 827 by NoNukes
05-25-2018 8:17 PM


Re: Meaning of life
NoNukes writes:

'm really not complaining about the lack of evidence at all. I am complaining about a defense of an assertion that something is "more logical" by nothing more than "it seems that way to me".

A more accurate statement (in my opinion) is that your conclusion resonates with you. You don't seem to be saying anything more than that in your response to me.

OK. That probably is a better way of putting it but at least your post shows that you understood what I meant.

Thanks


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 827 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2018 8:17 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 832 of 1482 (833732)
05-25-2018 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 828 by Modulous
05-25-2018 8:24 PM


Re: Meaning of life
Modulous writes:

Going backwards and forwards requires only one dimension. Having two dimensions would mean we could forwards in a time and leftwards in time. But it doesn't mean we can go backwards in time or rightwards in time.

I don't want to belabour the point as discussing this with you is like taking a knife to a gun fight, but as I understood from what I read, is that math tells us that time should flow backwards of forwards but due to entropy we only experience it in one direction. I just kinda assumed that if we experience two dimensions of time, we would then be able to reverse entropy.

Modulous writes:

No - I'm just commenting that your claim that naturalism doesn't 'answer the question of what if anything is behind it all.' by saying that it does.

OK, but it isn't any less of a belief than what it is that I believe. If we can show that evolution naturally resulted in life today it tells us nothing about why that is the case or why or how the process of evolution existed in the first place.

Modullous writes:

But why is it more reasonable to resolve the infinite regress by appealing to a supernatural intelligence than some fundamental and simple entity?

What simple entity would you use. Would that entity have intelligence? The idea that all of attributes of sentience evolving from mindlessness doesn't resonate with me in the way that sentience from pre-existing intelligence does.

Modulous writes:

But I gave my reasons, you seem to want to resort to 'I just believe it'. I think that shows something about our approaches.


I gave reasons too. You just didn't like them.

Modullous writes:

I don't see the defence. You claim you think it is more logical and more reasonable to see things the way you do, but when asked for your reasons and logic you either repeat how reasonable or logical you think it is and conclude that ultimately you just believe it.

There's no dispute that it's belief, but if you believe it is more reasonable - that means you have reasons. If you want to concede its purely faith without reason that's fine - but you talked about reason and logic and I don't think I'm out of line for asking about your reasons. 'I believe' is a statement of fact, but it is not an argument that justifies that your belief is more reasonable.


1/ The anthropic principle.
2/ The world appears to be designed.
3/ Mankind has always looked to something beyond ourselves.
4/ The accounts of the life of Jesus.
5/ The fact that the vast majority of religions have as part of their faith the Golden Rule.
6/ In general people do have a sense of purpose and deep down believe that we are teleological
7/ Our mythologies usually involve something beyond ourselves
8/ Regardless of culture we do have a general sense of things that are right or wrong and we know that right is the one we should choose whether we do it or not.
9/ That fact that we have emotions.

Given time I could come up with more but at least that's a start.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 828 by Modulous, posted 05-25-2018 8:24 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 836 by Modulous, posted 05-25-2018 11:31 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 72 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 841 of 1482 (833742)
05-26-2018 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 836 by Modulous
05-25-2018 11:31 PM


Re: Meaning of life
Modulous writes:

I guess however, it's the best shot you - or indeed anyone - can give for the idea. So I commend you for putting them out there.


Thanks for that and I agree that it is not a conclusive argument but I do contend that collectively they make a compelling case. In the end it is about faith, and ultimately, (there's that word again ) I am prepared to base my life on those beliefs. If I am wrong then so be it, but interestingly enough I find that the more I succeed, as minimal as that success is, the more content I am with my life. I'll make that the last bit of non-conclusive evidence that I have for a god that desires that we find joy in living lives built on loving others sacrificially.

Edited by GDR, : typo


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by Modulous, posted 05-25-2018 11:31 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022