Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The biggest problem with smart phones is stupid operators. Correcting some typos above that were missed and might affect the meaning:

The immensity of the universe reflects God’s glory. It is impossible to conceive of ourselves as gods in the face of such an infinite wonder. But, true to form, we continue to do so, imagining God to be mere blind matter.
 
Bradski said:
If you think a multiverse is a waste of space - God wouldn’t create something we cannot access, then why is so much of this universe inaccesssible? And always has been, well before we existed.
Click to expand...
Possibly to give you a vague idea at least of the infinite power of God?

Again, there is no confirmation anywhere in science of evidence supporting the multiverse.

That won’t stop you from believing in it as a preferable substitute for God.

Well there has to be a substitute somewhere, doesn’t there, for atheists to explain the Big Bang other than Genesis?

God forbid there should be a Creator God. 😉

By the way, I never said a multiverse is a waste of space.

I certainly meant to say it is a wasted hypothesis without evidence.
 
Aloysium said:
The problem with modern astrophysics is that there is no explanation as to the cause of all this. Gravity had to come from somewhere when presumably a singularity was all there was.
Click to expand...
Although of course there can be no gravity in a singularity itself. Gravity is the name for the curving of spacetime in the presence of matter. There’s no space in a singularity, hence no gravity.

Whether the universe had to start with something as exotic as a singularity is, I think disputed, as it would mean infinities, which in physics are demonic. But from the end of the Plank epoch, the first 10[sup]−43[/sup] seconds, right up to the present day, I’d have thought astrophysics tells a fairly good story. It’s the reason why we know of dark matter and dark energy. It’s how we know the composition of stars millions of light years away which we can never visit. By itself that’s quite an intellectual achievement for a bunch of naked apes on a little blue-green planet orbiting one star among billions in a galaxy among billions.

Yay!
 
My take on the Design argument is that it has two premises:
  1. There is purpose in nature
  2. there must be someone giving it purpose
But the first premise assumes that second. To says “purpose” assumes there is a person behind it. There is regularity in nature and we observe beauty in it, but I don’t think the 5th way works as an argument for a Person. Anyone have a counter argument?
 
thinkandmull said:
My take on the Design argument is that it has two premises:
  1. There is purpose in nature
  2. there must be someone giving it purpose
But the first premise assumes that second. To says “purpose” assumes there is a person behind it. There is regularity in nature and we observe beauty in it, but I don’t think the 5th way works as an argument for a Person. Anyone have a counter argument?
Click to expand...
What is Purpose? On top of that what is Meaning? We don’t know these things.
 
thinkandmull said:
My take on the Design argument is that it has two premises:
  1. There is purpose in nature
  2. there must be someone giving it purpose
But the first premise assumes that second. To says “purpose” assumes there is a person behind it. There is regularity in nature and we observe beauty in it, but I don’t think the 5th way works as an argument for a Person. Anyone have a counter argument?
Click to expand...
What would the explanation be if not a Person?
 
STT said:
What is Purpose? On top of that what is Meaning? We don’t know these things.
Click to expand...
Yeah we do.

Purpose is the **intended **end of an act or a thing.

Example:

God’s purpose in creating the Earth was to produce life in abundance.

The purpose of sex is to keep life going.

Etc.

What is meaning on top of purpose? Our ability to figure out our purpose.
 
inocente said:
. . . I’d have thought astrophysics tells a fairly good story. . . . that’s quite an intellectual achievement for a bunch of naked apes on a little blue-green planet orbiting one star among billions in a galaxy among billions.

Yay!
Click to expand...
It tells a good story of how creation unfolded. And, the fact that we can know and understand, should suggest that there is something, someone actually, pretty amazingly wondrous at work, designing if you will.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Yeah we do.

Purpose is the **intended **end of an act or a thing.

Example:

God’s purpose in creating the Earth was to produce life in abundance.

The purpose of sex is to keep life going.

Etc.
Click to expand...
This is circular reasoning.
Charlemagne_III said:
What is meaning on top of purpose? Our ability to figure out our purpose.
Click to expand...
What if the meaning is something we are looking for without that our life even with a decent purpose is empty.
 
STT said:
This is circular reasoning.

What if the meaning is something we are looking for without that our life even with a decent purpose is empty.
Click to expand...
Why is it circular reading. Please develop your thoughts more fully.

If our life is empty it means we have yet to discover our purpose.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
You are right. I cannot find an atheist who will admit to this line of reasoning. That does not prevent me from suspecting that multiverse is precisely devised by atheist scientists to skirt the question of God. Can you find me a reason why scientists are so keen on positing a multiverse when there is no evidence that one exists? :confused:

After all, we only have scientific proof on one universe that began with the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
The multiverse is the atheist escape clause. But, it only puts the question back.
 
The BGV theorem says no expanding universe can be eternal in the past.
 
inocente said:
Although of course there can be no gravity in a singularity itself. Gravity is the name for the curving of spacetime in the presence of matter. There’s no space in a singularity, hence no gravity.

Whether the universe had to start with something as exotic as a singularity is, I think disputed, as it would mean infinities, which in physics are demonic. But from the end of the Plank epoch, the first 10[sup]−43[/sup] seconds, right up to the present day, I’d have thought astrophysics tells a fairly good story. It’s the reason why we know of dark matter and dark energy. It’s how we know the composition of stars millions of light years away which we can never visit. By itself that’s quite an intellectual achievement for a bunch of naked apes on a little blue-green planet orbiting one star among billions in a galaxy among billions.

Yay!
Click to expand...
The problem is that Einstein did not include Quantum Mechanics in General Relativity. Hence, GR uses continuous measures for space and time. With a continuous measure the value of that measure can go to zero, which can give a division by zero and a singularity.

Since space and time are (probably) quantized, they cannot go to zero. They can go very close, but never quite get there, so the division by zero disappears. Once we have a theory of Quantum Gravity (GR plus QM) then we will hopefully understand things better.

In some ways it is an action replay of the old classical Black Body problem, where results shot off to infinity before QM intervened.

rossum (who has a degree in Mathematical Physics and finds this stuff interesting)
 
rossum said:
God is the theist escape clause. But, He only puts the question back. 🙂

rossum
Click to expand...
So when one does the due diligence and applies reason, logic,science and philosophy God is the conclusion. Science by its self imposed limitations cannot speak to the supernatural. It cannot let “the divine foot in the door”. It disqualifies itself from anything beyond its competency. We see scientism struggling to come to grips with this.

Add in revelation and the case for God is so much stronger than any of this other nonsense. You yourself know this deep inside.

One can also add in personal experience.

God is the uncaused cause, the unconditioned reality.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10
 
Charlemagne_III said:
👍 Puts it back to an unprovable hypothesis.
Click to expand...
The multiverse proponents well understand it is not even observable, nor empirically provable. They will keep alive there grant money by pushing this one.

Just think though - there exists a universe where the atheists here are all Catholic. 👍

rossum, too 😃
 
buffalo said:
So when one does the due diligence and applies reason, logic,science and philosophy God is the conclusion.
Click to expand...
No. God is a place-holder for “we do not know”. You have as much evidence for your God as there is for Vishnu as creator of the universe.
God is the uncaused cause, the unconditioned reality.
Click to expand...
I thought you were applying logic here? If God is a “cause” then he cannot pre-exist the first effect. If there is no effect then there is no cause. Effect is contingent on cause, and similarly cause is contingent on effect.

Am I, rossum, the cause of the unicorn breeding program in London zoo? No, of course I am not, because that effect does not exist. Similarly God cannot have been the cause of the universe in advance of the actual appearance of the universe.

A cause is ipso facto contingent on is effects. No effects then no cause.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top