Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did Vishnu say, “Let there be Light!”

Book, chapter, verse?
 
Aloysium said:
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.
Click to expand...
I guess that may have been the only argument in town back when the earth was the center of a small cosmos which revolved around us, and everything was created in a week just a few thousand years ago.

But then Francis Bacon, Galileo and the rest of the gang rode into town.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Did Vishnu say, “Let there be Light!”

Book, chapter, verse?
Click to expand...
There is one God. In Hinduism there are many stories and beliefs that seek to make us aware of the true nature of reality. I must say that none are as bizarre as the secular belief in a material god, blind and purposeless, from which as happenstance would have it, a brain evolved, thereby allowing for the emergence of these thoughts, perceptions actions, feelings allowing us to know all this wonder and beauty.

The image I have of Vishnu sees him lying on Shesha, who is his manifestation in the form of a multiheaded serpent. Shesha having no beginning or end, serves Vishnu, eternally singing his praise and glory. They sit in an ocean of infinite compassionate bliss. From Vishnu’s umbilicus, a lotus grows carrying Brahma and a universe comes into being. Within eternity, the serpent uncoils and time moves forward; he retracts and it come to an end. Ultimately, Brahma and Atman, the human soul are one.

This can be confusing, but clearly through love, the willing and giving of oneself to the good of the other, one connects with the Love from whom all existence comes into being. We are one in Christ and are thereby brought into the Trinity. In other religions, it may not be as well articulated, definitely not as clear as we find in Catholicism, but all humanity has access to God.
 
Aloysium said:
There is one God. In Hinduism there are many stories and beliefs that seek to make us aware of the true nature of reality. I must say that none are as bizarre as the secular belief in a material god, blind and purposeless, from which as happenstance would have it, a brain evolved, thereby allowing for the emergence of these thoughts, perceptions actions, feelings allowing us to know all this wonder and beauty.

The image I have of Vishnu sees him lying on Shesha, who is his manifestation in the form of a multiheaded serpent. Shesha having no beginning or end, serves Vishnu, eternally singing his praise and glory. They sit in an ocean of infinite compassionate bliss. From Vishnu’s umbilicus, a lotus grows carrying Brahma and a universe comes into being. Within eternity, the serpent uncoils and time moves forward; he retracts and it come to an end. Ultimately, Brahma and Atman, the human soul are one.

This can be confusing, but clearly through love, the willing and giving of oneself to the good of the other, one connects with the Love from whom all existence comes into being. We are one in Christ and are thereby brought into the Trinity. In other religions, it may not be as well articulated, definitely not as clear as we find in Catholicism, but all humanity has access to God.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I’m sure William of Occam also thanks you! 👍
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Possibly to give you a vague idea at least of the infinite power of God?
Click to expand...
I think nature would end up giving us whole swathes of matter that we have never been able to see, cannot see now and never will be able to see. Let alone access. At some point, a reasonable person says to himself: ‘I think we’ve passed the point where I can be any more impressed. Making stuff that is effectively not there is not the least bit impressive’.

So I stopped being impressed a long time ago.

But I do find it strange that if I describe something that you can’t access, you claim it as God showing his power. But if I describe something else that you can’t access, it’s ‘atheist scientists’ trying to disprove His existence.

If we were to get proof of a multiverse, then do you know what you’d do? You’d hop on the multiverse bus and claim that it was God giving us an example of his power and look for something else that ‘atheist scientists’ are trying to make-up. Maybe parallel dimensions.

If the God of The Gaps clique advertises for a Poster Boy, I think you should apply, Charles.
 
Bradski said:
I think nature would end up giving us whole swathes of matter that we have never been able to see, cannot see now and never will be able to see. Let alone access. At some point, a reasonable person says to himself: ‘I think we’ve passed the point where I can be any more impressed. Making stuff that is effectively not there is not the least bit impressive’.

So I stopped being impressed a long time ago.

But I do find it strange that if I describe something that you can’t access, you claim it as God showing his power. But if I describe something else that you can’t access, it’s ‘atheist scientists’ trying to disprove His existence.

If we were to get proof of a multiverse, then do you know what you’d do? You’d hop on the multiverse bus and claim that it was God giving us an example of his power and look for something else that ‘atheist scientists’ are trying to make-up. Maybe parallel dimensions.

If the God of The Gaps clique advertises for a Poster Boy, I think you should apply, Charles.
Click to expand...
Atheists demand proof positive for God. Not having it, they deny God.

But having no proof whatever for a multiverse, they hop on the multiverse bus.

Why are you so keen on Multiverse of the Gaps?

ANYTHING! ANYTHING BUT GOD! :banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Atheists demand proof positive for God. Not having it, they deny God.

But having no proof whatever for a multiverse, they hop on the multiverse bus.

Why are you so keen on Multiverse of the Gaps?
Click to expand...
In order (I can’t be bothered cutting and pasting):

I have never demanded proof for God. If you know an atheist who has asked for it, tell him he’s an idiot. It’d not something that can be proved, only believed on faith. Strike 1

It being impossible to have that which it is nonsensical to request, it becomes equally nonsensical to deny something in which, by definition, it is not possible to believe except by faith alone. Strike 2.

If the implication is that I have denied God at any time, then Strike 3.

The lack of proof of a multiverse is a given, almost again by definition, whatever your religious beliefs (or lack of them). So to imply that people who don’t believe in gods welcome the proposal with open arms simply because of that lack of belief is fatuous. Strike 4.

And finally, I am not ‘so keen’ on the multiverse. I simply find it an interesting scientific and philosophical proposal. I would find it so even if I were a Christian. Strike 5.

And finally, if a multiverse existed and was shown to exist, then it would, in itself, neither prove nor disprove God. If God exists, then I have no idea why he has made vast amounts of creation inaccessible to us. But I wouldn’t put it beyond Him to create as many universes as He felt he needed, whatever that need might be. You seem to think He either can’t do it, thus denying his omnipotence, or doesn’t want (or need) to do it, except you are not in a position to know His mind. Strike 6.

And hey, when you reply, find your own style of response…
 
rossum said:
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)
Click to expand...
Math for physics was a favorite class in high school but didn’t include any difficult stuff.

Seems to me that understanding things better must be anathema to intelligent design fans, as it closes another gap in knowledge which they were hoping to fill with -]magic/-] design.
 
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...
Purpose implies the power of foresight which only persons possess.
 
Bradski said:
.

And finally, if a multiverse existed and was shown to exist, then it would, in itself, neither prove nor disprove God.
Click to expand...
An unsubstantiated hypothesis doesn’t prove or disprove anything. One might as well say “If nothing existed it would neither prove nor disprove God” but it is unscientific, unreasonable and defeatist to believe no explanation is required.
If God exists, then I have no idea why he has made vast amounts of creation inaccessible to us.
Click to expand...
The implication that we should know everything is absurd.
But I wouldn’t put it beyond Him to create as many universes as He felt he needed, whatever that need might be. You seem to think He either can’t do it, thus denying his omnipotence, or doesn’t want (or need) to do it, except you are not in a position to know His mind.
Click to expand...
“as many universes” gives the game away! It implies that physical reality is the only mode of existence even though there is plenty of evidence for intangible reality…

“as He felt he needed” also implies God creates out of necessity rather than as a free expression of love - which is the most powerful and significant fact of life. How did it originate? As the result of accidental combinations of atoms and fortuitous mutations of genes - and its survival value?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
You are not an atheist? :confused:
Click to expand...
Ah, I’ve just realisd that you’re an amultiverst.

There is no evidence for the multiverse and one can’t prove it exists or doesn’t exist. You simply are not convinced by anyone’s argument that it exists.

Therefore you don’t deny that it exists. You simply state that you don’t believe it exists.

Quite simply really. I can’t see why anyone could not fail to understand your position.
 
Bradski said:
Ah, I’ve just realisd that you’re an amultiverst.

There is no evidence for the multiverse and one can’t prove it exists or doesn’t exist. You simply are not convinced by anyone’s argument that it exists.

Therefore you don’t deny that it exists. You simply state that you don’t believe it exists.

Quite simply really. I can’t see why anyone could not fail to understand your position.
Click to expand...
You sure waited a long time not to answer a question I asked. 🤷
 
Bradski said:
And finally, if a multiverse existed and was shown to exist, then it would, in itself, neither prove nor disprove God. If God exists, then I have no idea why he has made vast amounts of creation inaccessible to us. But I wouldn’t put it beyond Him to create as many universes as He felt he needed, whatever that need might be. You seem to think He either can’t do it, thus denying his omnipotence, or doesn’t want (or need) to do it, except you are not in a position to know His mind. Strike 6.
Click to expand...
And you in certainly less of a position than mine to know His mind since you deny that He even exists. 😛
 
For the scientist to logically infer that the universe is not designed, that chance alone rules, he must know that there is no Designer. How does the scientist prove there is no Designer since the scientific method is not even designed to figure that out? He certainly cannot say that he proves it by seeing no instances of design anywhere in the universe. To say that would be to argue that his own experiments are not designed and occur only by chance, a patently absurd conclusion to put it mildly.

As tonyrey so often asks, how does chance create a designer in humans? That is to say, how does chance do that without being designed to do it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top