How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?

[rossum]

Erotic love and brotherly love and selfless, self-emptying love are all different. Lust and love are different. Sex and love are different. You’re smart, rossum. You know that.

I may be smart, but I cannot read minds. You posted, “generally there is no law against love” You did not specify which type of love. If you meant a specific type of love then you should have specified.

Thank you for that excellent example of the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy.

 

[o_mlly]

See post #178

Too truncated, I think, as a definition for a law; perhaps serves as a definition of a science fact. My wallpaper’s pattern does not immediately disclose any natural law.

Implicit in a natural law is the relationship of the observed pattern to the conditions necessary to cause it, usually mathematically expressed, e.g., F= G(m1 - m2)/d2. The simpler the formula, the more likely it is to be true.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Really good response to his assertions…smh

 

[stoplooklisten]

rossum, IMHO, you continue to be smart and insightful in analyzing logic. Also, thank you for expanding my education on logical fallacies.

No true Scotsman , or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Source: No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

Unfortunately, IMHO, love is a word whose meaning has been too often manipulated to mean something that its meaning in connection to kindness, patience, charity.

 

[Gab123]

There will always be many theories, and even astronomers will admit that much of what is known is based on speculation. Regardless, evidence permeates the cosmos that the Cause of the universe is an Eternal Rational Source.

 

[Gab123]

The ability to reason isn’t evidence of rationality.

I don’t mean to laugh but this statement is laughable. Ponder what you just said.

it would seem that I can’t differentiate between rational and irrational . Because you think that belief in God is rational, and I think that it’s irrational.

The difference is that there are countless intellectual proofs for the existence and necessity of an Eternal Rational Source.

Belief that 3x3=9 is based on intellectual proof using reason. One can disagree with the notion that 3x3=9 but that person would not be using their reason. Likewise, atheism is not a rational conclusion, but rather a psychological frame of mind. In his book The Psychology of Atheism Dr. Paul Vitz lays out a clear picture of the roots of atheism.

 

[Mountie]

Any fans of Nagel here? He’s an atheist that wrote a book on this topic. His book suggests that a purely materialistic view of evolution doesn’t cut it and there likely needs to be some greater cause that draws all life toward it…maybe God?

 

[Freddy]

A natural law is simply a pattern which has been observed in nature. Sadly the term law was chosen which makes it easy to imagine a conection with written laws in human societies.

Beat me to it. Indeed, the term ‘law’ for most conjurs up a set of rules that were put in place to which existence must comply. How many times have we seen the phrase ‘if there are laws then there must be a law maker’. When actually there are patterns and the are those who observe those patterns (that would be us for those who aren’t following).

 

[Freddy]

Any fans of Nagel here? He’s an atheist that wrote a book on this topic. His book suggests that a purely materialistic view of evolution doesn’t cut it and there likely needs to be some greater cause that draws all life toward it…maybe God?

Ah, the bat guy. Recommend this (What’s it like to be a bat) for those interested in the problem of consciousness: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAJegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3OZtOUocGaMibvmTsyo_9L

 

[Wesrock]

Michaelangelo:

A natural law is simply a pattern which has been observed in nature. Sadly the term law was chosen which makes it easy to imagine a conection with written laws in human societies.

Beat me to it. Indeed, the term ‘law’ for most conjurs up a set of rules that were put in place to which existence must comply. How many times have we seen the phrase ‘if there are laws then there must be a law maker’. When actually there are patterns and the are those who observe those patterns (that would be us for those who aren’t following).

The misconception of a law of nature as Michaelangelo and you describe is a very Newtonian idea. But what we call laws of nature are more than just regularities, they are the natural tendencies of things (or the tendencies of a thing’s nature), which we observe and model in the abstract with mathematics.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Michaelangelo:

A natural law is simply a pattern which has been observed in nature. Sadly the term law was chosen which makes it easy to imagine a conection with written laws in human societies.

Beat me to it. Indeed, the term ‘law’ for most conjurs up a set of rules that were put in place to which existence must comply. How many times have we seen the phrase ‘if there are laws then there must be a law maker’. When actually there are patterns and the are those who observe those patterns (that would be us for those who aren’t following).

The misconception of a law of nature as Michaelangelo and you describe is a very Newtonian idea. But what we call laws of nature are more than just regularities, they are the natural tendencies of things (or the tendencies of a thing’s nature), which we observe and model in the abstract with mathematics.

I think that’s a difference with no difference. I have a tendency to have a beer on Friday evening. So that’s a regularity. But it’s not a law in the sense that I have to have a beer.

There is an argument that says that because there are regularities and existence seems to follow these regularities/laws then someone must have arranged it thus. But even if the universe was chaotic and we didn’t exist, then there would still be laws.

That regularity has emerged from initial chaos is a function of the elements of the chaotic system itself. You don’t need to separate oil and water. You didn’t need to make hydrogen from the inital plasma.

 

[AlNg]

Ah, the bat guy. Recommend this (What’s it like to be a bat) for those interested in the problem of consciousness

Why? He doesn’t resolve anything. He only says that you first have to clarify what is meant by subjective and objective.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Freddy:

Michaelangelo:

A natural law is simply a pattern which has been observed in nature. Sadly the term law was chosen which makes it easy to imagine a conection with written laws in human societies.

Beat me to it. Indeed, the term ‘law’ for most conjurs up a set of rules that were put in place to which existence must comply. How many times have we seen the phrase ‘if there are laws then there must be a law maker’. When actually there are patterns and the are those who observe those patterns (that would be us for those who aren’t following).

The misconception of a law of nature as Michaelangelo and you describe is a very Newtonian idea. But what we call laws of nature are more than just regularities, they are the natural tendencies of things (or the tendencies of a thing’s nature), which we observe and model in the abstract with mathematics.

I think that’s a difference with no difference. I have a tendency to have a beer on Friday evening. So that’s a regularity. But it’s not a law in the sense that I have to have a beer.

I mentioned it because there are some who are very strict that laws of nature are only observed regularities and we can say nothing about the actual things themselves. That leads to vagueries kind of like what you described, and also a lack of explanatory power. “Why does B follow A? Because B has been observed to follow A.” We cant even infer that there’s a tendency of A to produce B (under such-and-such circumstances), we can only say “because B has been observed to follow A.” According to some, anyway.

There is an argument that says that because there are regularities and existence seems to follow these regularities/laws then someone must have arranged it thus. But even if the universe was chaotic and we didn’t exist, then there would still be laws.

That regularity has emerged from initial chaos is a function of the elements of the chaotic system itself. You don’t need to separate oil and water. You didn’t need to make hydrogen from the inital plasma.

I don’t know if I want to delve into an argument from finality. Jaques Maritain made, imo, a strong case that any effect following from a cause (whether regular or chaotic or only once ever) requires a First Cause for it to obtain, but I think that’s all I’ll say on the matter.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Ah, the bat guy. Recommend this (What’s it like to be a bat) for those interested in the problem of consciousness

Why? He doesn’t resolve anything. He only says that you first have to clarify what is meant by subjective and objective.

Well, that’s a good start. But hey, it’s not compulsory to read him though. Just adding to the sum knowledge of the collective is all.

 

[AlNg]

Well, that’s a good start. But hey, it’s not compulsory to read him though. Just adding to the sum knowledge of the collective is all.

Really i don’t see where he added anything. Everyone knows that the difference between subjective and objective can at times be somewhat fuzzy. But why does knowing the difference solve the mind body problem?

That regularity has emerged from initial chaos is a function of the elements of the chaotic system itself.

Why cannot it be true that the present regularities seen so far are only a brief fluctuation in a more or less eternal chaotic system.

 

[Freddy]

Jaques Maritain made, imo, a strong case that any effect following from a cause (whether regular or chaotic or only once ever) requires a First Cause for it to obtain…

Unless it’s part of a cyclic process. And your upper case noted…so maybe I should start writing Cyclic Process. Gives it a little more heft.

 

[Freddy]

Why cannot it be true that the present regularities seen so far are only a brief fluctuation in a more or less eternal chaotic system.

It could be. See Penrose’s Cyclic Universe theory for something along similar lines.

 

[lelinator]

The Prime Mover both creates the fundamental principle of potency and actualizes it in created things.

How can the Prime Mover “create” the fundamental principle of potency?

If potency is simply the potential for something to exist, then things either have the potential to exist, or they don’t. They’re either possible, or they’re not.

If prime matter is a created thing, then it must be something which has had its potential to exist, actualized. In fact anything which hasn’t always existed, must have first had the potential to exist.

It would seem therefore that it’s the very nature of the Prime Mover itself which dictates whether something does or doesn’t have the potential to exist. And potency, rather than being a created thing, must be something intrinsic to the Prime Mover itself.

So it would seem to be an inescapable principle that where there’s a Prime Mover there will always be potency. And it must also be true that potency can never be greater than what it is with the Prime Mover.

The only way around this that I can see, is to redefine the term “potency” to mean something other than “that which has the potential to exist.”

Is that what you wish to do?

 

[o_mlly]

See Penrose’s Cyclic Universe theory for something along similar lines.

Of course, @Michaelangelo rejects this silliness as mere speculation and not science.

o_mlly:

Empirical (experiential) science at a minimum requires at least one observation, at least one repeatable sensible experience. Upon that observed effect, a testable hypothesis is formed to explain that effect’s cause. Without that observation to build upon there is only speculation as to causation.

Yes

 

[stoplooklisten]

That regularity has emerged from initial chaos is a function of the elements of the chaotic system itself.

Sorry, creation of hummingbirds (complementary male and female) is not an inherent function of the elements of the chaotic system itself. You can declare this doctrine but you aren’t God. No, Someone more wonderful than an impersonal force created the hummingbird. Chaos generates chaos. Beauty, intelligence and grace generate beauty, intelligence and grace.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Source: https://www.publicdoma(name removed by moderator)ictures.net/pictures/220000/velka/hummingbird-1493476360ufY.jpg