G
greylorn
Guest
Huh?
- Status
G
greylorn
Guest
The one principle of physics did indeed always exist, although I should have described it as a manifestation or a property.
The rules of logic.can be thought of as always existing, but in a different sense. The rules of logic are true even in a null universe. They would be true if neither God nor man existed. All we can do is discover them. Same for God. He cannot declare that 2+2=5.
G
greylorn
Guest
Granny,
Here is a gedunken experiment for you.
Pretend you are God again. Now go and listen to a friend’s complaint. Even better, record an episode of Judge Judy, or some talk show in which people whine about their problems. Then listen to it about 1000 times.
Somewhere towards the end of this project you’ll get a sense of what being an all-knowing God would be like.
G
grannymh
Guest
Good morning, greylorn,
I see that you are proposing a Gedanken experiment as in physics, thought experiment. As my Irish Mother would say – there is more than one way to skin a cat or a contradiction.
O.K. I’ll do it.
Blessings,
granny
A
Agripa
Guest
Hi Granny:
Agnosticism, from my perspective, is simply saying “I can’t know”. Its for me a rational recognition of two realities: 1. There is more likely a conscious, creative Power that caused existence and its not plausible to me that mere random events caused existence and 2. whatever that Power is, its infintely beyond mere man to fathom.
Now to those comforted by a very human conception of God, this can be a disconcerting way to think about God. I think, however, humans want very much for God to be in their image: they want a God as Ruler, a God as Loving Father, a God who chose a humble, submissive Mother to bear his One and Only Human Form. Now that is a beautiful concept, but its really a human construct, it fulfills a human need and it serves human ends.
Agnosticism, to me, is like taking a boat out in the dead of night. You slip away from the quiet, fire-lit shores of a comfortable, age old understanding of God into the deep, dark abyss of not knowing God at all, and you learn to merely observe God’s Creation without comment or interpretation.
At first, you expereince terror, people are calling you back to shore, and yet you are in your tiny boat, alone and are profoundly hit with the wonder and awe of mere Creation: the stars and Milky Way arching over you, the motion of the waves, the sound of the wind, and perhaps a reflection of it all in the black water beneath you.
Its then you realize how teeny tiny you are and how huge Creation is and whatever man-made constructs exist back on shore, they are but trifles meant to sooth or order the masses.
But I would say that agnosticism allows for spirituality and for spiritual experience, but it is forever quick to filter out the human impulse to catagorize, define and interpret what cannot be understood.
J
jkiernan56
Guest
I do believe in reality beyond the ability of science to measure.
Greylorn, are you a proponent Intelligent Design? I am just trying to understand you better, your underlying foundation that your ideas spring from.
Here is a link to the subject of Intelligent Design for those who care to look:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you, Agripa,Hi Granny:
Agnosticism, from my perspective, is simply saying “I can’t know”. Its for me a rational recognition of two realities: 1. There is more likely a conscious, creative Power that caused existence and its not plausible to me that mere random events caused existence and 2. whatever that Power is, its infintely beyond mere man to fathom.
Now to those comforted by a very human conception of God, this can be a disconcerting way to think about God. I think, however, humans want very much for God to be in their image: they want a God as Ruler, a God as Loving Father, a God who chose a humble, submissive Mother to bear his One and Only Human Form. Now that is a beautiful concept, but its really a human construct, it fulfills a human need and it serves human ends.
Agnosticism, to me, is like taking a boat out in the dead of night. You slip away from the quiet, fire-lit shores of a comfortable, age old understanding of God into the deep, dark abyss of not knowing God at all, and you learn to merely observe God’s Creation without comment or interpretation.
At first, you expereince terror, people are calling you back to shore, and yet you are in your tiny boat, alone and are profoundly hit with the wonder and awe of mere Creation: the stars and Milky Way arching over you, the motion of the waves, the sound of the wind, and perhaps a reflection of it all in the black water beneath you.
Its then you realize how teeny tiny you are and how huge Creation is and whatever man-made constructs exist back on shore, they are but trifles meant to sooth or order the masses.
But I would say that agnosticism allows for spirituality and for spiritual experience, but it is forever quick to filter out the human impulse to catagorize, define and interpret what cannot be understood.
What you have written resonates deep within. On a brisk, clear night, I have stood alone in an empty parking lot looking up in amazement at the brilliance above me. Common sense called me to hurry on. Instead, I walked backwards away from the few lights so I could see the real light better.
For now, I will comment on your enlightened statement: “I think, however, humans want very much for God to be in their image:” If I could, I would tattoo it on everyone’s forehead with a second statement reminding them that the reverse is true.
Blessings,
granny
A
Agripa
Guest
Well, that impulse you have to “tatoo” your belief on peoples’ heads, that to me is a natural human impulse to control and define - which is what people do with God - they create large, complex, institutions and social orders and expectations based on that very impulse to enforce particular beliefs. This is not necessarily a bad thing - it brings order to what may otherwise be chaos, but this is also contrary to the agnostic’s idea of the human ability to simply observe and experience. I prefer to say “whatever floats your spiritual boat”!
P
PEPCIS
Guest
What an excellent observation!
G
grannymh
Guest
My brain hasn’t thawed completely from the sub zero temperature. Consequently, I just edited my philosophical last statement in post 364. And yes, that tattoo and the additional clarification that the reverse is true is my belief/definition regarding the relationship between humans and the supernatural.Well, that impulse you have to “tatoo” your belief on peoples’ heads, that to me is a natural human impulse to control and define - which is what people do with God - they create large, complex, institutions and social orders and expectations based on that very impulse to enforce particular beliefs. This is not necessarily a bad thing - it brings order to what may otherwise be chaos, but this is also contrary to the agnostic’s idea of the human ability to simply observe and experience. I prefer to say “whatever floats your spiritual boat”!
And yes, most often I simply observe and very much experience creation. How does one describe looking up at a bright blue sky with six eagles circling above? Visiting my non-theist kid and family in Southeast Alaska brought home the creative power of the Creator.
As a young child, I learned to walk on both sides of the street and up the middle at the same time. Both learning and understanding are my passion. I rarely turn down a ride in anyone’s boat; nonetheless, I always make sure I wear a life preserver.
Blessings,
granny
G
greylorn
Guest
Yes, but…
If you read, for example, Michael Behe, who IMO has presented the best evidence I’ve ever seen against Darwinism (and I’ve been checking out the evidence for a half-century) you’ll find that in his first book, Darwin’s Black Box, he remains mostly neutral about I.D. In The Edge of Evolution he discusses the nature of the Intelligent Designer whose existence he has just proven, and comes up with nothing. In the process he admits to being a practicing Roman Catholic.
Although he worships your God, he is unwilling to commit to the notion that the God he worships is the Intelligent Designer. This is to his credit.
Another excellent writer on the subject of I.D. is Stroebel, “The Case for a Creator.” He’s a journalist who’s surveyed excellent evidence in favor of I.D. from a variety of sources. At the end of “Case…,” which is reasonably well written although a bit gabby (I should know!) he comes up with the absurd statement that the Intelligent Designer is obviously the omnipotent God of Christianity. He even ropes J.C. into the action.
He seems to be coming from the classic creationist position, which is that there are only two ways to explain, let’s say, evolution: Darwinism or creation by the Omnipotent God of Christianity. No one has ever taken the trouble to prove, or even to offer a reasonable argument in favor of the notion that these are the only credible alternatives.
I consider them to be functionally equivalent and equally incorrect.
My position is clear and simple. I believe absolutely that we live in a created universe, but do not believe that the “soul” is part of creation. Nor do I believe that it is possible for an omnipotent, omniscient entity to exist. That makes both the soul and The Creator worthy subjects for thoughtful investigation by any and all possible means.
The source of information for that investigation is the only bible certain to have been written by The Creator: The physical universe.
G
greylorn
Guest
I neglected to address your first statement, “I do believe in reality beyond the ability of science to measure.”
Me too, but our differences lie in exactly what lies beyond our ability. I imagine that you would put God and the soul out there; I’d only put God.
There is an implication to your statement, that science is about measurement. This is a dreadful misunderstanding which I invite you to correct immediately.
Science employs measurement whenever possible. Good science, hard science like physics, begins with theories. From the theories come predictions. Some of the predictions can be verified with measurements. Whenever possible, that is what science does. (Darwinism does not do this, but it is not real science.)
When a particularly interesting and unlikely prediction of a theory can be verified via measurement, that tends to verify the theory. People often misunderstand the subtlety of these measurements. Special relativity (E=mc2) was verified for the public at Hiroshima, but had been previously verified in subtle experiments requiring serious understanding of the masses of heavy atoms and chemistry.
Measurement is simply one of the tools of science, just like ritual is one of the tools of religion. Different strokes…
G
greylorn
Guest
(Third reply to above post.)
I checked out the I.D. design link you offered, thank you, and found the information accurate. I read only 20% of the wiki-info at that link, since nothing new was coming up. Been there, at creationist/evolutionist debates back before creationists changed their name to I.D.proponents. Same artists, same brushes, same strokes— just different shades of paint.
The problem with I.D. is that it purports to be science, but it only wants to prove one theory. It cannot operate outside that one theory, which is that the universe and man were created by the Omnipotent God of Christianity.
May I offer an example?
In the early 19th century physics addressed the question of heat. What allowed some forms of matter to burn, others not? The official theory was that matter contained an inflammable substance, phlogiston. If something had lots of phlogiston (e.g. coal, it burned easily). Rocks had little phlogiston. Water had none at all. Learned men occupying university chairs used the mathematical tools of calculus and wrote serious scientific papers about phlogiston. They were able to calculate with precision the exact amounts of phlogiston contained by various minerals and molecules.
I’ll bet that you were not taught about phlogiston in school.
While the university dorks were writing fatuous papers, a handful (7 exactly) of intelligent men were investigating the behavior of the universe on their own. Their work led to some elegant, simple principles, Three Laws of Thermodynamics. These are the most profound laws in all of physics, IMO.
After the phlogiston professors retired, the new understanding took over. As a result, the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics are now taught in physics classes instead of Phlogiston Theory.
This history explains why Intelligent Design is not science.
Imagine that science had insisted that the phlogiston professors were divinely inspired, and that their theory was absolute truth. The ideas of thermodynamic theorists would have been discarded, never admitted into a university course. Universities would teach Phlogiston Science, not thermodynamics. Research into superconductivity would never have been funded. Etc.
While physics could move on and accept better ideas, after the “respected” (but ignorant) university chair holders died off, “intelligent-design” simply passes its lone torch on to another group of chair holders, whose qualifications are determined simply by their willingness to remain ignorant about any legitimate data which might conflict with their fundamental beliefs.
This is, to me, terribly sad.
G
greylorn
Guest
Granny,Good morning, greylorn,
I see that you are proposing a Gedanken experiment as in physics, thought experiment. As my Irish Mother would say – there is more than one way to skin a cat or a contradiction.
O.K. I’ll do it.
Blessings,
granny
You are a trooper! I’ll expect a description (or CD) of the whiny show of your choice. Also, a daily log consisting of the time of day at which you reviewed the show, thoughts coming up during the program, etc. I’ll expect 3 reviews daily, which is a better deal than God gets since he’s condemned by omniscience to always and every moment know the same show for eternity. You’ll have officially completed the experiment in only 3 three years, a short lesson. I’ll expect a report.
G
greylorn
Guest
Originally Posted by Dameedna
EXACTLY!! I’ve alway’s wondered what people plan to do, when they live in a perfect state in Heaven…where no-one needs help, and nothing needs doing.
Bliss…for eternity. Sounds wonderful right? It actually sound rather pointless and meaningless.
What is the point of heaven?
Don’t make bets. It’s already been solved. You’ll just need to get to heaven before you fully appreciate the answer.
Incidentally, anyone interested in these pithy posts will (I promise!) enjoy the long short story, “Captain Stormfield’s Trip to Heaven,” by Mark Twain.
It is worth reading to your offspring. That way, all readers will be required to read it slowly enough to get the point.
EXACTLY!! I’ve alway’s wondered what people plan to do, when they live in a perfect state in Heaven…where no-one needs help, and nothing needs doing.
Bliss…for eternity. Sounds wonderful right? It actually sound rather pointless and meaningless.
What is the point of heaven?
Granny,
Don’t make bets. It’s already been solved. You’ll just need to get to heaven before you fully appreciate the answer.
Incidentally, anyone interested in these pithy posts will (I promise!) enjoy the long short story, “Captain Stormfield’s Trip to Heaven,” by Mark Twain.
It is worth reading to your offspring. That way, all readers will be required to read it slowly enough to get the point.
S
Shike
Guest
If the first principle of physics always existed, then it would be outside the universe and I would call it God; other qualities are present with the first principle of course, but it isn’t the job of physics to probe. If the first principle of physics didn’t always exist, then there’s no problem saying God did it (it’s not science but I’m not talking about science). Either way it is God.
But I don’t wholly buy the claim about logic. I agree that God can’t declare 2+2=5 (since that’s nonsense), but I don’t agree there would be logic without God. If God was wholly apart of the universe then I would agree with you. But reason points to a God outside of the universe (in the sense that he is the cause of it). You don’t get something from absolutely nothing… so if there’s no God then there is no cause for the rules of logic.
ciao
S
Shike
Guest
Thanks for sharing your position. I so agree that God and the soul are worthy subjects for thoughtful investigation.
But if the soul wasn’t created… that means that it always was. And when the logic is worked out, it comes to the conclusion that the soul is God. Sounds more like a buddhist soul than anything else to me; no real individuality is possible.
ciao
G
greylorn
Guest
I once had similar notions, but my reading of the evidence says that the soul is unique and not created. Of course I’ve devised a theory to fit these observations, but this is no place for it.
I’ve no idea what logic you refer to above. Perhaps you will share it, since I’ve no idea how you personally got from the hypothesis that soul was not created to the conclusion that it is God. Perhaps some definition refinement would help.
Buddhism believes just about everything these days, but my readings disclose that the Buddha’s original idea was derived from his personal experience of soul in a universe which he regarded as the result of entirely natural causes. Buddha believed in evolution, and therefore invented this concept:
The human brain has evolved to such a high level of complexity that its activity produces an epiphenomenon, an analog of the brain itself, which persists after the death of the brain-body system. This “soul” has no legitimate place in the natural universe, After death it finds itself with nothing to do, nowhere to go, except back into another human body. (Did I mention that Buddha was originally Hindu, and believed in reincarnation?) But since the soul does not belong, it will never be happy. Its only path to happiness is to become so powerfully self-aware that after the body’s death, soul will be able to voluntarily extinguish its own consciousness. “Nirvana” is not a synonym for heaven, as many ignorant modern-day Buddhists believe. It means, extinguishedness.
Of course you realize that any discussions about the origin or not of soul are silly without a definition of the soul. (Soul as defined within the paragraph above is an entirely different critter than the soul defined by the Old Testament, New Testament, Mormon church, Descartes, etc.) Webster’s is inadequate for the purpose. I do not know if the Church’s definition is any better, these days. I do not even know what its official definition of soul is.
I just realized that this discussion has the look and feel of being off purpose. I know its connection to the Omnipotency Contradiction, but would have a hard time explaining it. If anyone knows of a better thread for such a discussion, perhaps we should take it there.
G
greylorn
Guest
You are adopting the principle of winning arguments by creating definitions which define your position as true. If I was to evaluate your arguments above from the perspective of someone grading a paper in philosophical logic, I’d have to give you an F, maybe a D- if I’d had a good breakfast that someone else cooked for me.
You are simply making assertions. Some of these, are, if you’ll kindly not take the word personally, absurd. The worst is, “If the first principle of physics always existed, then it would be outside the universe…”
The most basic principle of physics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This principle defines the universe, which is made from energy in various forms. To say that such a principle must be outside the universe indicates that a basic calculus level physics course taken by all correspondents would facilitate this discussion.
Re: the rules of logic, you are a few parsecs shy of understanding the point. Logic is a pure abstraction. It does not come from nothing. It was not created, and cannot be. Its principles are true even in an empty universe, and would be true if there was neither a God nor a universe. That is why God cannot change the rules of logic, and why it would behoove anyone who wants to understand anything at all (including the properties of God) to begin by understanding basic principles of logic. They make a nice foundation.
G
grannymh
Guest
ATTENTION:
Dear Greylorn,
Would you consider going to the thread which you called “Omnipotency Revisited” in the philosophy forum?
The OP is:
"Must the Creator of the universe necessarily be omnipotent and omniscient?
“Would it not be sufficient that the Creator, or Creators, simply be powerful and intelligent enough to have designed and engineered the universe?”
The answers “of course” and “of course not” cannot stand on their own at least not in this forum. “Necessarily be” requires theories as “sufficient” requires interpretation.
Just because the dull geniuses isolated themselves on the fourth floor of our dorm, it doesn’t follow that a Creator necessarily isolated Himself from the Universe. In my humble opinion, in order to fully answer the OP first question, one needs to deal with the soul which is the connecting link between humans and the Creator. In other words, I flat out refuse to be considered in the same class as a determined rock in a deterministic universe.
Blessings,
Anyone as in quoted post – a.k.a. granny
- Status