Theist and atheist metaphysics

[Sarpedon]

Yes, it is true that the Universe contains many causal chains. But from that it does not follow that the Universe itself is part of a causal chain.

Causal chains are only defined for individual events, but not for collections of events. It makes perfect sense to establish causal chains for us as individuals - the procreative acts of our parents. From that it does not follow that such a causal chain can even be defined for the whole humanity.

Why do you stop at the level of parent to child? Didn’t the parents come from parents? Didn’t those parents come from parents? Doesn’t this go back to when life began? Since it began through the interactions of non-living things and forces, can’t we say that life was caused by those things? What caused those physical things and forces?

That is very weird, to say the least. An act of “love” without any “object” is sheer nonsense. How is the love of a “child-to-be” is different from the love of a “book-to-be-written”? In both cases one can love the “idea”. But the idea is not the same as the instantiated reality.

Since love is selflessness, it must have an “object”, although that object need not necessarily exist in a physical sense. The object does not need to exist right then to recieve the love, because love denotes a disposition and choice of the giver.

Look at it this way- suppose a person wants to have children for entirely selfless reasons. Even though he is willing to endure much inconvenience and hassle in having them, he freely decides to have them with no thought of himself.

He later finds out that he is infertile, and can never have children.

How would you describe the choice made by this person? There was never any existent person to recieve his selflessness.

I would say that the person’s choice, by virtue of its selflessness, is love. Even though no person ever existed to recieve his love, the important thing is that the man himself chose to love in the first place.

And in what way is that meaningful? Can one “love” the dinner which is not cooked yet? No, you can love the idea of it, you can imagine it, you can expect it, etc. But until the dinner is made, you can only love the “idea” of that dinner. If that love is manifested in actual cooking the dinner, then and only then can you start loving your creation.

If you truly love the idea of dinner, then your selflessness will move you to create it, so that it can recieve your love. If your house burns down and you can’t create it, you still made the choice to love.

Your love for the dinner is the same before and after you cook the dinner (presumably in a different, safer house). The difference between the two different situations is that when the object of your love is nonexistent, your love moves you to create it.

If someone who desires to have a baby out of selflessness is prevented from doing this by infertility, can we still say that she had love? How can we describe her? Is she rendered incapable of love by circumstance?

 

[ateista]

Yes, but the theist has good reason to go beyond “The universe ‘simply’ exists.” There is no part of the universe that must necessarily exist. That means every part of the universe can at some time “not exist.” Therefore the universe itself can and, at one time, actually did “not exist.”

What you did here is a classic example of the fallacy of composition.

In fact, Big Bang cosmology says precisely that.

No, it does not. It merely says that the current form of the Universe started about 16 billion years ago.

Therefore, the universe does not “simply exist” and neither can it explain its own existence regardless of what you are willing to accept.

The Universe is the framework, within which explanations are possible. For you God does not require explanation. Why do you demand explanation for the Universe, if you are willing to accept God without an explanation?

You can have it two different ways: 1) Everything requires an explanation, and then you must supply an explanation for God. Or: 2) Everything requires an explanation, except God, and since you stipulated one exception, then you must argue that it is the only exception. Speaking about “necessary” vs. “contingent” existence is just a bogus nonsense. The Universe exists and that is it.

 

[ateista]

Why do you stop at the level of parent to child? Didn’t the parents come from parents? Didn’t those parents come from parents? Doesn’t this go back to when life began? Since it began through the interactions of non-living things and forces, can’t we say that life was caused by those things? What caused those physical things and forces?

Only in a very loose (and thus meaningless) way. Let me give you another example: “Every human has a mother. From that fact it does not follow that humanity also has a mother”. The fallacy of composition is the generalization from the particulars to the composite. In some cases it is true, in others it is false.

Two examples. “Every tile on the floor is white, therefore the whole floor is white.” Correct generalization. “Every tile on the floor is square, therefore the whole floor is square”. Incorrect generalization.

Since love is selflessness, it must have an “object”, although that object need not necessarily exist in a physical sense.

In that case the one who “loves”, loves the idea or the concept, but does not love the actualized object yet.

Look at it this way- suppose a person wants to have children for entirely selfless reasons. Even though he is willing to endure much inconvenience and hassle in having them, he freely decides to have them with no thought of himself.

He later finds out that he is infertile, and can never have children.

How would you describe the choice made by this person? There was never any existent person to recieve his selflessness.

He loved the idea of having children. I will give you a different example: Suppose a couple wants to have a boy. They long for a boy. But a girl is born. They did not want a girl - for whatever reason. The “imagined object” of their longing (which you call love) is not there. Maybe they will change their mind and start loving the girl, too. Maybe they won’t.

If someone who desires to have a baby out of selflessness is prevented from doing this by infertility, can we still say that she had love? How can we describe her? Is she rendered incapable of love by circumstance?

She loved the idea of having a child, and unfortunately was deprived of having her desire fulfilled.

 

[Contarini]

That is an incoherent statement. Something that is not simple cannot “simply exist.”

Edwin

 

[OTavern]

ateista:

You can have it two different ways: 1) Everything requires an explanation, and then you must supply an explanation for God. Or: 2) Everything requires an explanation, except God, and since you stipulated one exception, then you must argue that it is the only exception. Speaking about “necessary” vs. “contingent” existence is just a bogus nonsense. The Universe exists and that is it.

That’s quite audacious of you to dismiss nec vs cont dicotomy. It is clear to me that something like the universe that is entirely made of contingent parts cannot, by that fact, explain itself and therefore requires an “outside” explanation.
You may not like that but your assumptions do not bear much weight, presumptive as they are.
Everything contingent on something else must have a cause, and something entirely constructed of contingent parts must have some external, necessary and sufficient explanation. The universe does not explain itself except to those, like you, who are content to end the quest, arbitrarily, at the limits of matter.

 

[ateista]

That’s quite audacious of you to dismiss nec vs cont dicotomy.

Why so? Necessary and contingent existence is an artifical distinction, which gives absolutely no extra information. My existence is contingent when viewed in relation to the existence of my parents, and it is necessary when viewed in relation to my child. To speak of necessary and contingent existence only makes sense in relation to another existence.

It is clear to me that something like the universe that is entirely made of contingent parts cannot, by that fact, explain itself and therefore requires an “outside” explanation.

The problem is that you wish to “explain” something that does not need explanation. And of course speaking about something “outside” the Universe is precisely the same as speaking about being “to the north from the North Pole”.

Everything contingent on something else must have a cause, and something entirely constructed of contingent parts must have some external, necessary and sufficient explanation. The universe does not explain itself except to those, like you, who are content to end the quest, arbitrarily, at the limits of matter.

You still commit the fallacy of composition.

 

[Sarpedon]

Only in a very loose (and thus meaningless) way. Let me give you another example: “Every human has a mother. From that fact it does not follow that humanity also has a mother”. The fallacy of composition is the generalization from the particulars to the composite. In some cases it is true, in others it is false.

Two examples. “Every tile on the floor is white, therefore the whole floor is white.” Correct generalization. “Every tile on the floor is square, therefore the whole floor is square”. Incorrect generalization.

All this proves is that it is possible to commit this fallacy. It does not prove that I have committed a fallacy in my detailed sequence of causes. Can you find something in my argument that makes the generalization false?

In that case the one who “loves”, loves the idea or the concept, but does not love the actualized object yet.

I think we are close in terms of agreement. I would say the the disposition in the case of the person who intitates the love is the same regardless of the status of the object of the love.

What is unreasonable about God loving the “idea” of us so much that He is moved to create us?

 

[ateista]

All this proves is that it is possible to commit this fallacy. It does not prove that I have committed a fallacy in my detailed sequence of causes.

Well said.

Can you find something in my argument that makes the generalization false?

You did not establish that it is meaningful speak about the Universe having an external cause.

I think we are close in terms of agreement. I would say the the disposition in the case of the person who intitates the love is the same regardless of the status of the object of the love.

The disposition may be similar, yes, but the object of the disposition is not.

What is unreasonable about God loving the “idea” of us so much that He is moved to create us?

Nothing unreasonable at all.

 

[Contarini]

Why so? Necessary and contingent existence is an artifical distinction, which gives absolutely no extra information. My existence is contingent when viewed in relation to the existence of my parents, and it is necessary when viewed in relation to my child. To speak of necessary and contingent existence only makes sense in relation to another existence.

That’s the fallacy of “petitio principii” (begging the question). The claim of traditional theists is that there is such a thing as absolutely necessary existence–without it none of the forms of contingent existence we observe could exist. That is the proposition you need to be arguing against. But instead of arguing against it, you simply define it away.

I am sounding like a broken record, but that’s OK, because maybe eventually you will listen, and if not perhaps lurkers will see how unreasonable you are: you cannot have a meaningful discussion about “theistic metaphysics” as long as you refuse actually to engage with the basic metaphysical questions at stake. Throughout this thread, you are simply assuming a materialistic stance and forcing your conception of “theism” into that paradigm. Of course you can handily refute theism if you do that. But it’s an empty victory.

Edwin

 

[ateista]

The claim of traditional theists is that there is such a thing as absolutely necessary existence–without it none of the forms of contingent existence we observe could exist.

My friend, claims are dime a dozen. Just because many people “claim” something, it does not render the “claim” valid, plausible or even worthy of consideration. Many people claim that the stars “under” which one was born influence the life of those people. Should we take astrology seriously, just because many people “claim” its validity?

But if you insist, think about the Universe as necessary existence, and parts of the Universe as contingent. At the very least we know that the Universe exists.

That is the proposition you need to be arguing against. But instead of arguing against it, you simply define it away.

There is no need to argue against the zillions of arbitrary “claims” that are unsupported. Necessary and contingent existence can only be defined in a relative manner. That is sensible, though without any deeper meaning to it.

 

[Contarini]

My friend, claims are dime a dozen.

Exactly. Your claim that there is no such thing as an absolutely necessary being, for instance. You are the one who made the dogmatic claim that there cannot be such a being (by saying that “necessary existence” is always relative to some other existence). Yet, weirdly, you want to switch the burden of proof.

The basic question here is: why does anything exist? You want to take the “Universe” for granted because you happen to find it lying about, so to speak. (And yes, obviously if it didn’t exist you and I wouldn’t exist to ask why it didn’t!) For some of us that’s not good enough.

But if you insist, think about the Universe as necessary existence

What makes you think the “Universe” is necessary? Why is it impossible for the “Universe” (by which I mean all the phenomena that we perceive by the senses, or deduce to be perceivable by the senses based on what we do perceive) not to have existed? Is there any good reason in your philosophy why there should be something rather than nothing?

There is no need to argue against the zillions of arbitrary “claims” that are unsupported.

There is when you come onto a forum where people believe certain claims, and start a thread with a title that promises a discussion of those claims.

To take your example: if I went on to an astrology website and posted a thread comparing belief in astrology with nonbelief in it, I would not expect the astrologers to be very impressed if I simply decreed airily “I don’t need to argue against your beliefs, because they are unsupported.”

Necessary and contingent existence can only be defined in a relative manner. That is sensible, though without any deeper meaning to it.

No doubt it seems eminently sensible to you. However, the purpose of argument is to make other people see as sensible what you see as sensible. If you are not interested in doing that, well then, that’s your prerogative. But to those of us not already convinced of your position, a refusal to try to convince us does not seem like impressive evidence for that position!

Edwin

 

[OTavern]

Necessary and contingent existence can only be defined in a relative manner. That is sensible, though without any deeper meaning to it.

Ateista, there you go again setting arbitrary limits on what you are willing to accept as reasonable.

Example: Take the universe of “ducks” as a species. One might argue that they all “hatched” from eggs. Therefore, their hatching is the “cause” of their existence. If I were to commit the “composition” fallacy, as you claim, I might be arguing that the entire species, therefore, merely hatched from one big egg. That is not at all what the theist is doing. It is, however, in some form, what you are doing by insisting that the duck->egg paradigm suffices to explain the existence of the universe.

Consider your “present form of the universe” as one little duckling. You are arguing that the big bang is analogous to the egg hatching out and resulting in a duckling, i.e., you claimed the universe of 13.7 billion years ago “hatched” into its present form from a previous one and you are content with that as sufficient to answer why the present universe exists.

If a theist were to call you on that and ask, “Well then where did the “egg” come from?” You would hold, in less than brilliant analysis, I might add, as you have in your previous posts, that the egg came from a previous duck, i.e., a previous form of the universe. You would then go on ad infinitum, and ad nauseam, claiming that previous forms of the universes are enough to explain each subsequent one. How is that different from someone claiming the existence of previous ducks is sufficient to explain the existence of any ducks on earth?

My point here is that you are doing just that, i.e., being content with the egg from duck paradigm to explain the universe. Universes, you claim, simply came from previous forms and that is all we need to satisfy our intellectual curiosity. At some point, perhaps you will come to the realization that this paradigm explains nothing about why the universe, or any previous form of it, is here, just as it does not suffice to explain why ducks exist on the Earth.

At this point, and I might warn you about inflicting self-injury with Occam’s Razor, what theists are claiming is that we are not content with duck from egg as an explanation. There must be something more that brought the entire lineage of ducks (or universes) into existence, and we are not content until that explanation explains itself, so to speak. This would be the “necessary” cause you disparaged. We are not interested in relative contingent causes, except in so far as they point beyond themselves to a “final” and sufficient explanation.

Material universes, no matter how many egg stages they have gone through to achieve their present form do not explain themselves and no matter how insistent you are that the paradigm suffices for you, it does not for me. By claiming relative contingent causes are sufficiently explanatory, basically what you are claiming is that a duck from egg analysis is intellectually satisfying for you. That is you being arbitrary.

Just as you can speculate that the big bang was the “egg” stage of this present form of the universe and be content with that, I have an intellectual responsibility to claim that your insistence on that paradigm does not suffice. I am insisting that only “something else,” only something that explains its own existence, can suffice to explain why the universe is here.

You may not like that, but let me hasten to point out that your explanation is akin to claiming that the prior existence of ducks suffices to explain the present existence of ducks. I am merely pointing out, and, ‘composition fallacy’ be shredded by Occam, that your explanation explains nothing.

Now it may certainly be true that the concept of “God” is nebulous and little understood, but it seems to me that if God is to be taken as the explanation for “everything” that exists, God, for that very reason, cannot be easily grasped, certainly not by our limited little minds. But that is exactly what would be expected of a “final explanation.”

Of course, for thinkers who like to be “in control” and have a firm grasp on the handles of their knowledge, secure with what they believe, with neat little explanations secured within tidy little boxes, the duck from egg paradigm to explain the universe certainly fits well within this kind of intellectual “bubble” of curiosity. Again, I warn you to be careful with Occam, especially near bubbles.

A final point. What I have noticed about atheists is a reticence to acknowledge they do not know. Intellectual honesty should make all atheists into agnostics. On the other hand, most agnostics, while admitting that they don’t know, commit an equally disturbing violation of intellectual honesty by claiming that it doesn’t matter.

 

[ateista]

Exactly. Your claim that there is no such thing as an absolutely necessary being, for instance. You are the one who made the dogmatic claim that there cannot be such a being (by saying that “necessary existence” is always relative to some other existence). Yet, weirdly, you want to switch the burden of proof.

I am sure you are aware that there is no way to prove a universal negative. So my request is not “weird” at all.

The basic question here is: why does anything exist? You want to take the “Universe” for granted because you happen to find it lying about, so to speak. (And yes, obviously if it didn’t exist you and I wouldn’t exist to ask why it didn’t!) For some of us that’s not good enough.

Well, I know that. At least I do find the Universe “conveniently” lying about, so we both can agree that it exists.

Let me grant you your assumption and contemplate that the Universe was “created”.

First problem: the principle of conservation of matter / energy (which is quite well established, even though being a law of nature is always subject to be revised - if sufficiently good reason would emerge) expressly states that matter / energy cannot be “created” or “destroyed”. Therefore your suggestion is as unscientific as it can be.

Second problem: According to our understanding “time” is only defined within the Universe. (This is also a scientific assessment, possibly subject to revision, but again, it seems to hold up pretty well.) So to suggest that there was something “before” time is again a totally unscientific proposition, or to be more precise, it is precisely as nonsensical as positing a place which is to the north from the North Pole.

Third problem: If we grant this scientific absurdity that the Universe was created, in what manner is that an “explanation”? Generally speaking an explanation is to reduce something unknown onto something that is already known.

You say “God created the Universe”. Let me translate it for you into everyday terms: “An unknowable being using unknowable means made it somehow happen”. Is that an “explanation”? Sorry, my friend, that is the exact opposite of an explanation: it says that this question is forever outside our reach, it can never be explained.

Your “explanation” is worse than nonsensical, it states that this phenomenon cannot be explained. I, as an atheist deny the existence of magic, be it virgin birth, the Sun stopping on the sky, the deceased rising from their death and the ex nihilo creation.

Obviously our knowledge on the intricacies of nature is insufficient. That, however, does not translate into contemplating insofar impossible ideas.

What makes you think the “Universe” is necessary? Why is it impossible for the “Universe” (by which I mean all the phenomena that we perceive by the senses, or deduce to be perceivable by the senses based on what we do perceive) not to have existed? Is there any good reason in your philosophy why there should be something rather than nothing?

No, there is none.

To take your example: if I went on to an astrology website and posted a thread comparing belief in astrology with nonbelief in it, I would not expect the astrologers to be very impressed if I simply decreed airily “I don’t need to argue against your beliefs, because they are unsupported.”

I would venture to say that your claims are not just unsupported, they are unscientific and lack any explanatory power. “Magic” is not an explanation and never will be.

No doubt it seems eminently sensible to you. However, the purpose of argument is to make other people see as sensible what you see as sensible.

I sure would love that. Or you can convince me that your position is worthy of serious consideration. But you have to do better than positing “magic” as your explanation.

In the previous paragraphs I gave you a few reasons why I reject your assertion. You are welcome to question any of them. But I think it pretty much supports why the creation myth is just that, a myth, without any reason to be taken seriously.

 

[ateista]

Ateista, there you go again setting arbitrary limits on what you are willing to accept as reasonable.

I don’t think it is arbitrary at all. On the contrary, I do think that is arbitrary to posit “necessary” and “contingent” existence (in an absolute manner), since they lack any explanatory power. Indeed, some philosophers posit this distinction as significant, but others do not.

As for the rest, let me point you to the reply I gave to Contarini. There is no need to copy and paste it.

Now it may certainly be true that the concept of “God” is nebulous and little understood, but it seems to me that if God is to be taken as the explanation for “everything” that exists, God, for that very reason, cannot be easily grasped, certainly not by our limited little minds. But that is exactly what would be expected of a “final explanation.”

Except it is not an explanation at all. Again, see my previous post.

A final point. What I have noticed about atheists is a reticence to acknowledge they do not know. Intellectual honesty should make all atheists into agnostics.

No, it should not. We are all agnostics - theists and atheists alike. Neither of us “knows”. We either believe (theists) or do not believe (atheists).

 

[Sarpedon]

You did not establish that it is meaningful speak about the Universe having an external cause.

I gave you a specific causal chain and asked you to address it. I do not have to establish anything, you do.

 

[OTavern]

I would venture to say that your claims are not just unsupported, they are unscientific and lack any explanatory power. “Magic” is not an explanation and never will be.

I sure would love that. Or you can convince me that your position is worthy of serious consideration. But you have to do better than positing “magic” as your explanation.

In the previous paragraphs I gave you a few reasons why I reject your assertion. You are welcome to question any of them. But I think it pretty much supports why the creation myth is just that, a myth, without any reason to be taken seriously.

There are some pretty impressive magicians out there who can do “tricks” that you would be at a loss to explain. You might dismiss these derogatorily as “magic,” too, because you don’t understand the tricks, but obviously, even when, as observers, we are at a loss to explain how they are done, the tricks can be explained by the magicians.

God could very well appear to be a magician to us, however, the explanation is his, not ours, no matter how much you deny that an explanation is even necessary. It IS His trick after all and just as magicians are reticent to reveal their secrets, perhaps God is, too. Maybe if you humour Him a bit, He might shed some light on how He does it.

On the other hand it might be a lot like Einstein trying to explain his thinking to a slug.

I for one am content to believe that whoever created the universe has an understanding and power that is far beyond my understanding. You may call that believing in “magic” if you wish, and I guess it is akin to watching an enthralling magician do their seemingly incomprehensible schtick, but I prefer to stand back in awe and think, “Wow!” and marvel at what is happening before my eyes. I kind of like magic.

Remember, though, that magic to an observer is easily explained by the magician. As an observer to God’s work, I am quite content to wait to be shown the real explanation behind the magic.

You, on the other hand, impatiently dismiss the incomprehensible as irrelevant myth and apply a slash and burn Occam’s Razor to the mystical rainforest in front of your eyes.

For that reason, I find my position of awe and wonder more palatable than yours which is to simply watch the magic with a nonchalant, “Yeah, so what? Who says universes can’t be pulled out of thin air? Nothing to see here, no explanation needed. This kind of stuff happens all the time. Who says it can’t just happen? Nothing magical watching a duck hatch from an egg. That’'s what eggs do. It’s a scientific law like matter can’t be created or destroyed, but it can hatch. You don’t need a magician to explain how ducks hatch.”

Maybe not, but it seems to me that your materialistic perspective makes it difficult for you to see anything “magical” in the existence of ducks or anything else in the universe. You have a difficult time applying anything but a rigid “material cause” paradigm to the universe. Loosen up a bit.

Perhaps if you applied an "artist-masterpiece, “author-story” or even “magician-trick” paradigm, you might gain some insight which up to now merely sits in your blind spot. Try it! You might add “Life” to your thinking. But of course that would mean admitting the possibility of an Intelligence greater than yours behind the universe. Scary prospect.

 

[OTavern]

First problem: the principle of conservation of matter / energy (which is quite well established, even though being a law of nature is always subject to be revised - if sufficiently good reason would emerge) expressly states that matter / energy cannot be “created” or “destroyed”. Therefore your suggestion is as unscientific as it can be.

A reminder that this “law” about the behaviour of matter and energy is simply a generalization that human beings “observe” about matter and energy. There is no logical cogency in the generalization. 'We have never seen it" is not the same as “It cannot.” No matter what scientists believe about the scientific method, it does not govern the universe, but only attempts to describe it. Appealing to this law is like saying, “We scientists all believe matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore it can’t.” Good on you.

An analogy would be someone waking up on a speeding train and observing, “This train doesn’t start or stop, so I guess it can’t start or stop.” Obviously when it started, it did and when it stops it will. Ditto the universe. Matter could have come into being when it did and could go out of existence when it does. Being in the middle of the ride does not give us the right to conclude about beginnings and endings. Even if there were no mechanism aboard the train/universe to stop/start it does not give us a right to conclude there is no way of doing so

Second problem: According to our understanding “time” is only defined within the Universe. (This is also a scientific assessment, possibly subject to revision, but again, it seems to hold up pretty well.) So to suggest that there was something “before” time is again a totally unscientific proposition, or to be more precise, it is precisely as nonsensical as positing a place which is to the north from the North Pole.

It may be as nonsensical as asking, “Where is your mind?” or “Where did that thought come from?” If you are restricted to the bubble-like enclosure of a materialistic view, then anything outside of it is nonsensical because it cannot be explained materially, but that is assuming the material universe is all there is. So in what location precisely does your conscious identity reside? North of your pituitary gland?

Your entire understanding of the universe is dependent upon the accurate and comprehensive decoding of sensory data done by your brain/mind. That entire construct has a tenuous foundation - your intelligence.

Time itself could very well be a limitation we impose on reality, a way of tracking change, a “filter” on the world imposed by the limitations of our consciousness. To say something happens “outside” of time simply means beyond the limitations of the human brain’s method of tracking change. That is not as nonsensical as you claim.

Third problem: If we grant this scientific absurdity that the Universe was created, in what manner is that an “explanation”? Generally speaking an explanation is to reduce something unknown onto something that is already known.

You say “God created the Universe”. Let me translate it for you into everyday terms: “An unknowable being using unknowable means made it somehow happen”. Is that an “explanation”?

Perhaps not, but your assumption is that the human mind can understand everything there is to be understood about the universe. How do you know that to be true? Why can’t an intelligence far beyond human capacity using means only knowable to Him bring about the incomprehensible act of creating the universe? The universe is, after all, an amazingly incomprehensible place. One that we only understand the tiniest fraction of. What right do we have to draw conclusions about ultimate explanations when we have such a miniscule grasp on the subject?

An incomprehensible cause seems to me to be a more reasonable, honest and humble admission than yours, which boils down to, “If ateista can’t understand it, then it must be pure nonsense.” A slug would say the same thing after finding out a human being assembled a computer. "What do you mean ‘An unknowable being using unknowable means made it somehow happen’? Is that an “explanation?” Obviously it isn’t to a slug. But it would be true from the slug’s point of view since the real explanation would be inexplicable to it.

Just as an aside, Peter Kreeft’s analysis of “Till We have Faces” by C.S Lewis sheds some light on the idea of why we can’t see God “face to face” so to speak. This addresses the “unknowable” quality of God in a unique way.

 

[ibetrippin07]

The creator of this post and of course no real offence but seems somewhat self centered. u compare the relationship between God and man to that of a master and his dog. This is somewhat true because as we act up we are chastised and of course rewarded greatly for following our master to the end.
Of course this talk of God creating an equal to him is the same thing Satan said is it not? its the same stupid idea. I want to be Gods equal because I said so. Didn’t Nebuchadnezzar lose everything he had because of his selfishness? i want this i did that i am this. wrong idea bud. u just rationalize God out of the equation because you dont want somebody to answer to, you dont want an ultimate authority. Just because you decide God does not exist because he didnt make man equal and that dosent make sense in your mind does not mean that your right. there are plenty a person who can tell you your wrong especially here…well too bad. there is an ultimate authority, and i honestly feel sorry the sad surprise your in for if you keep up that act. Good day

 

[ateista]

God could very well appear to be a magician to us, however, the explanation is his, not ours, no matter how much you deny that an explanation is even necessary. It IS His trick after all and just as magicians are reticent to reveal their secrets, perhaps God is, too. Maybe if you humour Him a bit, He might shed some light on how He does it.

I am always open to that possibility. But no explanation is forthcoming. In the meantime I will go with the available evidence and do not entertain “magic” as an “explanation”.

On the other hand it might be a lot like Einstein trying to explain his thinking to a slug.

Quite possible. But since we are “slugs”, we must use our “slug-type” faculties to arrive at a “sluggish” result.

I for one am content to believe that whoever created the universe has an understanding and power that is far beyond my understanding. You may call that believing in “magic” if you wish, and I guess it is akin to watching an enthralling magician do their seemingly incomprehensible schtick, but I prefer to stand back in awe and think, “Wow!” and marvel at what is happening before my eyes. I kind of like magic.

I like honest stage-magic, too. But I don’t give credence to the Uri Geller type stage magicians, who claim that they don’t know how do they do their tricks, because they use their unexplained “paranormal” powers.

Remember, though, that magic to an observer is easily explained by the magician. As an observer to God’s work, I am quite content to wait to be shown the real explanation behind the magic.

I don’t doubt your honesty, but it is merely a personal preference, since you did not give me any reason to see more than that.

You, on the other hand, impatiently dismiss the incomprehensible as irrelevant myth and apply a slash and burn Occam’s Razor to the mystical rainforest in front of your eyes.

Very poetic, but not true.

For that reason, I find my position of awe and wonder more palatable than yours which is to simply watch the magic with a nonchalant, “Yeah, so what? Who says universes can’t be pulled out of thin air? Nothing to see here, no explanation needed. This kind of stuff happens all the time. Who says it can’t just happen? Nothing magical watching a duck hatch from an egg. That’'s what eggs do. It’s a scientific law like matter can’t be created or destroyed, but it can hatch. You don’t need a magician to explain how ducks hatch.”

Oh, I am awed as well, when I look at the complexity and beauty of the Universe. I am awed at the different colors and textures of vegetation, at the beauty of a butterfly, at the complexity of the Mandelbrot-set, at the work of the termites to maintain constant temperature and humidity for the queen (no one knows how that happens and it is a fascinating problem!), and zillions of other things. Of course I am not awed by Alzheimer disease, at the Down-syndrome, and zillions of other things.

But my amazement makes me looking for natural causes, and when my knowledge is not enough, then I will admit it, and then keep on looking for more. The “explanation” of “goddidit” is never applicable.

But of course that would mean admitting the possibility of an Intelligence greater than yours behind the universe.

Of course I admit the possibility. But a mere possibility is not a good reason to contemplate it seriously. A reasonable evidence would do the “trick” just fine.

It is not “impossible” that the Universe was created by God a split second ago, and all my memories are actually implanted by God to “hide” this fact. Not impossible, but why should one entertain such a hypothesis?

Scary prospect.

No, there is nothing scary about it. I am very much aware of my limited faculties, insufficient knowledge and always stay open for explanations. But “goddidit” is not an explanation.

 

[ateista]

A reminder that this “law” about the behaviour of matter and energy is simply a generalization that human beings “observe” about matter and energy. There is no logical cogency in the generalization. 'We have never seen it" is not the same as “It cannot.” No matter what scientists believe about the scientific method, it does not govern the universe, but only attempts to describe it. Appealing to this law is like saying, “We scientists all believe matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore it can’t.” Good on you.

I already admitted that when I conceded the tenuousness of all the natural laws.

It may be as nonsensical as asking, “Where is your mind?” or “Where did that thought come from?” If you are restricted to the bubble-like enclosure of a materialistic view, then anything outside of it is nonsensical because it cannot be explained materially, but that is assuming the material universe is all there is. So in what location precisely does your conscious identity reside? North of your pituitary gland?

A nonsensical question. The mind is the activity of the brain. It would be just as incorrect to ask: “where is the walking of my legs, when I sit still?”. Not all syntactically well-formed questions can be answered. For example: “When did you stop beating your wife?”.

Your entire understanding of the universe is dependent upon the accurate and comprehensive decoding of sensory data done by your brain/mind. That entire construct has a tenuous foundation - your intelligence.

Sure it is tenuous. That is why we must stay open to the possibility that our current understanding is insufficient and needs to be revised. That is the scientifc method.

But this alertness should not go too far. We must not have so open a mind that it simply “falls out”. There must be a very good reason to revise our current understanding, not just a “whim” that maybe “matter and energy can be created after all”. Yes, it is a possibility, but without a very good and serious reason it would be foolish to entertain such a revision.

The funny stuff is that New Agers use the same type of reasoning when they complain that science is not interested in investigating the curative powers of crystals. Believers of the paranormal complain about the “closed-mindedness” of scientists when they decline to investigate “dowsing”, “telekinesis” and the like. Believers of UFO-s complain that their “testimony” is neglected. There are still people who keep bugging the physicists with their “perpetual motion machines”, and are upset that no one pays them any attention. Do you really wish to belong to that “illustrious” crowd?

Precisely because the actual beauty and complexity of the real world is so overwhelming and difficult to comprehend that scientists do not want to be bothered by such “problems”. They have no time and energy left to go off on a wild-goose chase.

Some philosophers and theologians want to challenge the established scientific truths. Of course they are welcome to try, but they should do their homework first. They cannot just walk up and say: “hey, maybe matter can be created and we demand equal attention”. They won’t get it. And they can only blame themselves because a “whim” is not a sufficient reason to discard the results of science for the non-explanation of “goddidit”.

Time itself could very well be a limitation we impose on reality, a way of tracking change, a “filter” on the world imposed by the limitations of our consciousness. To say something happens “outside” of time simply means beyond the limitations of the human brain’s method of tracking change. That is not as nonsensical as you claim.

The same objections apply here. Time is a very difficult concept, but - for the time being (pardon my pun) - the current understanding seems to work quite well.

Perhaps not, but your assumption is that the human mind can understand everything there is to be understood about the universe. How do you know that to be true?

We don’t know that. It is simply a good null-hypothesis, and it has quite an impressive track record. What would you suggest as an alternative null-hypothesis? This one, maybe: “We draw an arbitrary line and say: human knowledge can be extended this far, but not any further?”

This is the whole point: “goddidit” is posited as the final “explanation”. Maybe it is true, maybe it is not. But even if it were true, it would not be an explanation.