What's up with cosmologists who don't believe in God?

[WillP]

1. I am not an idealist. I believe in the reality of both mind and matter.
2. You are a materialist who believes the mind is merely the brain, i.e. matter, in action.
3. Matter knows nothing.
4. Nothing would make sense in a world consisting solely of matter.
5. Yet to** know** something wouldn’t make sense implies that the world doesn’t consist solely of matter.

1. Belief in both mind and matter, doesn’t preclude your argument form being an appeal to idealism.
2. You don’t know me well enough to know to which philosophical persuasion I subscribe, or, which most closely resembles my thinking. It is true I do not accept traditional faith influenced explantions, but, that doesn’t make me necessarily a materialist.
3. Advanced dementia patients have the type of cognitive deficits suggestive that matter (cerebral organs) certainly are necessary to “knowing”. I do agree, however, that we have much to learn about consciousness, its relationship to the physical. Unlike some others,however, I hardly think that faith supplies adequate answers much less is able to “close the book” on such profound subject matter.
4. I don’t think this statement can be supported with sustained rational argument.
5. It doesn’t make sense to whom? If it makes sense to someone or to others, then, the implications certainly will be different than that “the world consist soley of matter”. Nonetheless, I will partially agree and say that science doesn’t yet know what reality is comprised of. Matter and energy, of cource, but, what else is there and how is sense made of all of this. These are questions for science.
   

 

[JDaniel]

Why don’t you, instead, call it simply a fact. Namely that 2 plus 2 equals 4 regardless of what minds there are. Why do you insist that there is a person behind the mask of reality. Why do you think, for that matter, that reality is a mask?

Will:

Because, without a rational mind, and speech ability, those five words wouldn’t exist, save for the presupposition that an Eternal Being existed that could hold them. Such a formula, as well as the numbers involved, is what’s called a “mathematical abstraction.” A mathematical abstraction is an abstraction that, unlike first order (physical) abstractions, leaves aside all sensible matter and retains in the abstracted result universal intelligible matter. It is, thus, immaterial, in the physical sense.

Besides, in another, different universe, your so-called “fact” may not, in fact, be a fact.

God bless.
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Smolin’s hypothesis of Cosmological Natural Selection fails. I discuss this extensively in chapter 3 of my article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

Al:

I am currently about half way through your article. I must say, it is rather impressive. I hope the second half is as good as the first. But, I have no doubts.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

One could say that the God theory raises a large number of questions as well…

If he does indeed exist, I see no problems here.

You should look into the anthropic principle, which (IMHO) explains these incredible coincidences extremely well. In a nutshell, the AP states that if these conditions were to arise somewhere it must necessarily be here, because we are here to observe them. Those trillions of other planets which have not met the conditions for life have no one on them to wonder why they are too hot for water, too cold, or whatever. The one planet on which life arises must necessarily be the one where someone exists to wonder at their extreme luck.

Poseidon:

“Extreme luck?” “Extreme?” It’s a veritable plethora of extreme luck! If any one of the constants were to be present, anyone would consider that “extreme luck”. But, the currently existing plethora of constants!? And the sheer intricate edge that each is balanced on? Even lots of atheists agree that something else is in the mix that is far, far greater than mere naked luck or evolution. The analogy of the team of 50 trained riflemen, who all take aim at a person sentenced to die by firing squad, yet all miss the target, comes to mind!

You may as well throw in the towel. Or, you could just cross over.

God bless,
jd

 

[WillP]

Will:

Because, without a rational mind, and speech ability, those five words wouldn’t exist, save for the presupposition that an Eternal Being existed that could hold them. Such a formula, as well as the numbers involved, is what’s called a “mathematical abstraction.” A mathematical abstraction is an abstraction that, unlike first order (physical) abstractions, leaves aside all sensible matter and retains in the abstracted result universal intelligible matter. It is, thus, immaterial, in the physical sense.

Besides, in another, different universe, your so-called “fact” may not, in fact, be a fact.

God bless.
jd

Your proposition,more simply put,appears to be that a mind cannot exist independent of a person.This creates anthomorphic condition which violates the parsimony which is suppossed to define the god of your faith (ie the characteristic of simplicity) In any other case, it seems to me you have the same problem with your concept of “god”. Without a rational mind which beholds “god” there would not be any such being.

Make sense?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Your proposition,more simply put,appears to be that a mind cannot exist independent of a person.This creates anthomorphic condition which violates the parsimony which is suppossed to define the god of your faith (ie the characteristic of simplicity) In any other case, it seems to me you have the same problem with your concept of “god”. ** Without a rational mind which beholds “god” there would not be any such being. **

Make sense?

Regarding the bolded section, I think you will be surprised what you find by reading up on the Catholic understanding of the trinity, particularly Aquinas’ explication. Aquinas left very few philosophical rocks unturned.

 

[WillP]

Regarding the bolded section, I think you will be surprised what you find by reading up on the Catholic understanding of the trinity, particularly Aquinas’ explication. Aquinas left very few philosophical rocks unturned.

I was educated by the Jesuits , both HS and university. I know Thomistic philosophy very well. It isn’t that impressive. Sorry.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I was educated by the Jesuits , both HS and university. I know Thomistic philosophy very well. It isn’t that impressive. Sorry.

Well, regardless of your overall impression of Thomism, it does address and resolve the conundrum you proposed.

 

[tonyrey]

Your proposition,more simply put,appears to be that a mind cannot exist independent of a person.This creates anthomorphic condition which violates the parsimony which is suppossed to define the god of your faith (ie the characteristic of simplicity) In any other case, it seems to me you have the same problem with your concept of “god”. Without a rational mind which beholds “god” there would not be any such being.

Make sense?

It undoubtedly makes sense to those who believe rational minds don’t have a rational origin because for them everything is fundamentally and unfailingly senseless!

 

[WillP]

It undoubtedly makes sense to those who believe rational minds don’t have a rational origin because for them everything is fundamentally and unfailingly senseless!

And conversely, it wouldn’t make sense to those who believe that a rational God has no origin…

 

[WillP]

Well, regardless of your overall impression of Thomism, it does address and resolve the conundrum you proposed.

Certainly, you appear to have been convinced. I regret, however, I don’t find Thomas’ medieval version of Aristilian reasonong compelling.

Medieval thinkers, theologians and philosophers were basically “wordsmiths”. This is not to be demeaning, and, in fact, it is quite understadable because there was no tradition of reliance on empirical methods or studies. Classical arguments like Saint Anselm’s, for example, alluded to word play and language syllagisms which acquired an undeserved respectability, at least, by 21st century standards.

I offer the suggestion that one examine some of the work of Wittgenstein and get “his take” on language. In doing so, you may find that you agree with me that a great deal of what we say is gibberish.

 

[WillP]

Will:

Because, without a rational mind, and speech ability, those five words wouldn’t exist, save for the presupposition that an Eternal Being existed that could hold them. Such a formula, as well as the numbers involved, is what’s called a “mathematical abstraction.” A mathematical abstraction is an abstraction that, unlike first order (physical) abstractions, leaves aside all sensible matter and retains in the abstracted result universal intelligible matter. It is, thus, immaterial, in the physical sense.

Besides, in another, different universe, your so-called “fact” may not, in fact, be a fact.

---

1. The original question remains. Why do you think that a “mind” must preexist reality. Can’t you entertain the possibility that “reality” is in itself rational? The “ghost within a machine” view of some is puzzling to me.
2. And, in answer to your second observation, Yes I guess I have to agree that if things were different, then indeed things would be different. However, tautologies are not productive to advancing any discourse.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t mean cosmologists on these forums…I don’t know if there are any.

I was watching a TV show the other night - I think it was “Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman”, because I’m a huge science nerd. The topic was: What’s at the edge of the Universe? Some of the answers given by the scientists they interviewed were pretty mind-blowing…we could all be living inside a “hologram” universe where reality only exists in two dimensions at the edge of expanding spacetime, or we could be living in one of an infinite number of universes, all connected in a “multiverse”. Apparently theoretical physics has moved beyond the Big Bang as the great unknown, and now there are branches of cosmology that speculate on what came before.

Don’t ask me how the theories work, math is definitely not my subject. But what I was wondering as I watched this show was, “What’s the point of studying all this?” I mean, it’s very cool, and of course there’s the innate human desire to learn as much as we can about the world we live in…but what do these guys really expect to find when it’s all said and done?

Suppose they can eventually discover the “theory” that explains the way everything works (which I don’t think is possible). But just suppose they can. What does that really prove? Many in the scientific community would say that it somehow proves that God doesn’t exist. Aren’t scientists out there smart enough to realize that you can’t EVER find out what the ultimate beginning of existence is through scientific measurements or theory? I think many non-scientists were happy enough to admit that the Big Band happened, but that it must have been God who made it go “Bang”.

It seems to make no difference whether the limits of our understanding is the Big Bang or the multiverse, or something else…doesn’t an honest, logical person have to admit eventually that there’s no way to see beyond THE beginning? We can’t measure God, and we can’t measure anything that came before time began…so what’s the ultimate payoff for cosmology?

Maybe I’m just rambling to myself…

Science and cosmology are among my favorite subjects. However, a few scientists were upset by the idea that the universe had a beginning or Big Bang. If you read this article, published in the science journal, Nature, you’ll get a snapshot of leading scientists and their beliefs.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Science involves using imagination as well as using the tools at hand. So it is OK to imagine a multiverse or some other concept but another thing to provide evidence that it’s a true and accurate depiction of what we know about the universe. Take Dark Matter. The basic idea is that as far as our telescopes can show, there is not enough visible matter out there, so the “must” be something else. Something we can’t see or detect. The payoff may be that we don’t know as much about the universe as we will as new probes and devices become available. Black Holes, Quasars - all relatively new, and still not fully understood.

Peace,
Ed

 

[WillP]

Science and cosmology are among my favorite subjects. However, a few scientists were upset by the idea that the universe had a beginning or Big Bang. If you read this article, published in the science journal, Nature, you’ll get a snapshot of leading scientists and their beliefs.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Science involves using imagination as well as using the tools at hand. So it is OK to imagine a multiverse or some other concept but another thing to provide evidence that it’s a true and accurate depiction of what we know about the universe. Take Dark Matter. The basic idea is that as far as our telescopes can show, there is not enough visible matter out there, so the “must” be something else. Something we can’t see or detect. The payoff may be that we don’t know as much about the universe as we will as new probes and devices become available. Black Holes, Quasars - all relatively new, and still not fully understood.
Peace,
Ed

I wouldn’t think that evidence to support a belief would be of importance to people of faith. Isn’t faith thought to be a viable alternative to evidence?

 

[WillP]

I fail to see how the notion of design presents an obstacle to comprehension. If anything, it reinforces the idea that reality is indeed comprehensible.

What role, may I ask, do you see God playing in the “creation” of our universe?

P.S. That link doesn’t work.

Perhaps the better question is what god do you see playing a role?

 

[JDaniel]

Your proposition,more simply put,appears to be that a mind cannot exist independent of a person.This creates anthomorphic condition which violates the parsimony which is suppossed to define the god of your faith (ie the characteristic of simplicity) In any other case, it seems to me you have the same problem with your concept of “god”. Without a rational mind which beholds “god” there would not be any such being.

Make sense?

Will:

I understand what you are attempting to say here. But, I think if you will re-consider what our position is, you might see that it is more parsimonious than you describe. Parsimony is not a determinant of the God of Christians. Simplicity is, but that means something else. How parsimonious could an Infinite Creator Being be? Yet the notion that the universe was created by God, is far more parsimonious than any of the theories of contemporary anti-theist cosmologists. The biggest problems they have have to do with all of the finely tuned anthropic constants of this universe, that converge like a single person winning the superlottery six times in succession! You would immediately presume that the game was rigged, and seek to put the “lucky” winner permanently behind bars!

The simplicity of God has to do with the fact that he is uncomposed, i.e., has no inside, or outside, parts: which makes him unalterable.

Further, we do not believe that the soul and the mind are distinct. They are combined, as body and soul, and thus the identity of a person remains after his death. That is, he will continue to possess the continuity of all of his memories and thoughts that delineate him as who he is.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I was educated by the Jesuits , both HS and university. I know Thomistic philosophy very well. It isn’t that impressive. Sorry.

Will:

I would have to say that either somebody did a terrible job of teaching it to you, or somebody did a terrible job of learning it - because Prodigalson is correct. Seven or eight years of Jesuit training and you don’t think Aquinas is impressive? Even many of the atheists herein would argue with you against that!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

And conversely, it wouldn’t make sense to those who believe that a rational God has no origin…

Will:

So. Who originated our rational God? The real rational God? Or, the God that originates gods? Do you see that your statement makes no sense?

god bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Certainly, you appear to have been convinced. I regret, however, I don’t find Thomas’ medieval version of Aristotelian reasoning compelling.

Medieval thinkers, theologians and philosophers were basically “wordsmiths”.

Will:

Do you seriously think today’s scientists *smith words *much differently? In my opinion, today’s scientists are much, much, much worse. In fact, I was just reading one of them, and talk about gibberish! Almost half the words he wrote we made up, pieced together, intellectual-sounding, and inserted to fit his POV as perfectly as possible. Talk about self-serving! Please!

I offer the suggestion that one examine some of the work of Wittgenstein and get “his take” on language.

One of my very favorites!

In doing so, you may find that you agree with me that a great deal of what we say is gibberish.

Not of St. Thomas’ writing!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel;9418132:

Will:

Because, without a rational mind

, and speech ability, those five words wouldn’t exist, save for the presupposition that an Eternal Being existed that could hold them. Such a formula, as well as the numbers involved, is what’s called a “mathematical abstraction.” A mathematical abstraction is an abstraction that, unlike first order (physical) abstractions, leaves aside all sensible matter and retains in the abstracted result universal intelligible matter. It is, thus, immaterial, in the physical sense.

Besides, in another, different universe, your so-called “fact” may not, in fact, be a fact.

---

1. The original question remains. Why do you think that a “mind” must preexist reality.

Because I do not believe that nothing can produce something.

And furthermore, what we see is incredibly fine tuned, as Al Moritz might say, such that these fine tunings sit easily on the edge of the sharpest razor we can imagine!

Can’t you entertain the possibility that “reality” is in itself rational?

Actually, yes, but not in the sense you mean. I consider reality to be God precisely. And, what we perceive is a hologram, that we call reality. (Last week, the physicists almost got it right!)

The “ghost within a machine” view of some is puzzling to me.

To me, what’s puzzling is the arrogance of belief that we are actually causes of things!.

1. And, in answer to your second observation, Yes I guess I have to agree that if things were different, then indeed things would be different. However, tautologies are not productive to advancing any discourse.

Why? They don’t seem to be a problem for physicists, or many other so-called scientists?

Nevertheless, you are right about one thing: “tautologies” do not produce definitions.

God bless,
jd