All well and good, but are you now conceding that you have no argument for your God as Creator other than belief?
If you do have an argument, it has to be able to explain why God as Creator has to be self aware.
No that's not what I'm saying ( for myself). I'm saying that it makes more sense to me that the universe was designed, than that it wasn't. It's not just faith, it's an intuitive sense, as well.
I don't have to explain how or why God is self aware. I can't even assume a Creator God is like me. I can project human qualities onto Creator God, but that doesn't mean Creator God has them, or has them in the same way.
In replying to Richard I was not speaking of myself. I was attempting to explain those who say " I know," that I doubt they mean scientifically.
By definition those who put store in the scientific methods are open to new findings about the nature of the Universe and hence cannot claim they know for sure how things came to be.
By definition convinced believers in a Creator God believe thy do know the nature of the Universe and how it was created.
That would be the ideal. Sometimes the adoption of a new paradigm based on those new findings requires the believers of the previous paradigm to literally die out, rather than for them to accept they were wrong all along.
That would be the ideal. Sometimes the adoption of a new paradigm based on those new findings requires the believers of the previous paradigm to literally die out, rather than for them to accept they were wrong all along.
What paradigm are you speaking of?
Science hasn't shown us that there is no Creator God, or at least no designer or higher intelligence.
There is no paradigm that has to be adopted.
Where is it and based on what evidence?
If anything scientists studying the universe are like persons peeling layers of an onion.
When they think they have the answer, they only found another layer.
No that's not what I'm saying ( for myself). I'm saying that it makes more sense to me that the universe was designed, than that it wasn't. It's not just faith, it's an intuitive sense, as well.
I don't have to explain how or why God is self aware. I can't even assume a Creator God is like me. I can project human qualities onto Creator God, but that doesn't mean Creator God has them, or has them in the same way.
In replying to Richard I was not speaking of myself. I was attempting to explain those who say " I know," that I doubt they mean scientifically.
For my part, it's about defending the integrity of a physicalist viewpoint. It has the merits of being neither a tautology nor a comfort blanket.
I know that kind of belief is not the same as knowledge. It is a religious conviction is it not?
I agree it is a conviction, as you would know from Dawkin's belief scale.
That doesn't translate that all, or even most believers today, have a conviction about the specific details of how the universe emerged.
I don't see anything wrong with having a belief ( in God or a higher intelligence) and not having to wait for science to give us a final answer. If indeed science can even give a final answer to a religious and philosophical question.
We can't logically change our minds each time science changes its mind. Years ago Vitamin C supplements were good, then they probably weren't doing much, and today if you ignored that and took your supplement, you may have been preventing cancer.
To some extent we have to rely on our intuitive knowledge. Sometimes we are waiting for science to catch up with us.
We can't logically change our minds each time science changes its mind. Years ago Vitamin C supplements were good, then they probably weren't doing much, and today if you ignored that and took your supplement, you may have been preventing cancer.
I thought it was apparent from my post about the Vitamin C supplement, as one example.
Nope.
We don't have magical foreknowledge. Ignoring the evidence which suggests that something may be useless because new evidence found in the future might prove that isn't useless is never a good idea, in my opinion.
All we can do is follow the evidence and change our position as the evidence changes.
We aren't psychic (well, I'm certainly not anyway ;-) )
No that's not what I'm saying ( for myself). I'm saying that it makes more sense to me that the universe was designed, than that it wasn't. It's not just faith, it's an intuitive sense, as well.
So how does your intuition manage the anomaly of the precariously low mass of the Higgs? Why would a competent designer choose to make a universe which "may - at some indeterminate point - be destroyed."?
I don't have to explain how or why God is self aware. I can't even assume a Creator God is like me. I can project human qualities onto Creator God, but that doesn't mean Creator God has them, or has them in the same way.
So science is to provide accurate details of how the universe came to be the way we observe it, even during the first moments of its beginning, but religions need provide nothing to explain their claims? A bit one sided isn't it?
I disagree that it's not a comfort blanket. It's just a different kind of comfort blanket.
Being physicalist shapes my outlook, but when I use a word I like to use it as consensus intended. Obviously I find comfort where I can find it but I'd like to learn where you think that might be ... alternatively ... how do you get "comfort blanket" from "existential angst"?
kuhns famous book is a silly marxist anti rational rant. basically, either scientists are attempting to find out some version of truth with theories and experiments, or if not then they are following an ideology ........ the sort of sociological behaviour kuhn describes applies to all professions, not just science!
I agree it is a conviction, as you would know from Dawkin's belief scale.
That doesn't translate that all, or even most believers today, have a conviction about the specific details of how the universe emerged.
I don't see anything wrong with having a belief ( in God or a higher intelligence) and not having to wait for science to give us a final answer. If indeed science can even give a final answer to a religious and philosophical question.
We can't logically change our minds each time science changes its mind. Years ago Vitamin C supplements were good, then they probably weren't doing much, and today if you ignored that and took your supplement, you may have been preventing cancer.
To some extent we have to rely on our intuitive knowledge. Sometimes we are waiting for science to catch up with us.
thats why i believe the sun goes round the earth. it just feels right.
God is only an 'explanation' if we can explain 'God'. Otherwise it is just an unexplained word. A substitute for an explanation.
If we can explain God it just becomes a phenomena and ceases to be god. See the problem?
bollocks.
as kant pointed out - in one of his famous antinomies -either a causal chain continues forever, or it comes to an end with a "first cause". if god exists then he has no cause. and therefore is fundamentally diffferent from everything else which depends on him.
Or indeed justify the statement that the Universe has a beginning?
I watched a cracking episode of Cosmos on DVD the other day (the Carl Sagan classic version) about whether or not the Universe is like that. Sure science might not have the answers but nothing prevents it from getting there eventually, does it?
I wonder what spiney's Carl Sagan one liner will be ...
carl sagan was a great man who did much good. i am not.
I agree it is a conviction, as you would know from Dawkin's belief scale.
That doesn't translate that all, or even most believers today, have a conviction about the specific details of how the universe emerged.
I don't see anything wrong with having a belief ( in God or a higher intelligence) and not having to wait for science to give us a final answer. If indeed science can even give a final answer to a religious and philosophical question.
We can't logically change our minds each time science changes its mind. Years ago Vitamin C supplements were good, then they probably weren't doing much, and today if you ignored that and took your supplement, you may have been preventing cancer.
To some extent we have to rely on our intuitive knowledge. Sometimes we are waiting for science to catch up with us.
science cannot decide metaphysical matters, but can throw some light on physical ones. for example the fact of a food chain with creatues higher up killing and eating those lower down doesnt like like the work of an all wise and omnipotent creator ........
science cannot decide metaphysical matters, but can throw some light on physical ones. for example the fact of a food chain with creatues higher up killing and eating those lower down doesnt like like the work of an all wise and omnipotent creator ........
But that assumes any possible creator would put the same value on life as we do, which is not likely if one does exist imo.
kuhns famous book is a silly marxist anti rational rant. basically, either scientists are attempting to find out some version of truth with theories and experiments, or if not then they are following an ideology ........ the sort of sociological behaviour kuhn describes applies to all professions, not just science!
Can you do a Carl Sagan critique spiney-style as I'd hoped for yesterday please?
PS I just caught your nice reply about CS.
I don't think you're not nice, quite refreshingly abrasive but well read, even if we disagree.
as kant pointed out - in one of his famous antinomies -either a causal chain continues forever, or it comes to an end with a "first cause". if god exists then he has no cause. and therefore is fundamentally diffferent from everything else which depends on him.
Yes, but down in the dirt who thinks it makes any sense to declare a special case absent an explanation? It's "my Dad is bigger than your Dad" stuff from people who desperately need to justify their beliefs.
Still no answers about why God the Creator comes with religious baggage.
Comments
No that's not what I'm saying ( for myself). I'm saying that it makes more sense to me that the universe was designed, than that it wasn't. It's not just faith, it's an intuitive sense, as well.
I don't have to explain how or why God is self aware. I can't even assume a Creator God is like me. I can project human qualities onto Creator God, but that doesn't mean Creator God has them, or has them in the same way.
In replying to Richard I was not speaking of myself. I was attempting to explain those who say " I know," that I doubt they mean scientifically.
That would be the ideal. Sometimes the adoption of a new paradigm based on those new findings requires the believers of the previous paradigm to literally die out, rather than for them to accept they were wrong all along.
What paradigm are you speaking of?
Science hasn't shown us that there is no Creator God, or at least no designer or higher intelligence.
There is no paradigm that has to be adopted.
Where is it and based on what evidence?
If anything scientists studying the universe are like persons peeling layers of an onion.
When they think they have the answer, they only found another layer.
For my part, it's about defending the integrity of a physicalist viewpoint. It has the merits of being neither a tautology nor a comfort blanket.
I know that kind of belief is not the same as knowledge. It is a religious conviction is it not?
I agree it is a conviction, as you would know from Dawkin's belief scale.
That doesn't translate that all, or even most believers today, have a conviction about the specific details of how the universe emerged.
I don't see anything wrong with having a belief ( in God or a higher intelligence) and not having to wait for science to give us a final answer. If indeed science can even give a final answer to a religious and philosophical question.
We can't logically change our minds each time science changes its mind. Years ago Vitamin C supplements were good, then they probably weren't doing much, and today if you ignored that and took your supplement, you may have been preventing cancer.
To some extent we have to rely on our intuitive knowledge. Sometimes we are waiting for science to catch up with us.
I disagree that it's not a comfort blanket. It's just a different kind of comfort blanket.
Why not?
I thought it was apparent from my post about the Vitamin C supplement, as one example.
Nope.
We don't have magical foreknowledge. Ignoring the evidence which suggests that something may be useless because new evidence found in the future might prove that isn't useless is never a good idea, in my opinion.
All we can do is follow the evidence and change our position as the evidence changes.
We aren't psychic (well, I'm certainly not anyway ;-) )
So science is to provide accurate details of how the universe came to be the way we observe it, even during the first moments of its beginning, but religions need provide nothing to explain their claims? A bit one sided isn't it?
In Thomas Kuhn's sense, specific to science.
Being physicalist shapes my outlook, but when I use a word I like to use it as consensus intended. Obviously I find comfort where I can find it but I'd like to learn where you think that might be ... alternatively ... how do you get "comfort blanket" from "existential angst"?
http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html
From link above:
"Scientists do not see something as something else; instead, they simply see it"
kuhns famous book is a silly marxist anti rational rant. basically, either scientists are attempting to find out some version of truth with theories and experiments, or if not then they are following an ideology ........ the sort of sociological behaviour kuhn describes applies to all professions, not just science!
thats why i believe the sun goes round the earth. it just feels right.
bollocks.
as kant pointed out - in one of his famous antinomies -either a causal chain continues forever, or it comes to an end with a "first cause". if god exists then he has no cause. and therefore is fundamentally diffferent from everything else which depends on him.
carl sagan was a great man who did much good. i am not.
never use two lines if one is enough ........
are u thinking about linus pauling here ? he was wrong on this particular matter ......
science cannot decide metaphysical matters, but can throw some light on physical ones. for example the fact of a food chain with creatues higher up killing and eating those lower down doesnt like like the work of an all wise and omnipotent creator ........
But that assumes any possible creator would put the same value on life as we do, which is not likely if one does exist imo.
Can you do a Carl Sagan critique spiney-style as I'd hoped for yesterday please?
PS I just caught your nice reply about CS.
I don't think you're not nice, quite refreshingly abrasive but well read, even if we disagree.
Yes, but down in the dirt who thinks it makes any sense to declare a special case absent an explanation? It's "my Dad is bigger than your Dad" stuff from people who desperately need to justify their beliefs.
Still no answers about why God the Creator comes with religious baggage.