My Proclivity for Inspiring Long UD Threads

_{Gil Dodgen

September 14, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Because of my many duties and responsibilities I post infrequently at UD. However, I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon: My posts seem to inspire a great amount of debate and very long threads, as is the case here.

I have a theory about why this is the case.

My thesis is that people like me, a former materialist atheist, who have been influenced by logic, reason, and evidence (i.e., the ID movement) represent the greatest threat to the reigning nihilistic and anti-intellectual Darwinian orthodoxy.

Comments

avocationist, As I was reading through these posts once again, trying to get a handle on certain thought processes, I came upon your statement that "everything is in God." While I don't believe that, I certainly understand why you do. My understanding in this regard is that God is everywhere. Since God is immanent, He is not confined to a space, but is in space. He is transcendent, He is not confined to matter, time or pace, but is in matter and time and space. This does not mean necessarily that He is a part of any of these categories. I don't believe He would or could be transcendent if He was at all a part of something He created. I can accept that perhaps when God manifests Himself to us in some form that there might be a physicality to that, but such a physicality is something akin to CS Lewis's angels in "The Dark Tower." I don't believe ultimately that He is limited to whatever hypothetical physicality by which He manifests Himself. Otherwise, He wouldn't be transcendent. This is why I say "essence" rather than "substance" or even "existence" (we have a lack of a better term) when it comes to God. Someone (I think it may have been VJTorley) clarified this for me. God transcends even existence. OK, Fin! :)CannuckianYankee_{September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PST}

Fini!avocationist_{September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PST}

"God is absolutely transcendent in its final aspect. For instance, I don’t believe that He “must” create or act in creation out of necessity." Exactly. God is necessary for material existence, but material existence is not necessary for, which leads to the realization that we have purpose. God intended us by choice.CannuckianYankee_{September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PST}

avocationist, CS Lewis entertained something similar to your view in an unfinished novel that was I believe intended to be part of the Space Trilogy. In "The Dark Tower" he describes angelic like creatures who have a physicality that is different than worldly physicality. I believe his explanation is that these angelic creatures' molecular makeup is such that the movement of their particles is at a different frequency, allowing them to move through walls, and to appear etherial. It seems to be a pretty good explanation perhaps, for why Jesus was able to move through walls by manipulating the frequencies of his particles; but that is not something that can be actually known at present. I accept it as simply a miracle. There was an episode of Star Trek:TNG, which seemed to suggest something like this - the episode where Giordi, and several other characters drift into another plane of existence as the result of an accident, and they appear on the Enterprise as ghosts. But that's science fiction. I love sci-fi myself, and I think about these things quite often. So Yes, that is something that even Christians entertain. I wouldn't go so far as to making any belief commitment to such ideas because I simply don't know. It makes some sense to me, but again, it seems like a speculation (maybe a very good one). So as I said, we have to allow that there are some questions, which will go unanswered. I would hate to make a commitment to such a belief and to have it shown later to not be so. So I think what we can reasonably know based on principles of logic and on what we can observe, is what I've already stated. I don't have an answer as to how something "immaterial" can affect material. Maybe "immaterial" is an inadequate term, but maybe not. It doesn't pose a problem for me. It's simply a mystery.CannuckianYankee_{September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PST}

Gil: Shall we try to quantify the improbability? :)gpuccio_{September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PST}

avocationist: it is rather simple, at least for me. God is absolutely transcendent in its final aspect. For instance, I don't believe that He "must" create or act in creation out of necessity. For what words may mean at this level, that would be a limit, incompatible with the concept of transcendence. But at the same time, God is very immanent and active in His creation. He is manifest in it in many ways. I hope that clarifies my position, which probably is not essentially different from yours.gpuccio_{September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PST}

zeroseven: Personally I think the ability to reason is the redeeming quality, not faith (which in many respects is the exact opposite of this). I think all are looking for their path to redemption. You find it in reason, and that's fine. For me, reason is a very important part of my path, but not the most important. Defining faith as the opposite of reason is rather strange for me, but I understand that you have probably a concept of faith which is very different from mine. For me faith is in no way opposite to reason. Indeed, it is based on personal experience and reason and a choice of the heart, so in a way it is merely empirical. :) I obviously respect your views, but are you really convinced that religious experience is always based on a negation of reason?gpuccio_{September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PST}

ellazimm: I’m sure you don’t need me to say it but cherish that feeling. I cherish it very much. And, if you allow me, I really wish you, from my heart, to cherish it too (I do believe that you still have it), and to renew it. All my best too.gpuccio_{September 23, 2010
September
09
Sep
23
23
2010
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PST}

gpuccio, Well, my understanding of panentheism (not pantheism) is more or less that they see God as both transcendant and immanent. I do. Perhaps a word or two about what you mean by absolute transcendance.avocationist_{September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PST}

Hello Canuck, Please understand that I am most certainly not promoting materialism. Just yesterday, (I looked but can't find it) someone posted some physics about quantum mechanics and a quote to the effect that matter itself is without physicality. The Epistle of James refers to God as the Father of lights. Light is often spoken of as a spiritual substance or reality. God "dwells in unapproachable light." Jesus is the light of the world. Yet the light streams down, gives energy to plants, which have mass, and feed animals of flesh. You say that if everything is matter, why even discuss spiritual things. But what I actually said is that there is one unified reality, and that this reality is spiritual. I am not sure there is any relevance to the idea that there is a material world. I can only reiterate that my view of reality has changed from being like yours, to finding that I no longer can understand the idea of a spiritual reality that is nonmaterial in the sense of completely lacking any substance. I started thinking this way when I began to ponder the very thing at the core of the cosmological principal, that God has this astonishing and utterly unfathomable property that he is able to exist without cause and eternally, without time. I have made absolutely no headway in getting an understanding of this but it has caused me to think deeply about what it means to exist and about how God affects matter. But be that as it may, you may rest assured that whatever our souls and God are made of, they are spiritual Now, the difficulty for you is the need for a cause of nature that is not of nature. But I think we just have too small a slice of the reality pie to say what matter is in the first place or reject that it arises out of God. So again, physicists themselves sometimes say strange and incomprehensible things about the nature of matter or photons, and to me there is only existence or not, and I would like to understand what it means to be not nothing and yet lack any kind of materiality/physicality/substance. Does anyone really picture such a thing? Essence of what? Hawking, of course, is foolish.avocationist_{September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PST}

Gil, We may be OT, but we're having a great time. Keep them coming. :)CannuckianYankee_{September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PST}

Hmmm -- 159 responses so far at this writing. This always seems to happen, even if almost all the comments are off-topic. I rescind my initial thesis in favor of some kind of cosmic accident: Given an infinity of random universes, a disproportional number of comments will be inspired by my insipid posts.GilDodgen_{September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PST}

avocationist, I appreciate your thoughts. Suffice it to say that I find your views revealing, and they are not something I haven't thought of myself with great depth. However, I have determined that materialism is the metaphysic that is incoherent when attempting to account for existence. Your views appear to me to be a sort of "materialism restated" in an attempt to account for the spiritual, because you think that the absence of matter is nothingness, but I find that your speculations don't succeed in establishing any semblance of spirituality. In fact, pantheism is a contradiction in terms in my view. If all we and God are is material substance, then there really is no basis for talking about spiritual things. Materialism would be sufficient to account for all of that, and so I think the true atheist materialists are more coherent in this regard. They understand correctly that if matter is all there is, then there is no spirituality, and no sense in talking about it as if there is. Where they falter is with respect to accounting for the origin of everything. If materialism is true, then everything that exists did not have a beginning, but is eternal. In that respect, there really is no need for God. But it is incoherent, because it doesn't resolve the issue of an infinite regress of physical cause/effect events. The only thing that resolves this in my thinking is expressed in the cosmological argument for a first causal essence, that is not physical, and that is eterma: i.e., God. To speak of something that is not matter then, if we allow for spiritual existence, is not nothing. God is not nothing; He is just not material, and we have sufficient evidence in the world that there are things that are not material - such as mind, conscience, intelligence, etc. If you believe that God is nothing or non-existent, then you have to believe somehow (as Stephen Hawking seems to) that the universe created itself out of nothing. Hawking apparently claims in his new book that physical laws created the universe out of nothing. The problem with this view is that physical laws are not causal. It's not the laws, which cause interactions; it is causal events, which lead to other causal events. The physical laws only describe how and why they interact the way they do. It still begs the question, and I'm inclined to agree with what gpuccio calls the "transcendent" ultimate reality, which makes all other realities possible. That reality is not nothing, but necessary, and that to me is God. Of course, I believe God is much more than that, but it's the best place to start.CannuckianYankee_{September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PST}

Canuck,
Now if He is another kind of “substance,” that is not like material, well then that is another matter; and we have no real way of knowing. I don’t believe that He is – due to my understanding of the cosmological argument. This is why we speak of God as “essence,” not “substance.”
Well, if he is not even the most rarified sort of matter or energy, nor even some other sort of substance that we know not of, then what of this essence? Essence of what? It sounds like nothingness to me. I realize we don't have the answer but I must admit this keeps me awake at night! I find this and other aspects of the question we discuss below important, though, because I think humanity is held back by (what I perceive as) a kind of psychic split in their perception of reality, which keeps God far from their awareness. I could even be so bold as to say it is a symptom of our fallen state.
Furthermore, it seems to me that a belief or speculation that God is another type of substance (in order to make sense of His capacity to affect material substance) is really a form of pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that God is a part of everything that physically exists, rather than separate from everything that physically exists, and pantheism leads to the notion that we and everything else are a part of the essence of God.
Why, my dear, you say that as though it were a bad thing... I am apparently a panentheist. I wouldn't so much say that God is part of everything that exists as that everything that exists is within God. I believe I already said that in the previous post. I think a God separate from everything that physically exists is impossible on two fronts. First, to say that God created everything out of nothing is completely without any foundation in logic or knowledge. It is speculation. It is likely that matter can be nonmanifest, but the potential for it is there, and this could be described as a state of "nothing." But it is not true nothingess. But we can say, and keeping the cosmological argument in mind, that anything which exists has its source only in God with no other possibility. What then can it mean to say God is separate from it? Your soul is separate from your body in the sense that the body will turn into a sack of junk the moment your spirit leaves it, and it will decay. But while your body is alive, the soul touches and influences the mind and the emotions and through them the body. Second, wondering about the mode of influence is no small question, and while we don't have the exact answer, I believe logic would state that there must be a point of connection. And if matter is utterly without any form of consciousness so much the more so. Inanimate matter is not going to jump up and "obey" out of a sense of obedience. I do find the cosmological argument to be completely sound. And yes, it absolutely shows the necessity of God. Since you admit to the mysteries, perhaps we should think in new ways. I was influenced by the book Science and the Akashic Field by Ervin Lazslo in this regard. That is, not about the nature of God but the existence of a spiritual ether through which all things can interact. It is a substance so superfine as to be, so far, not detectable and for all practical purposes we could call it spiritual in essence. But it does have substance. I have seen people here mention the Mitchelson-Morley experiment, before which the ancient idea of an ether had remained accepted, but when I read about their experiment, I could see that it was far too crude and could not detect this ether. Unfortunately, science dropped the ether idea prematurely after that. It seems to me that Christian thinking is mired in some rigid ideas from too few thinkers. Was it Augustine? who taught that matter simply was? He thought God so completely separate from matter that he didn't even have God creating it. But if we think deeply about the Cosmological argument we can see that everything must in some way arise out of God, even if by thought. Perhaps matter is a thought in the mind of God. That the human soul shares in the divine essence seems to me completely defensible with scripture, although I keep the Bible at arms length. In fact, how can we deny that matter is of some sort of divine essence? It's source is God. There is no outside of God! Is there a place where God's spirit does not reach? I was taught that the Holy Spirit is "everywhere present and fillest all things." And look, people here recently spoke of information requiring a perceiver. What if our cosmos, which the Bible speaks of as being in bondage and to be redeemed, is in fact utterly divine in all aspects and it is our fallen state of low perception that prevents us from seeing it? Sin is a symptom. The fall was from a state of spiritual perception to blindness.avocationist_{September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PST}

avocationist, av) Now, it is just this sort of comment that I pursue: cy) I would just simplify the issue and say that God is nonmaterial, yet can affect nature out of necessity. av) Necessity?? Sure…but how. Saying that God can and must do it is not saying anything other than that we don’t know. cy) It’s not that nonmaterial essence is impossible, but that what we assume regarding nonmaterial essence as being “supernatural” is incoherent. av) With this I fully agree, and supernatural, like nonmaterial, is a term I have trouble with. Well, they are just terms. Perhaps inaccurate or incomplete, but they don't come without some reason behind them. Clearly God is non-material in respect to what we define as material. He is not physical like matter, and if He exists at all, the cosmological argument does not allow Him to be any form of matter. Now if He is another kind of "substance," that is not like material, well then that is another matter; and we have no real way of knowing. I don't believe that He is - due to my understanding of the cosmological argument. This is why we speak of God as "essence," not "substance." Furthermore, it seems to me that a belief or speculation that God is another type of substance (in order to make sense of His capacity to affect material substance) is really a form of pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that God is a part of everything that physically exists, rather than separate from everything that physically exists, and pantheism leads to the notion that we and everything else are a part of the essence of God. The way I understand it, your problem lies with God being able to affect nature when He is not material. I don't see how viewing God as some other kind of unknown "substance" solves this for you. We can speculate on a lot of things, but I think the things I mentioned regarding the cosmological argument are not simply speculations, but sound arguments, which seem to solve these issues. I don't see any point in speculating on them further if certain questions aren't answered by them. It's not like the cosmological argument is incoherent. It is coherent, and it really should be the end of the matter in my view. I have to allow that there are mysteries that are still unsolved, or perhaps unsolvable, but that there are such mysteries does not render the arguments incoherent. This is why I suggested the simple solution of the cosmological argument. It doesn't answer everything for you, but it forms the basis for accepting the necessity of God. It still leaves the mystery of exactly how He affects nature, but if God is necessary for the existence of everything else, I don't see how that could be a problem. I think we have to accept that no matter what we come to understand, there still lies a mystery. I don't know how God affects nature, but what I do accept is that He is capable of doing so. I have a well formed logical basis for why I believe this. Furthermore, while we're on the subject of purpose and God's necessity, it seems to me that God is the author of purpose in the universe - even if we don't quite know what that purpose is. If He is the author of purpose - i.e., he designed the universe for a reason, then the physical laws of the universe, which can be known through our reasoning by observing cause and effect relationships, are also what He authored. God authored the physical laws of nature. When it comes to miracles then, God is capable of doing acts, which do not follow physical laws. The creation of the universe is perhaps not a miracle in that respect, because the act itself does not defy any physical laws, since the laws are simply the descriptions of cause/effect relationships between things, which physically exist. ID seems to be onto something then when it suggests that fine tuning and a certain degree of information in biological organisms indicates purpose as opposed to randomness. Darwinism is truly incoherent when it suggests that the beginning of evolution or even the ongoing process of evolution is without purpose. Furthermore, there seems to be some incoherence when Darwinists suggest that evolution isn't random, but at the same time, without purpose. This is a clear contradiction. But it's what they believe. ID leads to an understanding behind the mystery we speak of with regard to how God affects nature. It doesn't answer all of that mystery, but it touches on some matters, which add weight to a certain purpose behind creation - the other non-scientific argument, which seems to support ID is the cosmological argument - and it's because of these and other factors, that I am a theist - not a pantheist, agnostic, deist or atheist. Darwinism does not seem to provide any coherent argument in these matters. For me, it is absurd.CannuckianYankee_{September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PST}

Ellazimm: "gpuccio: I greatly admire your ‘faith’ and wish, in some way, I shared it." Why is this? As you go on to say you love life and the universe. You are a moral person etc. Why is this not enough for you? Personally I think the ability to reason is the redeeming quality, not faith (which in many respects is the exact opposite of this).zeroseven_{September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PST}

Pedant, "That is what I was referring to when I said I don’t care if the universe is purposeless." Yes, well then it's another one of those semantic issues that creep in no matter what we discuss: A purposeless universe is either the antithesis of: A) If just one thing in the universe shows purpose, then the universe has (contains) purpose. or B) There is purpose for the universe's existence as extrapolated from the fact that there are examples of purpose in the universe. I personally don't believe that the universe would exist if there was no purpose for its existence, simply because the universe is contingent (upon something or someone causing it). And all our understanding thus far pertaining to cause and effect suggests physical law or purpose. Things happen in the universe because of other things happening, or certain conditions, which act according to law or purpose. The universe (everything) itself would seem to be no exception, and would in fact, contradict. And I think part of the issue here is how we define the universe. I see it as everything that physically exists by definition. I don't see it as simply a place or a location in which everything physically exists. There would be no place or location without everything that exists. Sometimes that simple perception can cause one to have an incomplete view of what we mean when we talk about the universe, and can lead to entirely different understandings - such as that there could be other universes - other places (read: other "everythings") in which there are no laws pertaining to cause and effect. In any case, causality and physical law are the essentials, which lead to understanding, and these categories require that we accept purpose as opposed to complete randomness. If the universe could exist without a purpose for its existence, then I think we would see an entirely different universe - one without this interaction of causes following physical laws - one of complete randomness. But that to me is an absurd universe - one that we could not even speak of in any definable terms. That there is an example (or examples) of purpose in the universe, therefore suggests that there IS a purpose for the universe's existence. Just one suggestion that might help: It is possible to talk of the purpose behind the universe's existence without knowing exactly what that purpose is - just as it is possible to talk about the force of gravity without knowing exactly what that force is. We can talk about these things because we can see their effects, which is why we are able to do science in the first place. That we see the effects of purpose in the universe is really not something that can be denied without begging questions. Furthermore, I would suggest that in regard to our discussions about love (agape) as being "essential" to God, that love is a purpose for the existence of the universe. Our need for love is an indication that love is part of God's purpose for the universe. I see the universe as an incomplete expression of the agape love of God. I see examples of this everywhere I look. I say "incomplete" because in all appearances, and as supported by scripture, God isn't done yet. But that's just my own view.CannuckianYankee_{September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PST}

gpuccio: I greatly admire your 'faith' and wish, in some way, I shared it. I do find great joy and pleasure in life, the universe and everything. I feel that I am a very moral person who tries hard to treat others with respect and to do my best to help them. But I fall short of your level of connection. I'm sure you don't need me to say it but cherish that feeling. All my best,ellazimm_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PST}

avocationist: Well, I share many of your thoughts. You say: Now, I say I am not a materialist because I believe in those things which people call spiritual. But I am questioning the usual categories of thought about these things. And you are perfectly entitled to do that. Human categories are certainly imperfect, especially when they try to deal with ultimate realities. I will not go into detail about your thoughts, because by default I try to avoid purely phylosophycal or theological discussions here, but I would like to simply suggest that, at least for me, the concept of a transcendent reality, and the possibility that such a reality may interact with, and be also immanent in creation, are not incompatible at all. That's why, IMO, the word "transcendental" has been created and is often useful. That's why I often speak of our personal self as "transcendental", because its main observable property is the ability to perceive and represent any formal content, and at the same time to be able to recede beyond any represented form, in a continuous, and apparently infinite, regress to a "meta" level. Absolute transcendence is IMO the final concept, but perhaps it is so final that our human categories cannot even begin to state it. So, we must probably be contented with reasoning about our self, about immanent realities, and about their meaning, and purpose, and destiny.gpuccio_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PST}

ellazimm: But we can certainly recognize more limited purposes inside the universe. Expressing life and consciousness and meaning are among them. I have always stated, and will always go on stating, that one of the ugliest, and most wrong, aspects of darwinian theory is to believe that survival is the only driving principle in biological evolution. I do believe that the complexity and beauty of life is absolute evidence that the desire to explore all possible manifestations of life and consciousness is the real driving principle in the design of life. The necessity for survival is only a subordinate category of that.gpuccio_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PST}

ellazimm: If the universe contains or has purpose then . . . what is it? That's not an easy question, but I believe it has a very high purpose, just like a very beautiful work of art. And I do believe that we, our existence and our destiny, are a very important part of that purpose. But certainly the final purpose of all that exists must retain some aspects of mystery, and be fully comprehended by God alone.gpuccio_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PST}

Hello Canuck,
If you believe that the existence of nonmaterial essence is incoherent, this would suggest that you believe that only material essence exists. This further suggests that you are a materialist, yet you deny that you are. Can you explain this?
Ah, I see the problem! And yes, perhaps you are right that I don't know how to explain it. In my thinking the dividing line is that of existence versus nonexistence. (And going deeper still, we should realize that there is no nonexistence. It is a product of our imagination only.) I accept - but only provisionally - that a concept such as the number 4 is truly without substance. Even that may not be true. Let us use the word substance. Now, I say I am not a materialist because I believe in those things which people call spiritual. But I am questioning the usual categories of thought about these things. I noted in a theological book I read some years ago that the Eastern Orthodox Church, which I grew up in, considers the Holy Spirit to be "the uncreated energies of God." And of course uncreated means that it is fundamental to the nature of God. Now, it is just this sort of comment that I pursue:
I would just simplify the issue and say that God is nonmaterial, yet can affect nature out of necessity.
Necessity?? Sure...but how. Saying that God can and must do it is not saying anything other than that we don't know.
It’s not that nonmaterial essence is impossible, but that what we assume regarding nonmaterial essence as being “supernatural” is incoherent.
With this I fully agree, and supernatural, like nonmaterial, is a term I have trouble with.
If God exists he’s not a part of nature and is in this sense “supernatural.” However, what “supernatural” conjures up is something that appears incongruent with nature.
There's another possibility, perhaps not in line with Christian dogma, that I suspect is closer to the truth. I am quite sure that western spirituality has taken a wrong turn in wanting God to be completely transcendent to nature. I would rather say that nature exists in a potential state within God and its bringing forth (manifestation) is something that can either be or not be, which is to say it is not like the Holy Spirit which is an uncreated energy of God. But neither is it separate from God, for it arose from God, nor in any way can nature be incongruent with God. I do understand the cosmological argument quite deeply, and it is with exactly the same kind of thinking that I understand that nature and all things arise out of God and that nothing, ever, can be separate from God. This is why I am uncomfortable with the term supernatural, although it is in a way accurate because physical matter could fold up and cease to be manifest, but its potential, I think, cannot, because it lies within God and God does not change. If reality is all of a piece it explains a lot. It explains how prayers can be heard and how God can affect matter. Because there is a superfine medium through which all things are interconnected as they must be if all things arise out of God. Now, you say that the cosmological argument means God must be nonmaterial and I do see why. There is something utterly different about God, for if God did not possess this quality there would be no existence. The problem I have is that God and our souls must have substance of some sort, otherwise they would be nothing. And this substance looks like it must have or be an energy, in order for it to interact, and in order for it to not be nothing. So you have indeed helped to clarify my thoughts. The question is, can a being who is the uncaused cause of physical manifestation exist as a continuum with that which has arisen out of his being? You know, if God were truly separate from the creation, then there would be no contraindication to multiverses. It is because God must necessarily be the one and only source of all things inseparably, that there can be only one universe.
The cosmological argument therefore states that there must be a first uncaused cause for the universe to exist, and that that cause cannot be a part of the universe – everything that physically exists.
It's the second clause I question. I'd like to say that I have to think about all this, but I already do... I don't recall indicating a problem with miracles, but I don't believe at all in people thinking that if God does something it goes against the laws of nature. That's absurd. There is no such thing nor a necessity to go against the laws of nature. Nor can I figure out what you might mean when you say the universe is a miracle. How can the actions of God be somehow out of order? God can do what God can do, and I am sure that all of his actions are completely coherent if we could have them shown to us. Not an atom or a law out of place. Perhaps it is a way to express the magnitude of the mystery and majesty of existence.avocationist_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PST}

If the universe contains or has purpose then . . . what is it?ellazimm_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PST}

CannuckianYankee, I realize that this begs the question of the universe having purpose as far as its existence; is there a purpose for the existence of the universe? That is another question entirely. That is what I was referring to when I said I don’t care if the universe is purposeless. It seems rather incoherent that there should be purpose in the universe while there is no purpose for the existence of the universe. It seems to me that the existence of purpose in the universe derives from the purpose for the existence of the universe. I know it seems incoherent to you. But it doesn’t seem incoherent to me, I guess because I don’t expect the universe to be a reflection of my feelings and understandings.Pedant_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PST}

avocationist, "No, you have misunderstood. I have never been a materialist and I have always believed in God." I'm really confused here: "I cannot get how something could both exist yet be completely nonmaterial AND yet also be perfectly able to affect the material. This is what I think is incoherent!" If you believe that the existence of nonmaterial essence is incoherent, this would suggest that you believe that only material essence exists. This further suggests that you are a materialist, yet you deny that you are. Can you explain this? While you're involved in thinking about this, let me suggest that perhaps you're onto something, but you don't know how to explain it. It's not that nonmaterial essence is impossible, but that what we assume regarding nonmaterial essence as being "supernatural" is incoherent. If God exists he's not a part of nature and is in this sense "supernatural." However, what "supernatural" conjures up is something that appears incongruent with nature. The difficulty is in our failure to sufficiently define what we mean by "supernatural." We've had discussions of this nature on UD in the past. I would just simplify the issue and say that God is nonmaterial, yet can affect nature out of necessity. If you noticed my mention of the cosmological argument, you can see that it is essential that God be non-material, otherwise the whole idea of God's essence is incoherent. Perhaps I should briefly mention the basic argument: A) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. B) The universe began to exist. C) The universe has a cause. Now the difficulty here for many people is with the definition of the universe. The universe is most commonly defined as "everything that physically exists," and this is the definition that applies here. The multiverse does not apply, because it would imply that there are other universes - other "everythings," which is absurd. If there are other "universes," they could only be a part of THE universe by definition, since when we say "universe" we mean everything that physically exists. Now if God physically exists, then He too had a cause, and this is where the incoherence lies. The cosmological argument therefore states that there must be a first uncaused cause for the universe to exist, and that that cause cannot be a part of the universe - everything that physically exists. There are other supports to this argument: one being the absurdity of an infinite regress of causes. If God was caused, something caused God, and whatever caused God also had a cause, and so forth. This is why the cosmological argument states: "whatever BEGINS to exist..." If God did not begin to exist, but is eternal, then He is the first cause. There is no need for an infinite regress of causes with an essence that is not caused, but is eternal. But as is stated, since he is the first cause, He cannot be material, or He would have to have been caused, and He would have been part of the universe itself. This is self contradictory. So while you may be onto something that is incoherent, the incoherence does not lie in the issue of an immaterial essence. I think it's rather an issue of semantics with the word "supernatural," which is a highly inadequate term given it's religious associations. And atheists harp on the inadequacy of the term in order to affirm their metaphysic. You also indicated a problem with miracles, but I think you can account for them with a little more consideration of the argument above. After all, if God is the cause of the universe, the universe itself is the result of a miracle. That miracle, however, is not without a coherent explanation.CannuckianYankee_{September 20, 2010
September
09
Sep
20
20
2010
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PST}

Clive @136 -
It is a comparison of value. Playing the piano “well” conceals a value judgment in the word well. To give it strictly physical terms would be to say Gil plays the piano at this tempo and speed and at these notes and hits the piano at these velocities. None of which will bring you a “good or bad” playing ability.
Where's the "ought" in here? This is what I can't work out - you're suggesting there is some connection between value statements and "ought", and I can't see it. Can you explain?Heinrich_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PST}

Canuck,
Your difficulty stems from your a priori assumption that material essence is all there is.
No, you have misunderstood. I have never been a materialist and I have always believed in God. I also used to toss around the term "nonmaterial" but then one day I began to think about it and I just am really trying to figure out if anyone understands this term although they use it. The question was not only to you but anyone inclined to give an opinion. What I am suggesting is that a nonmaterial soul and a nonmaterial God may be impossible, and that there is more going on in Reality than we know. We are premature to use such a term as nonmaterial when we do not know of what we or God are made. But what we do know is that they exist and we should ponder what that means. And we should ponder how matter and spirit can interact if one of them is completely nonmaterial. As to love, I am satisfied with your musings.avocationist_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PST}

Pedant, "There followed a post by Clive Hayden @23, challenging my point, and I responded to him @30, 58, and 93. Then @96, you asked me if I believe that love is a good thing." I went back and read all of those posts. One thing that needs clarification (of course there may be others as well). That the universe is "pitiless and indifferent" is a Darwinist rhetorical charge. You are correct in pointing out that the universe could not be pitiless or indifferent, since the universe is not personal. I don't believe Clive denies this. However, the Darwinist charge is in relation to theism. And that charge came from a Darwinist who happens to not believe in the existence of God. So what the atheist Darwinist means to say in that regard is that since there is no God, there is no caring towards us anywhere in the universe. I think the statement is more rhetorical and metaphorical than explanatory, so you have to separate the statement from the actuality. The statement rhetorically presumes that the theist personifies the universe, since no God exists, while the atheist does not, and the statement must be taken as such. It's not that the statement really means this, as it is rhetorical and metaphorical. However, the theist would argue against this as it pertains to the existence of God. If God exists, there is care towards us, and our caring towards others is reflective of God's care towards us, and has nothing to do with any personification of the universe. But in order to make the point, the atheist, who does not believe in God, and therefore must believe that the universe or universes is all that exists, has to state it in reference to personality somewhere, so the universe is presumed to be personified in order to make the point.CannuckianYankee_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PST}

Pedant, "I said, and I’m saying again that I don’t care if the universe is purposeless." If the universe is purposeless, it doesn't care that you don't care. But the fact that you love your spouse, and your children depend on you would seem to betray your not caring about purpose in the universe. Your actions would demonstrate that you do care. Love is a purposeful act. If there is no purpose in the universe, then there is no love in the universe. There is love in the universe, so the universe is not purposeless. Proof: A) If there is an example of purpose in the universe, the universe has (contains) purpose. B) Love as an act that I do, is an example of purpose in the universe. C) The universe has (contains) purpose. This proof is dependent upon another: A) The universe contains at least everything that physically exists by definition. B) I physically exist. C) I am part of the contents of the universe. That you are part of the universe, and you do purposeful acts of love, demonstrates that there is purpose in the universe. The universe is not purposeless. I realize that this begs the question of the universe having purpose as far as its existence; is there a purpose for the existence of the universe? That is another question entirely. It seems rather incoherent that there should be purpose in the universe while there is no purpose for the existence of the universe. It seems to me that the existence of purpose in the universe derives from the purpose for the existence of the universe.CannuckianYankee_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PST}

Pedant, Your presumption seems to stem from your response to Barb. She stated her disagreement with the materialist assumption that the universe is "blind, pitiless and indifferent, and in response she asked the question: "what's the point in doing anything?" Your response was "Because you love your spouse, your children, your parents, and they are counting on you?" I realize that you framed this as a question, so it's a perfectly legitimate thing to ask, but I sensed that it was a rhetorical question, so in that regard, it would be a presumption. If that's not what you meant by it, then I apologize. However, the answer to such a question would be: no, the very fact that you are able to perceive of concepts such as love is because there is something in the universe that is not blind, pitiless or indifferent. That something is you. How do you as something (someone, sorry) derive your concern out of a universe that is blind, pitiless and indifferent?CannuckianYankee_{September 19, 2010
September
09
Sep
19
19
2010
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PST}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply