We Should Care About Your Personal Incredulity Why Now?

_{Barry Arrington

November 20, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

Prominent atheist John W. Loftus gives us an example of a common atheist argument from the size of the universe when he writes:

I think it’s [i.e., the vast size of the universe] even more damaging when it comes to an omnipotent God who supposedly created the universe for the specific purpose of gaining the affections of people on this lone planet of ours. If this is what he desired (for some irrational egotistical reason) he could have simply created us on a flat disk in a much smaller universe like the one the ancients believed existed.

This argument is a hot mess, a mishmash of factual errors,* self-serving assumptions and faulty logic. But let us set most of that aside and focus on Loftus’ argument from personal incredulity.

The argument from personal incredulity takes the form of “I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false.” Notice how Loftus exhibits this fallacy. His argument boils down to the assertion that he cannot imagine why God, if he existed, would have created a large universe. A large universe surely exists. Therefore, God does not exist.

Here is the critical question that is left unanswered: Why should the poverty of John Loftus’ imagination concerning God’s motivations matter to us?

The argument from personal incredulity is a species of the “argument from ignorance.” Duco A. Schreuder writes: “These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one’s understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality.”

Just so. The limits of Loftus’ understanding about God’s motivations does not change what is true. Indeed, if a God powerful enough to create such a vast universe exists, we can be certain that our understanding of him would be extremely limited. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that very limited understanding should be the foundation of an argument for his non-existence.

___________________________

*His assertion that the ancients had no conception of the scale of the universe, for example, is pure bunkum: “The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.” Ptolemy’s Almagest, Book I, Chapter 6. See also, Psalm 8 (“When I consider thy heavens . . . What is man, that thou art mindful of him?”).

Comments

kf. I'm not talking at all about "extradimensional races". I'm just talking about living creatures such as humans. Also, no matter what we may know about the scarcity of favorable planets, if one accepts that our planet is privileged for life due to God's design, then obviously he could act similarly, however he implements design, in many other places. But I consider that you have answered my question more or less in the affirmative: there could be multiple (perhaps many, perhaps billions) living creatures throughout the universe that have had an experience analogous to the Christian one here, which makes the "vast universe" problem not a problem.jdk_{November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

@KF, First, as I’ve argued before, theism is a specific case of foundationalism and justificationism. In theism, God is an authoritative source of knowledge. While empiricism was an improvement, it just exchanged one authoritative source, God, with another authoritative source, experience in the form of empirical observations. Whether something is relevant to a subject depends on one’s understanding of that subject. Confusion on a subject can result in confusion of what is relevant to it. Your apparent belief about whether some ideas are subject to criticism would be shared with empiricists and theists alike because they are specific cases of the same philosophical view. Second, the article was referring to the paper “The Logic Of Experimental Tests, Particularly Of Everettian Quantum Theory”. This refers to the role of empirical observations in science. If you think agree with significant aspects of what was presented, and that it represents a straw man or character of science, then it would seem that you would agree with Everettian Quantum Theory. Yet, your responses seem to indicate this is not the case. So, there must be some significant difference here that explains this lack of agreement. Furthermore, while evolution is more widely accepted, I suspect that differences in respect to tests of theories and your rejection of the theory are relevant here as well. From the paper…..
Although the central concern of the paper is a defense of the role of explanation in science and so an explanation of both explanation itself and the purpose of experimental tests in science, another crucial point emphasized throughout the paper (despite Deutsch's books and comments on the topic) is how quantum theory is fully deterministic. Despite what passes for high school and undergraduate teachings on this subject and what one finds in popular books, documentaries and even texts; quantum theory is not a theory of how the world is governed by laws that are probabilistic or bring true, objective, randomness into the world: there are no truly random processes. There may be subjective randomness, but this is explained by purely deterministic laws. Everything is determined by the (quantum mechanical) laws of motion. And those laws of motion specify that what is observed to occur happens because of everything else that happens in physical reality. That is to say: the laws of quantum theory predict that prior to an observation everything (physically) possible actually occurs and all those occurrences come to bear upon the outcome observed. Indeed not merely prior to the observation, but during and after the observation whatever is physically possibly able to happen at those times, happens. Necessarily an observer finds themselves only in one universe and therefore only observing one thing - not many. This should be no more mysterious than that observers necessarily only ever experience a particular instant in time: they never observe many times simultaneously. Although they know that the past must have happened and that the future will come - and that the past and future are just as real as the present; the observer can only possibly, at any given moment, experience the present.
Here, Hall summarizes how Everettian Quantum Theory vastly better explains observations. And he points out how probably is not valid in choosing between theories. So, my question is, if what was presented was such a straw man or reductionist cardboard cut-out of science, then why isn’t Everettian Quantum Theory more broadly adapted? Why have’t you accepted Neo-darwinism? And Why are you still an inductivist? To rephrase, from the article.
Here is just about the most contentious piece of philosophy that Popper and Deutsch (or any Popperian/Critical Rationalist) proposes about how science works. It is poorly understood and the opposing world view is still the dominant philosophy of science even though it is false. The false idea - subscribed almost universally by scientists, philosophers and laymen alike is that science somehow provides a way of demonstrating that certain theories are true or close to true or probably true. And moreover that the more one gathers evidence for some theory T, then the more likely T is true.
Now, it would seem that either you are mistaken about some key aspect of the article, such as the argument made about the philosophy of experimental tests (which you probably didn't read and took out of context), or that the author is mistaken in some fundamental way. Either way, that seems to suggest there is some great divide between Popperians and everyone else, in which case the divide is not ludicrous.critical rationalist_{November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

see here https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pretty-discouraging-news-from-exoplanet-research-were-not-sure-what-to-look-for/kairosfocus_{November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

JDK, I have never found reason to doubt existence of other morally responsible races in the Christian or Hebraic scriptures. In fact, there may be multiple, extradimensional races that appear in them, usually discussed as angels etc. When it comes to our own observed cosmos, it seems there is space enough and there are planets enough, though most exoplanets are radically different from our Earth and most stars are in multi-star systems that may make orbits not stable enough. BTW, sims of our own system raise questions on planetary stability in the very long run. The Drake eqn at least put issues on the table and led us to realise there is a question on the great silence. KF PS: Inasmuch as it is Thanksgiving week in the US, some of that folks not here may be explained. Axel is in the UK but his visits are occasional, he does not seem to come here on a daily basis. Even for me, it is a particular challenge given a local multidimensional chess game that hit a new level when a govt nearly collapsed and is playing onward like Paschendaele, multiplied by the personal challenge of a close bereavement that hit a lot harder than even the "it's going to hurt really badly" that I expected. That's why I have posted v few OP's recently. PPS: Within the historic Christian faith's sources, there is little support for what looks like a somewhat LDS view.kairosfocus_{November 24, 2017
November
11
Nov
24
24
2017
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

I'll point out that my questions have actually been addressed to Axel and OldArmy (and possibly even Barry) due to some of their posts above. But they haven't returned to respond.jdk_{November 23, 2017
November
11
Nov
23
23
2017
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

1. If God helped create appropriate planets and life, etc., throughout the universe in ways similar to how he is claimed to have done here, then the Drake equation is meaningless. (It's pretty meaningless anyway.) 2. Even if life developed enough to have a relationship with a God who has made himself present on many planets throughout the universe, the chances of them having sent some signal that we would receive at this time is miniscule, especially given the spectrum of distances, and thus time differentials, between us and other stars and galaxies. So I don't think that the absence of evidence here is at all evidence of absence. But the question I am asking is not whether we think there is other life out there, but whether there is any reason for a Christian to believe, not believe, or even object to the idea that what we see having happened here has been likewise divinely played out countless times throughout the universe? The OP addresses the question of how to reconcile that vast universe with God's special attention to our little world, a mere speck in the universe. Rather than drawing the conclusions that Barry rejects in the OP, I am offering the hypothesis, which reconciles this vastness with God's special attention, that God has engaged in an similar attention in many other places, perhaps billions and billions.jdk_{November 23, 2017
November
11
Nov
23
23
2017
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

JDK, I am actually indifferent across A and B. Unfortunately for the Drake Eqn, we have the great silence. That's what is of concern. KFkairosfocus_{November 23, 2017
November
11
Nov
23
23
2017
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Me, too, re: 37 ...jdk_{November 23, 2017
November
11
Nov
23
23
2017
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

I am waiting . . .kairosfocus_{November 23, 2017
November
11
Nov
23
23
2017
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

CR, That's because it is a tangent on a tangent. I intervened from 30 above on a secondary point largely because you at 24 on were mis-framing theists and theism, which you have never soundly and cogently addressed. My original contribution from 14 on was an accepted minor technical correction, by digging up Almagest and citing Bk I Ch 6 in entirety as above. Notice BA's response. This was used in the context of addressing the current re-appearance of the argument against God from incredulity over the scale of the observed cosmos, and in that context Ps 19 and 8 are highly relevant. If you want, here are my notes on your linked article -- in another post and entirely -- as presented at which is on phil of sci when the question I addressed was your distortion of the idea of God held by theists. See the category error? Anyway, I note on your linked article, just once I will not go off on the tangent in a red herring chase: From 64 in New Scientist thread:
>>From this article on the philosophy of science, which deconstructs the more formal arguments made in this paper…. [From a lead quote:] “Scientific methodology, in turn, does not (nor could it validly) provide criteria for accepting a theory.>> 1 --> Notice this is about theories in science thus about inductive reasoning on more or less reliable empirical observations and their theoretical framing. Utterly off on a tangent, a changed subject. >> Conjecture, and the correction of apparent errors and deficiencies, are the only processes at work. And just as the objective of science isn’t to find evidence that justifies theories as true or probable, so the objective of the methodology of science isn’t to find rules which, if followed, are guaranteed, or likely, to identify true theories as true. There can be no such rules.>> 2 --> This is a caricature of science, reflecting one reading of Popper et al. Science is much richer than this reductionist cardboard cut-out. >> A methodology is itself merely a (philosophical) theory – a convention, as Popper (1959) put it, actual or proposed – that has been conjectured to solve philosophical problems, and is subject to criticism for how well or badly it seems to do that.>> 3 --> Collapsing phil into sci, a category error. A methodological analysis of science stands or falls on its own merits as to factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. Yes, it is a phil exercise but that is important as we need to understand strengths and limits of scientific methods. >> There cannot be an argument that certifies it as true or probable, any more than there can for scientific theories.” [Clip ends]>> 4 --> Really, aspects of any knowledge base can include self evident truths that are undeniable on pain of instant patent absurdities. Likewise, there are many factual observations anchored in the history of sci or documents that only a fool would question. >> Here is just about the most contentious piece of philosophy that Popper and Deutsch (or any Popperian/Critical Rationalist) proposes about how science works. It is poorly understood and the opposing world view is still the dominant philosophy of science even though it is false. The false idea – subscribed almost universally by scientists, philosophers and laymen alike is that science somehow provides a way of demonstrating that certain theories are true or close to true or probably true.>> 5 --> We do not need to go to Popper and his system and/or that of those who follow him to understand that inductive reasoning is inherently provisional and cannot guarantee truth. However, in many cases it involves facts that only a fool would question. 6 --> The notion that we could lump some great misled multitude on one side and the Popperians on the other, is ludicrous. >> And moreover that the more one gathers evidence for some theory T, then the more likely T is true.>> 7 --> Evidence from observation and especially successful, risky predictions may support confidence in the empirical reliability of a theory but I doubt that any serious thinker on science and its epistemology would calim that scientific theories are true or approximately true and are directly supported by evidence. They may be more or less reliable and trustworthy but are inherently provisional explanatory constructs. 8 --> Insofar as a theory aims to account for the actual historical development of an entity, it may seek to approximate that true path of what did happen, but it is hampered by the inherent unobservability of the actual remote past of origins. So, it is an inference to best historical reconstruction and possibly linked dynamical explanations, a forensic project informed by dynamics seen to produce the like effects today. 9 --> Logic and epistemology then tell us about the strengths and limits of such an approach, but the point is we know this is imperfect and may be prone to ideological blinkers, as I argue evolutionary materialistic scientism and methodological naturalism exemplify. >> What Deutsch, following Karl Popper is saying here is that there is no such process as that. There is no method in science, no set of rules to follow that can demonstrate theories as either true or probably true.>> 10 --> Belabouring a strawman. >> The whole purpose of science is not to “support” theories with evidence. That is a complete misconception. The truth is that science is about correcting errors in our explanations.>> 11 --> No, we do often seek to provide empirical support and thus warrant that some theory or other is empirically reliable and even trustworthy enough to bank on the findings. In short theory-building and model building are closely parallel activities, with the theory having this, it seeks to move towards truth while models are openly fictional but useful. 12 --> So, too: is the theory that science is about correcting errors in explanation itself true or just another error-prone explanation not to be taken seriously? As in, self referential incoherence is looking at you. >> This is a completely different view of science to what most people have.>> 13 --> Many people do have a naive view of science, but also many have naive views on how their own philosophical frame and school of thought has a sort of ultimacy. >> Now some, admittedly, have read some Popper, or Deutsch – but are afraid to, or perhaps just confused about, fully taking the step to actually appreciate the significance of this. I say “afraid” because there seems to be some concern that if one too strongly endorses even a true theory like this, one might seem dogmatic.>> 14 --> See the self referential incoherence in: "even a true theory like this," given the above? 15 --> Self reference is always a bugbear, especially when one does not watch out for it. >> I have a person in mind here and that is: Sam Harris. Sam is an otherwise brilliant philosopher on many matters>> 16 --> On his New Atheism track record, no. But this reveals the mindset at work here. >> but this is one of his missteps. He at times endorses Popper, other times Kuhn and still other times induction.>> 17 --> Inductive reasoning is valid as an approach, especially in the modern sense of arguments that adduce empirical evidence to support conclusions without guaranteeing their truth. >> I won’t go down this rabbit hole here, but I just observe that smart people struggle to really grapple with the centrality of what science is even all about.>> 18 --> See above on imagining one has cornered the market on truth while only managing to get into a thicket of self reference and incoherence. >> Now many scientists today do not want to call themselves “Popperians” or “Critical Rationalists” (which is to say they do not want to endorse the idea that science is not about “supporting theories with evidence”) and so they may call themselves “empiricists” or many these days “Bayesians”.>> 19 --> A rather narrow view of options and setting up of strawmen. >> For a detailed critique of Bayesianism as a philosophy of science or an epistemology see my other page here (opens in new tab): http://www.bretthall.org/bayes.....ology.html In brief, however: a Bayesian is essentially someone who thinks that repeatedly observing phenomena allows them to build up a probability that a particular theory is true. They can assign a number between 0% and 100% that a given theory is true, or something like this.>> 20 --> beginning to wander all over the world of ideas, and here failing to address the heart of bayesian approaches: SUBJECTIVE probability assessments intended to be empirically reliable and sometimes managing to capture directly observable states of affairs. >> So if the result of an experiment continues to come out the same way the number climbs closer and closer to 100% – but perhaps it can never quite reach 100% – but that’s okay because science does not need to generate “certainly true” theories – just “probably true”.>> 21 --> Caricature >> So perhaps 90% is okay. Or 95%. Or maybe 99.99999% at the 5-sigma confidence level (if you understand statistics).>> 22 --> Ditto. Ponder instead the need to make decisions forward on evidence in hand backward and the cost of delay vs that of seeking further evidence etc. >> But one need merely consider the question: What probability would a Bayesian assign to Newton’s theory of gravity being true any time prior to finding it false? If a scientist were actually a Bayesian in the year 1900 then it would seem that every experiment ever devised to test Newton’s theory of gravity always corroborated it.>> 23 --> leaves off issues on anomalies, puzzle solving and theory refinement vs replacement etc etc etc. besides, Mercury's orbit was anomalous and this is one of the key triumphs of relativity. >> Newton’s theory correctly predicted the outcome of every well designed and executed test of it prior to and including the year 1900 (and a little later).>> 24 --> Continuing to speak of a domain one does not understand, with ill-advised confident manner. >> A Bayesian could do statistics on any prediction you like and generate some number and the number would be pushing the ceiling of the magic 100% number. Newton’s theory of gravity – according to that philosophy of science – would be very very very close to certainly true. ?And yet, ultimately, it was shown to be false. It was shown false by a crucial experiment on May 29, 1919, the great physicist Arthur Eddington measured the amount by which starlight was bent as it passed by the Sun during a solar eclipse. Newton’s theory predicted one number, Einstein’s another. The amount of bending was in agreement with Einstein’s General Relativity but not in agreement with Newton. Newton’s theory was then refuted.>> 25 --> Reduced to a widely relevant limiting case would be sounder. Guess what was used to send astronauts to the Moon and probes to planets? 26 --> There is a reason why we still study and use Newtonian dynamics. >> So far from being very very close to true because of all the experiments that it had ever predicted the outcomes of up until then accurately, it was shown false by a crucial test that pitted it against a rival. Now General Relativity is in the same position that Newton’s theory was prior to around 1900. It is not “probably true” or “true” or anything like that. It contains some truth – and more truth than Newton’s (which was closer to true than any random guess would be). But in neither case can we say the theory is true – only that it contains some truth (we don’t know what and it doesn’t matter anyway – the theories can be used to help us control reality around us by making predictions and creating technologies to solve our problems). At any time, to paraphrase Thomas Huxley: the beautiful theory could be slain by some ugly fact. Indeed we have to expect that it will be at some point.>> 27 --> And what, fundamentally, is in this that was not already in Newton's Opticks, Query 31?
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.
>> General Relativity is at odds with Quantum Theory. They are mutually incompatible for reasons beyond the scope of my present piece here (but in brief: the dispute may come down to a disagreement about whether the most fundamental parts of reality consist of discrete or continuous quantities). Deutsch has said in other places, and I agree: it would be far better had we all decided to call scientific theories “scientific misconceptions” to remind ourselves of how tentative they are and that they will one day be superseded by some better misconception. >> 28 --> Most of this last is not in any serious dispute among those who have some knowledge of history and phil of sci. The problems are as pointed out already.
See why I did not think it necessary to go around the same old bush yet again? Especially on a matter that is a further tangent, injected because someone -- pardon fair comment -- has a bee in the bonnet? Let us refocus the key point from the above, and in so doing, can you kindly show us that you actually seek to understand theism and theists. KFkairosfocus_{November 22, 2017
November
11
Nov
22
22
2017
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

Sure it's a theological, speculative hypothesis. But the question is whether it is possibly a reasonable hypothesis, or whether there is a reason, theological or otherwise, to think it unlikely, or even rule it out. Let me be more explicit. Lets assume that an omni-everything God created this vast universe; created a planet with all the right conditions to support life; intelligently designed and created, in some way or another over time, creatures with which he at some point entered a spiritual relationship; and ultimately made it possible for those creatures to gain everlasting life through belief in a person sent to represent God in human form (or however you wish to characterize Jesus.). Now here are two possibilities: A: our one planet is the only place in the universe that God has created such a situation. B: God has done somewhat the same thing countless times throughout the universe. Why should one believe A? Why is B not a more likely scenario?jdk_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Jdk, Your point is theological and speculative. What hypothesis is there to be proposed?OldArmy94_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Hi Axel. Re 31. I understand all that. My point, which I don't think you or anyone else has addressed, is that it seems to me that such an infinite God, given this vast universe he has created, would have entered into a relationship such as he has with us with countless other creatures throughout the universe (creatures whose existence he has caused to be just as he has caused ours.) Does this seem like at least a reasonable hypothesis?jdk_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

@KF I asked you to point out where you disagreed with an article on the philosophy of science. You didn't even try to engage it.critical rationalist_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

'Number and size mean nothing to an infinite God?' To think otherwise is a primordial misunderstanding. (I was too late to insert it in my post above).Axel_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Whether the vast universe, microscopic cell, or sub-cellular components, all are exquisite, exhibit design, purpose and are awe-inspiring as the psalmist [David] said. The size of all the above is irrelevant to the discussion of whether there is a Creator, whose existence is self-evident at all points and levels. Loftus' personal incredulity is a self-reinforcing delusion, which means he will always embrace his incoherent philosophy and disregard the ubiquitous evidence for God. Because it's what he wants, for whatever emotional reason, he will never consider evidence that runs contrary to his baseless conclusion.bb_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

jdk @ #19 Number and size mean nothing to an infinite God? He would have undergone that suffering, so terrible beyond our imagining for any one of us, alone - which is to say that He loves each one of us as, if none of the rest of us existed. It is an absolutely primordial axiom of our Christian faith. The spiritual realm is on a different level, of a different category all together from the physical. We hear very little about it, but we are called to be adopted members of the very family of the most Holy Trinity, in a mystical body of which Christ is the Head and we, the members. - incorporated in it, and yet retaining our individual personalities, albeit enhanced by a perfect indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That seems to me to be the nub. I suppose it is a bit like us, when we look at a baby or a toddler. Its diminutive size, if anythng would only inspire greater awe in us. It makes me laugh with incredulity, when I see wee wellingtons or shoes left outside the front-door of other flats - at the thought of little human beings, as small and, normally, as perfectly-formed and perfectly functioning, as humming-birds. Most of us are too spiritual to despise diminutive physical size as a reflection of inferiority of the individual concerned.Axel_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

CR, With all due respect you have yet to show that you are willing to try to understand what theists mean when they speak of God, nor what the alternatives on being are going to be -- directly connected. As for the point that there is a discipline of thought, logic, that is capable of warrant to relevant degrees, there seems to be a roadblock imposed by over-reach of your understanding of Popper's teachings. I suggest that one key context here is the logic of structure and quantity, i.e. Mathematics. Please, re-think. KF PS: The evidence is, the size, components, laws and such of the cosmos are all tied together in a fine tuned operating point that enables the sort of life we have, starting from C-Chemistry, aqueous medium cell based forms on terrestrial planets in galactic habitable zones. So, that space is widely spread out in the span of time where we exist is functional.kairosfocus_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Made me laugh.
Yeah. Theists claim they want to be taken seriously, but then object when you try. It's rather humorous.critical rationalist_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Here is a fascinating quote from St. Augustine’s The Literal Meaning of Genesis in the fifth century.
A question also commonly asked is whether these conspicuous lamps in the sky, that is, sun and moon and stars, are equally brilliant, but because of their different distances from the earth appear to our eyes for that reason to vary in brightness. And about the moon those who take this line do not hesitate to say that its light is in itself less than that of the sun, by which they also maintain it is illuminated. Many of the stars, however, so they boldly assert, are equal to the sun, or even greater, but they seem small because they have been set further away. And for us, no doubt, it can be enough to know that whatever the truth may be in this matter, the stars were fashioned by God as their craftsman, although we must hold to what was said with the apostles authority: One is the glory of the sun and another the glory of the moon and another the glory of the moon and another the glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory (I Cor 15:41) But they can still say, even if they are not deliberately disagreeing with the apostle: “They do indeed differ in glory, but to the eyes of people on the earth…”The stars do indeed differ in glory in themselves as well: but all the same there are some which are even greater than the sun.”
Notice that Augustine neither condones nor condemns the view that stars could be in essence other suns. Of course the science of his day really couldn’t answer these kind of questions. However, he does show a real respect for what we today call the natural sciences. My point is that 1600 years ago Christian theologians were dealing with the idea that we lived in a universe of mind staggering size. It's not a new or modern issue. By the way Augustine was not some obscure “backwater” theologian.john_a_designer_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

What Loftus is doing, is trying to take Christianly seriously for the purpose of criticism. Made me laugh.Mung_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

The simple answer to Loftus’ so-called objection is that size doesn’t matter.
Doesn't matter in what sense? While I would agree that size is not evidence that proves a theory, it is is something to be explained by a theory. Theism doesn't explain the size of the universe. It's just as compatible with the early Hebrew conception of the universe and our modern day conception of the universe, or even no universe at all. "That's just what God must have wanted" doesn't explain anything.
The universe did not just come into being for no reason. Who would be foolish enough to defend such a view?
First, that's a straw man. Second, that's incredulity.
For the life of me, I don’t see how atheistic naturalists/materialists can explain how the universe was created instantaneously. For some reason they keep missing that “little fact.”
Even the limited theories we do have explain far more than "that's just what God must have wanted".critical rationalist_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

The simple answer to Loftus’ so-called objection is that size doesn’t matter. However, one big “elephant in the room” sized fact-- at least according to our current scientific understanding-- is that universe was created instantaneously, which means that everything the world would become was in some sense potentially seeded right at the beginning. There was no plan or purpose behind that? That just happened all by chance? The purpose of an acorn is to become an oak tree. The purpose of a fertilized human egg is to become a person. There is no real purpose to any of that? The universe did not just come into being for no reason. Who would be foolish enough to defend such a view? For the life of me, I don’t see how atheistic naturalists/materialists can explain how the universe was created instantaneously. For some reason they keep missing that “little fact.”john_a_designer_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

What Loftus is doing, is trying to take Christianly seriously for the purpose of criticism. One could just as well scale this criticism up and say that God didn't even need to create a universe at all to have relationships with us. Or are you saying that God can only have relationships with physical things? Furthermore, God is supposedly perfect and needs nothing, yet he did not have a material body. However, all versions of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence purport to show that it is self-contradictory to deny that there exists a greatest possible being. A being with a physical body isn't the greatest possible being? If not, then why do we need one? Something does't add up. In the same sense, God supposedly is all knowing, yet he created organisms in the order of least to most complex. This order is completely unnecessary as, being all knowing, he could have created them in the order of most to least complex, or even all at once. IOW, the explanation of God does not explain that phenomena nearly as well as other theories. For example, Neo-Darwnim does explain that order. Nature cannot build organisms until the knowledge necessary to construct them was created. What are examples of incredulity? the inability to believe ideas such as, knowledge can come from something other than an authoritative source, knowledge doesn't need a foundation and that induction is impossible, despite a laundry list of criticisms that refute them. That's incredulity.critical rationalist_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

kf writes,
C S Lewis long ago pointed out that if God chose to create other races across the cosmos, that would not substantially alter his relationship with us.
Agreed. As I at least implied in my post, God could have, given his infinite capacities, as special a relationship with countless other creatures on different planets throughout the universe as he does with us.jdk_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

So when an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and omnimpresent God gets around to creating, He thinks big? Makes perfect sense to credulous me. But the "Meh, the universe is so big there can't be a God" argument suffers from a fatal empirical flaw, making it as invalid as a "Meh, the universe is so small there can't be a God" argument would be. Because God also thinks small. The fact is, on a human-sized scale, the universe is just as small as it is big. And its mathematical midway point between the size of a Planck length and that of the cosmos just so happens to be about the size of a human egg cell, which just so happens to be the smallest-sized object that can be seen by the naked eye. Yes Gertrude, human beings live in the center of the universe size-wise. Go figure. See The Scale of the Universe 2.jstanley01_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

KF, Good comments, as usual. Thanks.Dionisio_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

JDK, C S Lewis long ago pointed out that if God chose to create other races across the cosmos, that would not substantially alter his relationship with us. He spoke in terms of a dose given to a sick sheep on a farm in England. We should also note that given impacts on planets, spores of life in our solar system will have spread as far as gas giant moons. Moreover, on the account in the Hebrew-Christian scriptures, there are hints that in reality as a whole we are not alone, there is a messenger race that seems to be extra-dimensional to us though capable of interacting with us, the angels. Possibly, more than one such race, too -- non-humanoid forms are described (cf. cherubim). Likewise, we see suggestions of different domains of reality, suggesting a limited multiverse -- ponder, heaven. The description of the New Jerusalem suggests a massive orbital satellite as in effect a city in near space -- geostationary? Where there would be a problem, ironically, is for accounts pivoting on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as such point to the extreme rarity of life. Oddly, multiple civilisations on a galactic or cosmic scale would strictly lend weight to design as explanation of life, but of course that is -- predictably -- not how it would be spun in the media. KF PS: What if we will one day be given the job of carrying the gospel to the stars? I see no inherent reason why a one saviour per planet rule is needed. And the God of theism is radically different from a one god per planet with a celestial family narrative to go with it.kairosfocus_{November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

Bob above asked a reasonable question. My question concerning the Christian God is this: is it not likely that God has played the same role countless times throughout this vast universe as he has done here? That is, he has guided/created life in worlds that he has helped make habitable, and at some point entered into a spiritual relationship with creatures when they reached a certain stage of development, either having analogous relationships through a "son of God" or through something else? That is,given his omni-attributes, is it not likely, or at least possible, that he has entered into the same type of relationship, equally special, with other living creatures throughout the entire universe as he has with humans here on earth? Even though we can only know what is happening on our planet, I would think there is no reason to believe that similar types of things haven't happened,in respect to God's activity and relationships, on countless other planets. That seems more in line with the creation of vast universe than the idea that our planet is the only one singled out by God.jdk_{November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

PS: Psalm 8 too: Psalm 8Amplified Bible (AMP) The Lord’s Glory and Man’s Dignity. To the Chief Musician; set to [a]a Philistine lute [or perhaps to a particular Hittite tune]. A Psalm of David. 8 O Lord, our Lord, How majestic and glorious and excellent is Your name in all the earth! You have displayed Your splendor above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babes You have established strength Because of Your adversaries, That You might silence the enemy and make the revengeful cease. 3 When I see and consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have established, 4 What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of [earthborn] man that You care for him? 5 Yet You have made him a little lower than [b]God, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. 6 You made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, 7 All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field, 8 The birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas. 9 O Lord, our Lord, How majestic and glorious and excellent is Your name in all the earth! Footnotes: Psalm 8:1 Or perhaps to a particular key; meaning uncertain. Psalm 8:5 LXX reads angels; Heb Elohim is usually translated “God” or “god.” But it can also mean “gods” (with a lowercase “g”) when it is used with reference to the pagan gods of other nations. See, for instance, Ex 20:3: “You shall have no other gods (Elohim) before Me.” Since there are no capital letters in Hebrew as there are in English, the meaning of Ps 8:5 is ambiguous. It may be saying that humans were created a little lower than God Himself, or it may say that humans were created a little lower than the heavenly beings.kairosfocus_{November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply