Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Is that logical to you? I 'm thinking that it is sort of counter-intuitive.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Problems with Belief when it comes to a Christian and Islamic God...
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
Is that logical to you? I 'm thinking that it is sort of counter-intuitive.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
A lot of the arguments for God rely on giving God a free pass. So God can be eternal but the universe can't, God can self-create but the universe can't, and so on.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Nope..My theism just takes that characteristic; however, if one thought of the universe as self creating, what on earth does that mean, as far as ''creationism'', etc? That is a form of creationism! It's a catch 22 for the people who don't want to have theism or creator aspects in their faith, yet want to have an ''answer'', to that question.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
We have no idea how our universe came into being.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I tend to agree (I say "tend" mainly because of the ascription of thought to "fatty tissue and electricity" given that I think this is overly simplistic both from the perspective of quantum electrodynamics and the neural code), but I think it is important that those of us who seek to discover the nature and physiology of cognition and consciousness be aware of what we are assuming vs. what we have demonstrated (and the degree to which we have demonstrated that which we have). For example:
"In cognitive neuroscience there is a major ontological assumption that, however controversial, guides the day-by-day activities of laboratory researchers as well as those who conjure up new theories of the relation between the mind and the brain. That basic assumption is that, however inexplicable it may be at the moment, the brain makes the mind. Although we do not know how, it is widely accepted that a complete neural explanation is, in principle, possible. Those who labor in the laboratory rarely make this monistic assumption explicit, and yet few cognitive neuroscientists would challenge this fundamental idea.
Nevertheless, the assumption of mind-brain equivalence is without any compelling empirical foundation; none of the required tests of necessity and sufficiency have ever been carried out to confirm it generally or specifically. However likely it may seem, there is no evidence other than plausibility and reason to support this foundation assumption." (emphasis added)
Uttal, W. R. (2011). Mind and Brain: A Critical Appraisal of Cognitive Neuroscience. MIT Press.
This doesn't follow, but it is an excellent point. If one is prepared to ascribe to an entity "God" the capacity to self-create whilst denying this of anything else, then one should defend the reason(s) for which one denies that the universe has this property
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Aha, notice the similarity to the ''atheism'' issue, ie atheists should not have to defend their position? Seems like you would de facto be saying that atheists should have to defend their position with a positive assertion.
Last edited:
I'm not an atheist (I'm agnostic). However, there isn't an equivalency here. On the one hand, there is the argument that there must exist an entity "God" with the property of self-causation or of requiring no cause and that no other entity can have this property. On the other hand, there is not this assumption. That is, I need not claim a particular nature to the origin of the universe in order to deny the need for a creator, but I must appeal to a particular nature to a creator AND creation in order to claim that the universe can't be explained without said creator.
Denying that the universe can have a property one ascribes to another entity is not the same as denying that this property is necessary at all AND that if it is necessary, it can't be ascribed to something else. "Nobody/nothing can speak for god but the pope" requires far more than the claim "perhaps others can speak for god (or nobody)." Likewise, the claim "God is the only entity that can be uncreated/self create" requires far more than the claim "perhaps not". In general, the assertion that there exists only one exemplar of a particular situation, property, entity, etc., requires that for all that exists this be the only one, while the contrary claim need consist merely of the assertion that EITHER this particular situation, property, entity, etc., DOESN'T exist OR that there exists another exemplar (and this "or" is inclusive, not exclusive).
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
We really don't have any idea. Maybe God did do it, but in my view basing a major religion on such a tenuous possibility is a real stretch, suggesting a large element of wishful thinking.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Whatever theism suggests to you, isn't really my problem. I think that things poofing into existence magically is wishful thinking, so, I suppose we disagree with each other.
Things "poof" into existence all the time.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Yes.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I would have thought a child could work out that science has nothing to do with proving/not proving God. Simply: if he exists, there would be no evidence for him as that is what he says, or, he doesn't, and therefore there would be no evidence for. The only reason you could wish to use science as an argument is to take it into your own realm of ideas and to turn the argument into something you can, falsely, refute.
Your inability to accept that luck will not bring about everything and that intelligence is a better answer clouds your judegment. You must not make the fundamental atheist mistake of thinking someone else does not know just because you don't.
The God that we understand is contingent on something else, yes. You have a failed understanding of the divine-principle and therefore your arguments are immature and wrong.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Yes, it follows the same print and has complete autonomy...though error is involved
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
But one can imagine consciousness evolving into anything, but physical matter making everything we see unguided through blind chance, no.
In the words [hand typed] physicist G Schroeder:
"In the words of the knighted mathematician James Jeans, the world looks more like a great thought than a great machine. Biblical theology agrees totally, telling us, as we will learn, that God used a substrate of wisdom with which to build the world. This Divine wisdom or mind is present in every iota of the world's being. It explains how the energy of the creation, essentially superpowerful light beams, could become alive and sentient, able to feel love and joy and wonder. Divine wisdom was and is present, guiding and forming the way.
The secular world of course takes a different stance. If we can get past the question of what created the universe from nothing (was it God?), we then let the laws of nature take the credit for producing, in some as yet unknown way, the magnificence of the life from the big bang burst of pure, exquisitely hot energy. All this by random chance. It takes a stretch of the imagination, but that is all that is available to a secular explanation of our cosmic genesis.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Apparently the answer is, it's "natural", whatever that means!
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I love this "we" you keep using. I assume you mean science, the same science that will never know, so why use it?
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Good point
But what I was really referring to was the "we" which appears to incorporate everyone.
But it can help in understanding (perhaps one way or the other) but not, as Dawkins says, is God a quesiton for science. It is not. I see no problem in using it to show something, but it will not ultimately show whether he does or does not exist. Does that explain it or am I now in a big hole? Don't bother answering.