Stealthpudge believes in God…I challenge that!
Stealthpudge18 (http://opendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A710872) responded to my question of "Why do you think there is a God?" with a multi-faceted response. His text is in red, my response is in black. This is the first of at least 2 posts… All comments welcome.
In one of Bum’s recent entries, he concludes with a question: "So, why do you think there is a God?" I’d like to respond. Here are my reasons, in the nearest semblance of an order I can manage.
1. The metaphysical problem of origins.
Philosophers from Plato on have strugged with this question. If you posit some other source than a deity or deities for the creation of the universe, some sort of being outside the system, you are left with a profound metaphysical problem, namely, the problem of creating something from nothing. Take one competing view of the beginning of things, the Big Bang. There is a profound metaphysical problem with the Big Bang–where does the stuff that exploded come from? Even if you posit some sort of primeval atom that was superdensely packed and exploded, that does not answer the question of WHERE that ‘primeval atom’ came from. (As an aside, this is my most longstanding problem with Darwinism–that it cannot answer this question of ultimate origin. I have no problem accepting that things change over time. It seems to me to be quite likely that they do. But without the origin question answered, the theory is only partially explanatory.) You cannot blindly assert that matter exists and still claim, in my opinion, to be explaining everything. Avoiding the most fundamental "why" question does not negate the validity of that question.
I agree with you, partially… But this argument says, "I cannot conceive of how the "universe began" – any solution that I can think of, fails for some reason or another" — which is true, but it’s a statement about the limits of your imagination, it is in no way a statement on the limits of what possibly happened.
It would be like a person a few thousand years ago arguing, "How could the Earth NOT be the center of everything? If we aren’t the center, then why aren’t we falling toward it? How could the Earth be "moving" and why don’t we feel it if we are?"
Sure – that person might not be able to imagine the Earth as a spinning ball traveling in space around the sun; but similarly, his inability to imagine how it works, is a statement about the limits of his imagination.
Do I know how the universe began? Do I think I have it figured out? No. I don’t know, and I think that that kind of honest answer isn’t said enough in any conversation. I am willing to try and figure it out, however.
Always remember: Reality is not limited by anyone’s imagination!
2. The anthropic coincidences.
A great deal could be said about this, but this earth on which we live is highly attuned to life. In fact, it is possible that in all the vastness of the universe, this is the only planet uniquely wired for life as we know it. If that doesn’t blow your mind, let’s go on. There are hundreds of factors that make life on earth possible. All of these factors are dependent on one another to work. For example, we are the exact distance from the sun to keep the earth’s atmosphere from vaporizing, while at the same time, close enough to keep the earth’s crust warm enough to support life. That is related to the amount of oxygen and other gases in our atmosphere (Ozone and others.) If any of these settings is off, even by a small bit, the entire world of life as we know it comes tumbling down. There has been some refutation of this by atheistic scientists, but I’m unconvinced by their science…I think this is ultimately a probability argument. (ergo…"If we find a universe that has to have thousands of things go exactly right and thousands of factors arrange in exactly such and such a way, and we find that this universe does in fact exist, it is more probable that it was done on purpose than it happened as a product of the equation (Time+Matter+Chance=This exact Universe that accomodates life).
It’s almost like saying – look at this puddle in this pothole… what are the chances that the water in this pothole would look like that? I mean, for it to fit so perfectly in this intricate interlocking way, without even a single air-bubble… what are the odds of water just "taking that shape"? Probably more than 1 in a trillion… Man, it’s like our very own miracle in the road…
It’s as though life has adapted perfectly to it’s environment… (Echo: it’s as though this water adapted perfectly to it container…)
3. Information Theory.
Closely related to #2, is this rather simple little axiom. Simply put it goes as follows (to borrow from old predecessors) If you are walking down the street, and you pick up a pocket watch, you don’t suppose that it happened by accident. If you are walking in the desert and come across a stone pillar with carvings on it, you don’t suppose that the wind has done what you are witnessing. In the same way, a universe like this, with the anthropic coincidences above and with the delicacy of our terrestrial biology, it seems to be the case that these things communicate some sort of design or designer that has instituted them to be the way they are. I believe that this universe, with this complexity of life, is more likely to be designed then to be an accident. If it was designed, that necessarily implies a designer or designers.
Ok, let’s say that a designer is implied. Does that mean some "intelligent" designer? Or how about some mechanism for rejecting designs that don’t work, like "natural selection."
I mean, if you had a computer program that just spit out random bits of letters and lettering, and another program that killed off the attempt if it was making a string of letters that couldn’t possibly be a word, would you be surprised to find that after a while, you have a bunch of words listed? Probably not.
Is there some design to this? Sure, a program that just did random letters coupled with a selection program could eventually come up with a list of all of the words in the English language. If you saw that list, would you say, "This clearly has the mark of a designer."? Probably. Would you be right? Kinda…but not necessarily an intelligent designer, or one with forethought.
Does it have to be that way? No. Could evolution be in
correct? Sure. Incomplete? Sure. Could there be more mechanisms at work that natural selection and sexual selection? Probably. Even if we found out tomorrow that evolution doesn’t explain ANYTHING – how does not having an account for how complexity in life came to be, a statement of ignorance, become a statement of information about a designer outside of this or any system?
4. The Existence of Human Reason.
In a world like the one we live in, if we say our existence is mere happenstance…an accident, a fluke of nature (ignoring for the moment how there can be a nature if everything is an accident), we must also account for the existence of our own ability to debate the issue at all. It seems highly unlikely to me that a universe of the highly fickle nature I’ve described could possibly be "lucky" enough to produce both this kind of universe, this kind of solar system, this kind of planet, this kind of life, and then take the unmitigated leap to become conscious of itself. Again, beating the same drum I’ve been on for all of my first four points, this to me is a probability argument. It seems much more likely that in a world like this, with people who can reason and contemplate our own universe and internal complexity, that it was done on purpose rather than it being an accident, or a product of the Time+Matter+Chance equation. To borrow just a bit from Pascal, it seems that we are in a unique position as human beings because we are the crown of all that is by virtue of our ability to reason, but the lowest of all that is because of our inability to live up to our potential.
I think that evolution does give a rather nice possible account of how beings that reason could come about…it might be wrong, but again, I see you labeling your acknowledged lack of conceptual powers "God." Why can’t you just say, "I don’t see how this works"?
NOTE: So far, I’ve not made any sort of case whatsoever for one particular God over another. The only thing I think I’ve made in terms of a choice is positing one God as opposed to many. The reason for that is based on Occam’s Razor, if one deity could adequately do all the same functions as many deities, there is no reason to posit more than one unless we have good reason to do so. Other than history of world religion (which is at best split on their opinion of this issue), I see no reason logically to posit the existence of more than one. One deity is preferable for many reasons.
Ok, I’m going to take serious issue with this statment here. It is a complete misuse of Occam’s Razor to suggest that "one deity" is a simpler theory as "many deities"…. I don’t even want to see you try to explain why one super-powerful deity is a "simpler" theory than many simple "deities" that worked together. That’d be like explaining the building of a large building as the work of one huge, powerful, superhuman, is a simpler theory than explaining it as a team effort of small, talented humans working together toward a common goal. Sure, "number" is "simpler" – but that’s not what Occam’s Razor aims at – it’s talking simplest theory that explains all available facts.
This shouldn’t shock you, but I disagree that what I’m talking about is my imagination. I can imagine a great deal, but the fact that I can imagine it doesn’t make it reality. The metaphysical and logical problems remain in my points–you cannot make something from nothing. You cannot posit objectivity where there is no otherness. These are not synthetic truths, there have to be true, a priori.
Warning Comment
In #2, the similarities end when we start comparing the number of factors involved in producing the highly complex system we have on earth (with thousands of variables, all mutually exclusive to produce life), and the relatively simply act of making a pothole. And with your pothole, you’re still positing someone that made it, however accidentally.
Warning Comment
About Occam’s Razor, the solution is not simpler because of the number, it is simpler because of the nature of the question trying to be answered. Many Gods cooperating doesn’t answer the ultimate question of origins nearly as neatly as one God. Without reason to posit more, I will stick with the one.
Warning Comment
I will never understand why “I don’t know where it comes from” means “god made it” to so many people.
Warning Comment
Oh you are something else. Trying to challenge other people’s beliefs? What gives you the right to do that? You aren’t God! I know a great many people in this world that are living proof that there is a God. Myself included. I know I have made bad decisions and judgements, but God has helped me through my trials and mistakes. He forgives. I think you being raised sooo Catholic is what messed youup
Warning Comment
In re to coconut: When you ask a question like, “Where does all matter come from?” or “What are the circumstances surrounding the origin of everything we see around us?” there is nothing wrong with the answer, “I don’t know.” Nothing whatsoever. But, if you are seeking an answer to that question that covers all the available facts as best you can, “I don’t know,” isn’t much of an answer.
Warning Comment
How does our ability to reason say that there’s a god? Just because we’re “evolved” enough to reason does not mean anything. Say humans didn’t exist on earth, but other lifeforms did, lifeforms that are unable to reason. Would that mean that there isn’t a god? And if there was a god, why stop at making us able to reason? Why not give us the ability to completely understand him?
Warning Comment
Oh, so many comments… #1: The Big Bang Theory doesn’t necessarily mean that something came from nothing. The list of possibilities of what could have caused the existance of the “primeval atom” is so long and varried, I probably couldn’t even fit it all into a full entry. But, at our current position in time, I don’t think we really need to worry about that right now. Let’s just work on …
Warning Comment
Let’s just work on proving/disproving the Big Bag for now. If it is proven true, then we can start to worry about its origins. Otherwise, there’ll be a bunch of people getting their shorts in a wad over something that may be completely irrelevant. That, to me, seems like I giant waste of energy and effort that could be spent on something more productive. …
Warning Comment
I agree with Bum on this one. It is better to just say “I don’t know” and then work towards finding the truth than to just say it was done by god(s). For example, when I was really young – like most kids – I wondered why the sky was blue. Rather than saying “I don’t know,” a lot of people just told me it was “because God wanted it to be that color.” But, now that I am older …
Warning Comment
I know that we percieve the sky as being blue due to a combination of atmospheric composition, the nature of light, and the way our eyes and brains process light and color. Did god(s) make it that way? I can’t say for certain. But, I seriously doubt all of those conditions were met just for the sake of creating a blue sky.
Warning Comment
#2: “…it is possible that in all the vastness of the universe, this is the only planet uniquely wired for life as we know it.” This is true. However, it is way to early to put all your faith in that possibilty. Each star in the universe has the potential to be the center of a solar system similar to ours. Scentists have studied only a tiny fraction of the sky …
Warning Comment
and they’ve only been studying the stars relatively close to us. Do you know how many stars are in the entire universe? It has been said that there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on our entire planet. And, the number of stars we have studied equates to less than a handfull of sand.
Warning Comment
Only when we’ve studied over 25% of the stars in the universe will I even begin to entertain the notion that our planet may be the only one with life. Also, it’s true that in order for human life to exist, a number of specific criteria have to be met. But, scientists aren’t trying to find other humans. Life can take any shape or form and can be found in the harshest of environments. …
Warning Comment
For example, scientists have found a variety of lifeforms thriving next to thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean. There’s no light down there, the temperatures vary from freezing to several hundred degrees celsius, the pressure is beyond crushing, and poisionous gases spew from the vents. Yet, there is still life there. Just because we can’t survive there doesn’t mean something else can’t.
Warning Comment
#3: “If you are walking down the street, and you pick up a pocket watch, you don’t suppose that it happened by accident.” I don’t quite get this one. Of course, walking down the street wouldn’t be an accident. And, I wouldn’t think that picking up a pocket watch would be an accident, either. However, I doubt someone put the watch on the street on purpose. …
Warning Comment
Someone probably lost it, and that would be an accident. And, actually finding the watch would most likely be nothing more than coincidence. So, that’s not really the best analogy… *shrug*
Warning Comment
#4: Assuming that human intelligence is random, just because the odds are against that occuring doesn’t mean that it is beyond the realm of possibility. Here’s an example… A few years ago, I saw a horse race on tv. Of all the horses that were running, the odds of a certain horse winning was over 70 to 1. No one in their right mind thought it would win. But, it did. …
Warning Comment
It barely won, but the fact is, it still won. And, because it was such a long shot, there was a huge payoff for those who actually bet on it. True, the possibility of an organism randomly developing higher levels of intelligence can’t really compare to a horse race. But, I am just saying that, despite the odds, it’s still not 100% impossible.
Warning Comment
Note: I don’t know much about Occam or why he used a razor for thinking rather than shaving, but I do know a good quote from Enistein – “Make everying as simple as possible, but not simpler.” I will agree with Bum that attributing unknowns to god(s) rather than just saying “I don’t know,” is a simple solution. …
Warning Comment
And, in my opinion, saying that there is only one god as opposed to several gods just because it’s easier to believe goes above and beyond over-simplification. I can’t help but wonder, do you believe the things you do because you honestly believe them to be the ultimate truth, or is it just because it’s easier to do so?
Warning Comment
“There is a profound metaphysical problem with the Big Bang-where does the stuff that exploded come from?” It’s only a problem if you make it a problem. This is a loaded question. There is no evidence or reason to believe that the matter/energy involved in the big bang did not exist prior to this event, since the theory only reaches back to fractions of a second after expansion commences.
Warning Comment
“If any of these settings is off, even by a small bit, the entire world of life as we know it comes tumbling down.” Which doesn’t take into consideration how many opportunities the Universe has had to get them right. With potentially billions and billions of planets formed and still forming, you’re looking at an incredibly large sample size.
Warning Comment
If I roll a billion-sided die the chances that it would land on the 21st side is immensely small. But what if I rolled it a few trillion times? Should I be shocked if 21 appears or should I consider it almost inevitable at this point?
Warning Comment
“it seems to be the case that these things communicate some sort of design or designer that has instituted them to be the way they are..” Compared to what? There must be some basis to distinguish designed things from un-designed things. Watches and pillars are never formed naturally like rocks and trees, so they are designed. Saying everything is designed is like saying nothing’s designed.
Warning Comment
It’s not the complexity of the watch that leads one to conclude it must be designed, rather, it’s the fact that we know that nature does not produce watches on her own that leads one to conclude that it must be designed. Snowflakes have a complex structure, but nobody claims that each one is individually designed because we know that nature produces them through simple physico-chemical laws.
Warning Comment
Occam’s razor simply states that assumptions should not be multiplied unnecessarily. So by “simple” we mean “assumes the least.” Assuming a single super-human to explain how a skyscaper was built assumes more than assuming that thousands of humans working together got it done, since we have no evidence of super-humans but plenty of evidence of the power of human cooperation.
Warning Comment
As for gods, we have no experience with them so we have no basis for saying that a single god assumes less than multiple gods. In my opinion, Occam’s razor cannot be applied to this problem for that reason. We have no means to evaluate the likelihood of one god as opposed to multiple gods in the same sense that we can evaluate the liklihood of one super-human as opposed to a 1,000 normal humans.
Warning Comment
Again, let me make a couple of things quite clear. First, I’m NOT saying that evolution or the Big Bang have no explanatory power. Don’t automatically assume that I follow the party line on this issue and am anti-evolution and anti-Big Bang. My point is that even if they do everything they purport to do, they still don’t answer my ultimate question of origins, upon which my problem is based.
Warning Comment
Second, equating claims for the philosophical viability of belief in deity to geocentric claims about the earth smacks of ad hominem attack. They are in no way alike. My belief in God is NOT a philosophical, existential or scientific give-up, it is a rational, philosophically sound argumentation built from a cumulative case argument based on probability, not mystery.
Warning Comment
Furthermore, the probability arguments I’m talking about here are far greater than the one in a trillion scenarios suggested here. They are nearly infinitesimal in size, and to trivialize them with trite comparisons bespeaks a lack of the understanding of the nature of the debate, which I know to be false, because the people who are making them know (probably better than I) how great the odds are.
Warning Comment
The example of the pocket watch is based not on the walking, but on the existence of the watch. I botched my telling of it in the entry, but I’m referring to Paley’s example, whereby a person picks up a pocket watch with hundreds of related moving parts, and assumed automatically that it was made by a watch maker.
Warning Comment
In re Dark-Magic: You seem to understand my argument exactly. I’m not saying that it is impossible that this universe is an accident. I’m not saying that it is impossible that sentience could just spontanenously develop. What I AM saying is that I believe it more probable (e.g. the odds are better) that it was not an accident and there is a better explanation, than it was actually an accident.
Warning Comment
More for Dark: I agree with you that there MAY be life on other planets, and that it is POSSIBLE. That is neither here nor there when it comes to my argument. My only point is that it is possible (and given what we know about the nature of life as we know it, maybe more likely than we think) that this is the only planet in the universe capable of sustaining life.
Warning Comment
“the probability arguments I’m talking about here are far greater than the one in a trillion scenarios suggested here. They are nearly infinitesimal in size..” Oh, really? And how exactly is that figured? How do you calculate the probability of something occuring for which you do not know the conditions under which it occurred?
Warning Comment
It’s like suggesting that the probability of cells blindly moving around for 9 months and forming a human baby is infintesimally small without any knowledge of DNA and genetics. We are in a similar situation with regards to the factors involved in shaping the way the Universe turned out. We don’t know the odds because we don’t know how much of it was inevitable.
Warning Comment
Then there’s the fact that Earth has just the right properties to support life. That might be amazing if Earth was one of only a few planets in the solar system. But with billions of other planets and billions of years at its disposal, that’s billions of chances to get it right.
Warning Comment
I would be fine with that, except for the word “inevitable.” If I understand the position, with the Time+Matter+Chance=this exact universe, there is no such thing as inevitable, there is only a shot in trillions or quadrillions, and one shot into the darkness, because only one of the possible universes has actually occurred (at least so far as we know).
Warning Comment
Thank you for your insight. It is noted but I can see from your entries that God has closed your heart to seeing the truth. God bless you, you are in my prayers that you somehow find salvation.
Warning Comment
In terms of figuring the odds, all I need do to calculate is use science’s best guesses as to the length of the universe and the number of planets, and so forth. I don’t even need to believe the figures presented, I need only use the consensus numbers. Dembski has done quite a lot with this, but I don’t have the number he ultimately suggests close at hand.
Warning Comment
“If I understand the position, with the Time+Matter+Chance=this exact universe” You are forgetting one very important part of the equation: Natural Law. Matter doesn’t just interact randomly, it interacts predictably (and it is this predictability that we call ‘law’). Natrual law limits everything that matter does, so that it’s no longer a “shot in the dark.”
Warning Comment
You can’t assume that the Universe could have taken on virtually any shape without knowing what factors were involved in making the Universe the way it was and how volatile and variable those inputs were. Even if you could assume as much, you don’t know what the sample size is. Is this the only Universe – the only shot – or just one of billions and billions?
Warning Comment
I think too many are trying to say that they “know” there is a god. You’re right, we don’t know! We think, feel, believe, have a good idea, but we can’t know.
Warning Comment
“We think, feel, believe, have a good idea, but we can’t know.” -Lillake Where do you think our emotions came from? You think they evolved? I would like to see these guys debate more on what humans really are inside. There has to be a Maker of some kind. I don’t spill out puzzle pieces to see them automatically fit together and make a picture. I have to put it together myself.
Warning Comment
And why can’t we know?? Having such strong emotions, passions, thoughts, etc., don’t you think we have a right to know where all that stems from?
Warning Comment
In re An Atheist: Invoking “natural law” doesn’t solve the problem, it only begs the question: What nature? What law? And why that nature and that law? I don’t deny that those laws exist, but for me, they are part of the question, not the answer. In my saying that, I’m not addressing the content or rationality of the law, I’m only saying that to my way of thinking, law implies lawgiver.
Warning Comment
More for An Atheist: In addition, what do you mean by nature? It seems to me that if you talk about natural law as the guiding principle and the answer, that you’ve simply substituted “natural law” for “God/s.”
Warning Comment
“I’m only saying that to my way of thinking, law implies lawgiver.” Perhaps because you are thinking of natural laws as analagous to governmental laws. The latter are prescriptive, the former are descriptive. “Natural law” is a description of some regularity. You seem to be assuming that chaos is the norm and that order is some anomaly that requires an explanation.
Warning Comment
This is what most creation myths seem to do. They begin with chaos and then introduce a god or gods to explain how chaos is turned into order. But why should order not be the primary state of existence?
Warning Comment
Natural law, as far as I am concerned, is simply a description of the way things are. To ask why things are the way they are presumes that they could be other than the way they are and presumes some controlling context greater than it – neither of which are as yet warranted presumptions.
Warning Comment
If natural law is superceded by something else, then one could simply ask why that is the way it is, and so on ad infinitum. Theists propose that “God” explains natural law when in fact they haven’t established that natural law actually needs explaining. It seems to me, rather that natural law forms the starting point for all discussions concerning existence.
Warning Comment
“…God has closed your heart to seeing the truth.” If g0d did it, then why do you hope that it changes? Are you saying you disagree with the way g0d is doing things? And why does it always sound like, even though they say g0d did it, they are blaming _you_ for your heart being closed?
Warning Comment
To An Atheist: 2 Brief things. The Law of Entropy states that chaos is in at least some ways normal. I’m not talking “creation myths” here. I’m talking reality. If you’re going to say that there is naturally order, I want to know on what basis that assumption is made. Other than the fact it’s what we observe, what reason is there to believe that order is normal?
Warning Comment
Second, I don’t believe for one second that the question of origin goes on ad infinitum. I believe if a theory of origins is to have any explanatory power, it must start from ground zero.
Warning Comment
As far as the Entropy thing goes, I didn’t explain what I meant clearly enough. Substitute “chaos” and “order” with “lawlessness” and “lawfullness” or “irregularity” and “regularity” and you might get what I was trying to say. I am not refering to the physical orderliness or appearance of the Universe.
Warning Comment
By the way, the Law of Entropy has nothing to do with physical chaos or order as we commonly understand it. It has to do with the amount of energy in a closed system that is available to do “work” (or bring about changes to that system). Organization, in fact, requires an increase in entropy, because organization involves a change in the system.
Warning Comment