Freethought & Rationalism Archive

the_cave · 03-27-2003, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
all scientific theories are indeed situational.

Maybe so, but if that's the case, then I don't see how divine morality needs to be any less situational than, say, quantum chromodynamics, in order to avoid being arbitrary.

Fiach · 03-27-2003, 09:52 PM

Boy, Albert & Fiach are way better at this than I am! I might just let them have at it...

But I am going out of my environmental space even talking about this stuff. It is challenging.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mageth
Well, if he permeates space, he exists in space, at least in some sense. I'm not exactly sure what "transcends space" means. Does this mean he's non-dimensional, or N-dimensional? If he's not in space, non-dimensional, then he has no dimension, occupies "nothing", and another god could just as easily occupy an equal amount of "nothing" without violating any logical laws I know of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It just means that being is not fully contained within the spatial dimensions of our universe. There could be other dimensions, or other states of being entirely. Mostly I myself am concerned with pondering the nature of the universe's existence in general--exactly how does it exist? What does it exist in relation to? How did it get the laws it has? Questions like that. I just think we can philosophically reason to some limited answers to those questions, even if science doesn't, or can't, provide the details. We at least can come up with some responses that satisfy our existential wonderings, beyond "just shut up and go do something else." (I'm not saying anyone here is saying that, I'm saying that's the impression I get from a lot of materialist arguments.)

Science cannot address this issue because we all admit that science studies only the matter energy universe. We "believe" that this is all there is. But we don't know that. My take on God is coloured by Irish Catholic and Anglican views of my education. It is that God not only exists and permeates the matter energy universe, and any/all dimensions, but God cannot be defined in terms of matter, energy, dimensions, or time/space. This is not an anthropomorphic god in the primitive fundamentalists sense. In this manner, per Catholic/Anglican teaching, God is really everywhere, everywhat, and everywhen and in every plane of existence. Does this make sense or am I babbling gabberloony? I am able to mentally conceive of God in this way despite the fact that I lack a convincing belief in God.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, the physical laws don't "transend" the universe, as far as I know. Permeate, perhaps, but not transcend.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with that. Matter/energy and its laws permeate the universe but we can't even begin to define transcending it. Postulating about God transcending it is a seperate issue from physical matter and laws transcending it.

Alright, but why do those laws exist? What brings them about? It seems to me the answer would have to be something that transcended our universe (which wouldn't necessarily mean it wasn't natural, or real).

Why do physical laws exist? Why implies a conscious purpose. We can propose HOW those laws exist and derive them with familiar calculus equations, getting hazier as I get older. But when I look at an atom with a positive valence of +1 has one electrode in its outer orbit. 8 outer orbital electrons is in every case stable. So along comes Chloride with 7 electrons in the outer ring and a valence of -7. It only needs another electron to be a stable 8. It attracts that from the outer ring of Na+ and forms NaCl which is stable ionically and in electrical forces. It is the products or physical properties of matter. If Calcium, valence +2, is mixed with Chlorine, you know that an orbital electron count of 9 cannot form (lets not discuss free radicles yet.) So Calcium has to share its two outer electrons with two Chlorines of -7 each so that CaCl2 .

We don't know what makes the physical properties of matter. That is not to say that such properties are not arbitrary edicts of a god but unavoidable properties of the atomic number and valence of atoms, the new and acquired properties are likewise inevitable. Na (corrosive metal) and Cl (toxic gas) always form NaCl a nutritional necessity in every case and in any universe. I think that evolution inevitably formed increasingly complex animals as climates and conditions changed. It may not have led to humans but it may have led to an intelligent thinking animal quite different from us.

Fiach

Cipher Girl · 03-27-2003, 10:44 PM

Hi the_cave
Well, after thinking about it, one way to put it is, I think that god is kind of defined in a way that makes this logically impossible--god is more or less the greatest, most powerful being that there is--but that means there's no space for god to split "into". Besides the created universe, there's nothing besides god, so there's no place where there could be more than one god. Difficult to think about, but I think this is correct. It's an interesting question, though.
If god permeates throughout the universe, existing in the same space as other creatures, why could there not be many gods all existing in the same space? Why does there have to be only one?

It just means that being is not fully contained within the spatial dimensions of our universe. There could be other dimensions, or other states of being entirely. Mostly I myself am concerned with pondering the nature of the universe's existence in general--exactly how does it exist? What does it exist in relation to? How did it get the laws it has? Questions like that. I just think we can philosophically reason to some limited answers to those questions, even if science doesn't, or can't, provide the details. We at least can come up with some responses that satisfy our existential wonderings, beyond "just shut up and go do something else." (I'm not saying anyone here is saying that, I'm saying that's the impression I get from a lot of materialist arguments.)

You said earlier that this god of yours exists only in this universe. Where is the evidence? The physical laws that govern our universe are certainly not complete by any means. But I think it is jumping the gun somewhat to say that the unknowns in our universe imply a god exists. Especially a god that is described as vaguely as most theists describe said deity. Vague enough that they really haven't said more than "god exists." What are the attributes of this deity? Can we test for those attributes? If this deity interacts with this universe, shouldn't we be able to describe this deity in such a manner that we can test for it's existance and predict the effects of said deity?

And if the deity does not interact with this universe, then does it really matter? This would have the same effect as there not being a deity at all.

Now I think we have strayed rather far off topic.

Fiach · 03-27-2003, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cipher Girl
[B]Hi the_cave

Well, after thinking about it, one way to put it is, I think that god is kind of defined in a way that makes this logically impossible--god is more or less the greatest, most powerful being that there is--but that means there's no space for god to split "into". Besides the created universe, there's nothing besides god, so there's no place where there could be more than one god. Difficult to think about, but I think this is correct. It's an interesting question, though.

We don't really know that besides the "created univers" exists besides God. We don't know if the universe was created or that there is a god. But if God is immaterial, non-spatial, non-dimensional, and not bound by time, that more than one God could coexist everywhere, and everywhen.

If god permeates throughout the universe, existing in the same space as other creatures, why could there not be many gods all existing in the same space? Why does there have to be only one?

It might be that way if there is one god, why not an infinite number?

It just means that being is not fully contained within the spatial dimensions of our universe. There could be other dimensions, or other states of being entirely. Mostly I myself am concerned with pondering the nature of the universe's existence in general--exactly how does it exist? What does it exist in relation to? How did it get the laws it has? Questions like that. I just think we can philosophically reason to some limited answers to those questions, even if science doesn't, or can't, provide the details. We at least can come up with some responses that satisfy our existential wonderings, beyond "just shut up and go do something else." (I'm not saying anyone here is saying that, I'm saying that's the impression I get from a lot of materialist arguments.)

The Materialistic arguments are the only ones we know are true. The rest is speculation. Whether the universe was created is speculative. Whether atoms and particles and molecules have properties due to divine decree or are inevitable properties of these particles that cannot be avoided. Sand is granular because of its molecular structure not because God said "Sand will thus be granular."

You said earlier that this god of yours exists only in this universe. Where is the evidence?

We have no way to know if God exists in this universe let alone if he exists in universes that are only speculative.

The physical laws that govern our universe are certainly not complete by any means.

They are complete. It is just that we don't know them all yet.

But I think it is jumping the gun somewhat to say that the unknowns in our universe imply a god exists. Especially a god that is described as vaguely as most theists describe said deity. Vague enough that they really haven't said more than "god exists." What are the attributes of this deity? Can we test for those attributes? If this deity interacts with this universe, shouldn't we be able to describe this deity in such a manner that we can test for it's existance and predict the effects of said deity?

That is the major defence of all Theisms. Their claims cannot be tested, and are based only on hearsay.

And if the deity does not interact with this universe, then does it really matter? This would have the same effect as there not being a deity at all.

Deism.

Now I think we have strayed rather far off topic.

But sometimes you just have to stray off topic to keep readers from falling asleep. That is why I deliberately do so in my own posts.

Fiach

Albert Cipriani · 03-27-2003, 11:58 PM

Come On Fiach,
You are smarter than this:

Quote:

The Materialistic arguments are the only ones we know are true... Sand is granular because of its molecular structure not because God said �Sand will thus be granular.�

That's circular if ever there was a beach ball. And it's a straw man if ever there was a scarecrow. Let's see if we can derive another perceptive revelation from your twisted telephone line of reasoning. Pond ice is hard because of its crystalline structure not because I�m freezing my ass off on top of it. How trivial!

Point is, all things are what they are because of other things. This is elementary, Dr. Watson. For theists, ultimately the other thing is God. For atheists, ultimately the other thing is nothing at all, just because because.

So get off your high-horse. Stifle your high and mighty talk about materialism being one whit more true than theism, and show some humility. For thou art dust and it ain�t one bit more significant than sand. � Albert the Traditional Catholic

Darkblade · 03-28-2003, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darkblade
I am still reading through this thread, and I basically never post before reading the whole thread, but I will do so here.

If "free will" is supposedly needed in any creation by CGC (christian god-concept),

Sorry but that is also an unproven assumption for any creator. Even consciousness is an assumption. It is present in the anthropomorphic gods. So you assume an anthropomophic god.

I thought that by putting all (false) unproven concepts in quotation marks and calling the xian god a concept, I made it clear that I did not assume these things, but was rather turning them "against" the_cave, whose premise it was that CGC valued freedom ("free will") above the absence of evil:

Quote:

Originally posted by the_cave

Another great question. Christian orthodoxy (and, really, any religion that makes sense) would say it's neither; he wants to, but freedom for his creatures is a higher good, which he always prefers. He could control the evil; but that itself would be a greater evil. What he can't do is make a world with freedom, and without evil. That, the theologian argues, is logically impossible.

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach

and CGC supposedly never does evil, and CGC knew, in "his" omniscience, that creating humans would cause them to "create" evil for themselves,

Perhaps he wanted his primate creations to do evil so he could populate Hell, his other major creation.

thus harming them, why didn't CGC, in "his" omniscience and omnipotence, just instead create an infinite (it should be infinite, in order to create a "maximum" happiness value) amount of beings similar or identical to "himself", in knowledge that said beings would never do evil, just as "he" never will? (I know that this sentence is very long,...)

Well, he did subdivide into three personalities, as some humans do in Multiple Personality Disorder. Isn't three persons enough to have a really interesting game of chess, or arm wrestling. Father whose arm can overcome anything, and Son whose arm can resist anything while the Holy Spirit tries to decide on whom to bet.

Would CGC somehow be intimidated by the fact that these beings would (at least) be "his" moral and emotional equals (if not "his" equals in power and knowledge), or would "he" merely be bored by this arrangement? (and that this one is pretty long also.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It might actually be chaotic like debating discrete math in a crowd of shouting soccer fans.

This was funny to read, because of its obvious veracity. So, then, we agree. (Of course we do.)

Darkblade · 03-28-2003, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani

Dear Darkblade,
You ask:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why didn't CGC, in "his" omniscience and omnipotence, just instead create an infinite (it should be infinite, in order to create a "maximum" happiness value) amount of beings similar or identical to "himself"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He did exactly what you suggest. An infinite �number� (I prefer the word maximal number) of angelic beings were created just like Him in every way save quantity. God, being infinite, could only create finite versions of Himself.

It has not been demonstrated that, because CGC is defined as "infinite" (which is undefined here, so I will assume that you mean in size or scope), "he" can not logically exist in the same space or "supernatural realm" with any other infinite beings. If you say there would not be enough space (in the "supernatural realm"), CGC having filled it, then there would not be space for any finite beings either (as any remaining space would negate CGC's infinitude), thus denying the existence of any other "supernatural" beings (angels, et cetera), unless you argue for the existence of infinitely many "supernatural realms", which, if existent, CGC could fill an infinite number of (not necessarily "all") with other gods or morally perfect beings (as that merely being created has not been demonstrated to have a negative impact on morality, and CGC is supposedly both morally perfect and a possessor of "free will").

The "other" realm is the natural realm. You can not argue CGC to be infinite while not occuping all locations in this realm, so we must occupy the same locations as "parts" of CGC. Therefore, why could not CGC merely create an infinite number of morally perfect natural beings? (Again, merely being created has not been demonstrated to have a negative impact on morality, and CGC is supposedly both morally perfect and a possessor of "free will". (Therefore, "his" creations could have "free will" and do no evil simultaneously.))

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani

Could He create an infinite version of Himself, He�d be creating a fourth person of the Blessed Trinity. For reasons beyond our kin, doing it twice (begetting God the Son from Whom together proceeds God the Holy Ghost) was enough. That is why God the Son and Holy Ghost are not called creations, for they ARE the same as God the Father in every respect except personality. (If they were not different persons, they would be indistinguishable from the Father and it�d make no sense to assert their being.)

Why couldn't CGC create more members of "himself"? So, you say "he" can, but doesn't want to. Why not, as this would solve the problem of evil without having to logically sacrifice "free will"? (Remember, CGC is morally perfect and a possessor of "free will", so it must be possible for this to be.) You claim "he" has reasons, which are beyond humans' [understanding(?)], but this is really a non-answer in its entirety. The rest of this piece of your post appears to be nothing more than dogma to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani

What you fail to appreciate is that the metaphysical reality of God is a FREE BEING � not omniscient, not omnipotent, not all the stupid attributes that are merely the non-existent shadows of our anthropomorphisms.

So is what you said is that CGC does not possess either omniscient or omnipotent? Perhaps you meant that, in spite of logic, the fact "he" is is irrelevant to our understanding of "his" actions? In any case, this piece of your post does not appear to have much explanatory value to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani

Being is beyond our comprehension. But freedom is not. We have some notion of what it�s like to be free. So in creating the angels and us free, as God Himself is free, He necessarily opened up the Pandora Box for us to be slaves to sin through our misuse of freedom.

It has not been demonstrated that something having possession of freedom (aka "free will") necessarily opens up the misuse of that freedom by doing evil. Apparently, this does not apply to CGC, who is supposedly morally perfect.

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani

On the other hand, as a function of His infinity, God cannot misuse His own freedom. Just as the ocean cannot spill out of its basin, Yahweh cannot choose to be different than Who He is. There�s no �place� else for Him to go, no other template for Him to conform to.

I do not see how having "infinity" exempts CGC from the ability to misuse "his" freedom as it does for humans and angels. In any case, in extrapolation from above, either an infinite number of beings (each of which may each be either infinite or finite) may exist, only one infinite being, or an infinite number of finite beings. As CGC is infinite, and we exist, the first option is the only logical conclusion, presupposing that CGC exists, of course.

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani

But we, being finite creatures, imagine there is a different way for us to go� it�s called The Fall. We think that our nature is only one of many options that we ourselves can ultimately determine. That is the lie that tripped up Adam and Eve and continues to be the trip wire preceding every sin committed until this very day.

This appears to be extraneous to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani

In short, every creature�s finite condition (the price of admission into creation) creates an existential void wherein evil lies may rush in to assuage the uncomfortable gap between our necessary finite condition and our longings to be less finite. Freedom, then, consists in our humble acceptance of our finite condition through prayer or rebellion against our finite condition through an egotistic belief in lies. Ergo, belief is the paramount religious issue and heresy is the oil-filled tank trench billowing the acrid stench of our egotistic fulminations. � Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Even supposing that your conclusion is valid, this does not show how CGC is limited to being the only morally perfect, "free-willed" being in existence.

the_cave · 03-28-2003, 04:31 PM

Koy, I just wrote you a big ol' reply that took a couple of hours to write, but somehow got logged off the system, and I couldn't even get back to the posting page to copy what I'd written! So it's gone, and I don't know when I'll have the energy to try and rewrite it. Sorry, folks. Maybe I'll get back to it when I actually have time, and am feeling less frustrated.

Fiach · 03-28-2003, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
[B]Come On Fiach,
You are smarter than this:

That's circular if ever there was a beach ball. And it's a straw man if ever there was a scarecrow. Let's see if we can derive another perceptive revelation from your twisted telephone line of reasoning. Pond ice is hard because of its crystalline structure not because I�m freezing my ass off on top of it. How trivial!

I don't see that it is circular to admit that the matter-energy universe is the only form of existence that we can all see and measure. All matter and energy has properties. Those properties depend on the structure of the material. I have described this on several posts and will not repeat that. In summary, I think that all things have properties unique to their structure. We use the term laws as though they are decrees from God, but that is just a tradition from antiquity. What laws are in science, are mechanisms that we call laws.

Point is, all things are what they are because of other things.

The things are what they are because of their structure which determines its properties. The "other" things for me are temperature, barometric pressure, gravity, electromagnetism, and perhaps velocity.

This is elementary, Dr. Watson. For theists, ultimately the other thing is God. For atheists, ultimately the other thing is nothing at all, just because because.

That is a fair assessment, Albert.

So get off your high-horse. Stifle your high and mighty talk about materialism being one whit more true than theism, and show some humility.

Ok, I will say that my materialism is for me the most plausible explanation for what I see. I recognise that theists incorporate a god for their most plausible explanation. We also know that we cannot prove nor disprove the God Hypothesis. Belief is optional.
How is that for disagreeing with mutual respect?

For thou art dust and it ain�t one bit more significant than sand. � Albert the Traditional Catholic

I doubt if I will be dust unless I get cremated. If I get buried in the family cemetery, in the soggy peat filled ground, I might be preserved for some future palaeoanthropologist, and end up in a museum.

Slainte mhaith,

Fiach

Albert Cipriani · 03-28-2003, 09:38 PM

Dear Fiach,
You attempt to turn a tautology into an argument by now beating your dead horse which I'd dispatched last time around:

Quote:

The matter-energy universe is the only form of existence that we can all see and measure.

Matter and energy, by definition, is that which can be measured. So, what you're saying is that because we can measure the universe, there's nothing but the universe that can be measured. Right. Extrapolating now: Red, by definition, is red. So nothing but red is really red. Makes a lot of sense, no?

And now for the theistic version of your dead horse: God, by definition, cannot be measured. Ergo, because we cannot measure Him, we know He exists.

You say:

Quote:

My materialism is for me the most plausible explanation for what I see.

No it is not. Materialism IS WHAT YOU SEE. Duh! By definition, what is seen must necessarily be material. Seeing the material world explains nothing. Our five senses make redundantly clear or loud or sweet or sharp or acrid what we already know. Seeing what we see explains nothing; rather, it begs the question of everything.

Neither you nor your materialism has explained a thing! What kind of intelligence do you demonstrate by saying that what your see is what you believe exists? Even an aomeba without the aid of vision or a brain responds to light, i.e. demonstrates its materialistic belief in its exterior material world.

How does it feel to know that a single-celled creature has single-handedly demonstrated as much intelligence as you with a 4 pound brain and 5 senses? I dare say that your dead horse is more deserving of your family cemetary plot. -- Frustrated, Albert the Traditional Catholic

03-27-2003, 09:52 PM	#132
Fiach Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 602	Response to part of Cave's post Boy, Albert & Fiach are way better at this than I am! I might just let them have at it... But I am going out of my environmental space even talking about this stuff. It is challenging. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Mageth Well, if he permeates space, he exists in space, at least in some sense. I'm not exactly sure what "transcends space" means. Does this mean he's non-dimensional, or N-dimensional? If he's not in space, non-dimensional, then he has no dimension, occupies "nothing", and another god could just as easily occupy an equal amount of "nothing" without violating any logical laws I know of. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It just means that being is not fully contained within the spatial dimensions of our universe. There could be other dimensions, or other states of being entirely. Mostly I myself am concerned with pondering the nature of the universe's existence in general--exactly how does it exist? What does it exist in relation to? How did it get the laws it has? Questions like that. I just think we can philosophically reason to some limited answers to those questions, even if science doesn't, or can't, provide the details. We at least can come up with some responses that satisfy our existential wonderings, beyond "just shut up and go do something else." (I'm not saying anyone here is saying that, I'm saying that's the impression I get from a lot of materialist arguments.) Science cannot address this issue because we all admit that science studies only the matter energy universe. We "believe" that this is all there is. But we don't know that. My take on God is coloured by Irish Catholic and Anglican views of my education. It is that God not only exists and permeates the matter energy universe, and any/all dimensions, but God cannot be defined in terms of matter, energy, dimensions, or time/space. This is not an anthropomorphic god in the primitive fundamentalists sense. In this manner, per Catholic/Anglican teaching, God is really everywhere, everywhat, and everywhen and in every plane of existence. Does this make sense or am I babbling gabberloony? I am able to mentally conceive of God in this way despite the fact that I lack a convincing belief in God. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, the physical laws don't "transend" the universe, as far as I know. Permeate, perhaps, but not transcend. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with that. Matter/energy and its laws permeate the universe but we can't even begin to define transcending it. Postulating about God transcending it is a seperate issue from physical matter and laws transcending it. Alright, but why do those laws exist? What brings them about? It seems to me the answer would have to be something that transcended our universe (which wouldn't necessarily mean it wasn't natural, or real). Why do physical laws exist? Why implies a conscious purpose. We can propose HOW those laws exist and derive them with familiar calculus equations, getting hazier as I get older. But when I look at an atom with a positive valence of +1 has one electrode in its outer orbit. 8 outer orbital electrons is in every case stable. So along comes Chloride with 7 electrons in the outer ring and a valence of -7. It only needs another electron to be a stable 8. It attracts that from the outer ring of Na+ and forms NaCl which is stable ionically and in electrical forces. It is the products or physical properties of matter. If Calcium, valence +2, is mixed with Chlorine, you know that an orbital electron count of 9 cannot form (lets not discuss free radicles yet.) So Calcium has to share its two outer electrons with two Chlorines of -7 each so that CaCl2 . We don't know what makes the physical properties of matter. That is not to say that such properties are not arbitrary edicts of a god but unavoidable properties of the atomic number and valence of atoms, the new and acquired properties are likewise inevitable. Na (corrosive metal) and Cl (toxic gas) always form NaCl a nutritional necessity in every case and in any universe. I think that evolution inevitably formed increasingly complex animals as climates and conditions changed. It may not have led to humans but it may have led to an intelligent thinking animal quite different from us. Fiach

03-28-2003, 04:31 PM	#138
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	*?%#$!** Koy, I just wrote you a big ol' reply that took a couple of hours to write, but somehow got logged off the system, and I couldn't even get back to the posting page to copy what I'd written! So it's gone, and I don't know when I'll have the energy to try and rewrite it. Sorry, folks. Maybe I'll get back to it when I actually have time, and am feeling less frustrated.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2003, 10:44 PM	#133
Cipher Girl Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sunny Southern California Posts: 657	Hi the_cave Well, after thinking about it, one way to put it is, I think that god is kind of defined in a way that makes this logically impossible--god is more or less the greatest, most powerful being that there is--but that means there's no space for god to split "into". Besides the created universe, there's nothing besides god, so there's no place where there could be more than one god. Difficult to think about, but I think this is correct. It's an interesting question, though. If god permeates throughout the universe, existing in the same space as other creatures, why could there not be many gods all existing in the same space? Why does there have to be only one? It just means that being is not fully contained within the spatial dimensions of our universe. There could be other dimensions, or other states of being entirely. Mostly I myself am concerned with pondering the nature of the universe's existence in general--exactly how does it exist? What does it exist in relation to? How did it get the laws it has? Questions like that. I just think we can philosophically reason to some limited answers to those questions, even if science doesn't, or can't, provide the details. We at least can come up with some responses that satisfy our existential wonderings, beyond "just shut up and go do something else." (I'm not saying anyone here is saying that, I'm saying that's the impression I get from a lot of materialist arguments.) You said earlier that this god of yours exists only in this universe. Where is the evidence? The physical laws that govern our universe are certainly not complete by any means. But I think it is jumping the gun somewhat to say that the unknowns in our universe imply a god exists. Especially a god that is described as vaguely as most theists describe said deity. Vague enough that they really haven't said more than "god exists." What are the attributes of this deity? Can we test for those attributes? If this deity interacts with this universe, shouldn't we be able to describe this deity in such a manner that we can test for it's existance and predict the effects of said deity? And if the deity does not interact with this universe, then does it really matter? This would have the same effect as there not being a deity at all. Now I think we have strayed rather far off topic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.