Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I recently studied a little more into what has been called "dark energy" and I think Boxcar fundamentally has been misrepresenting how physicists think of "dark energy". They see it as part of physical reality. It is fully part of the domain of physical reality. One might think of it as a new force that we did not know about before (my words: seems to behave like an anti-gravity) or perhaps it is just a principle of all space (the Big Bang is after all, and has been thought of this way for some time, not an expansion of matter into space, but an expansion of space itself). One reason we had not detected this property of space before might be because at smaller distances, the force of gravity masks the relatively weaker (at small distances) expansion force. It is only at massive distances (distances in which gravity is weak) can we see the strong effect of this dark energy.
Although dark energy is new to us, discovering previously unknown forces or properties of physical things has happened many times. We discovered the strong and weak forces, that cannot be observed at the macro-scale, but play a huge whole at the subatomic scale.
Yes, the discovery of dark energy is a monumental discovery that has an impact on many other physics specialties, BUT it is NOT some massive revelation of the existence of the supernatural. It is simply another physical discovery. No need to jump off the deep end and start thinking we have evidence of the supernatural. No mainstream astrophysicists, who know way more about this than any of us do, think dark energy belongs in the realm of the supernatural.
Things remain as they have always been. We have absolutely no persuasive evidence that anything supernatural exists. The universe is a marvelous and mysterious place, and we have a very long way to go to really understand it. The little we do know is mind-bending. We know there is a lot we don't know, which leaves room for many possibilities. But, so far, a naturalistic worldview seems capable of handling all that we suspect might be true about reality. I see no reason to make that huge leap into the realm of the supernatural, which for me offers nothing more than the illusion of an explanation, because until we understand the mechanics of how an agent is responsible for an effect in the physical realm, giving that agent credit for the effect is premature.
So, no, we don't know that dark energy is supernatural, and to my knowledge no legitimate physicist in the field thinks it is supernatural either.
When did I ever represent, let alone, misrepresent how physicist think of dark energy?
At any rate,
Anything physicist find will be considered part of physical reality.
They simply change what they mean by the term "physical reality" to include any new findings.
For their working purposes, that's fine.
However, it should be no surprise that they have never found anything that wasn't part of the physical reality. If they found it, by definition, it became physical. Thus, for the purposes of our argument, it becomes a huge problem.
Under these definition of terms, the statement "all that exists is the physical reality" is a vacuous statement. It doesn't include or exclude anything, especially since we are confident that we will find new things in the future.
The physical reality is now "what we know exists, plus things that exist that we don't know about yet."
Based on that definition of the term, it is pointless in a debate about the possibility of something yet unknown existing.
Typically we instead use the term "materialist", which used to mean that the only things that exist are made of matter. But then they started discovering things that weren't made of matter, like dark matter as well as others. So they extended the definition of matter to include: "anything whose existence can be inferred from the observed behaviour of traditional matter".
Again, we have a meaningless statement for our purposes. The argument that "the only thing that has been observed to exist is matter," becomes, "the only things that have been observed to exist are things that have been observed to exist." And we know there are things that exist that have not yet been observed. And I can assure many people have caught on to this problem
So for the purposes of our discussion, either the terms "matter" and "physical reality" mean something, or they don't. If they mean something, the statement "the only thing that exists is matter/physical reality" has already been disproven. If they don't mean anything, they do not exclude the possibility of a supernatural being.
Put differently, If I were to claim "the only thing that exists are things that are part of physical reality," Would that be a falsifiable claim? If not, it's an empty and useless claim.
If it is falsifiable, why didn't Dark Matter falsify it, instead of requiring an extension of the definition of "physical reality"?
Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 10-21-2011 at 11:07 PM..
There is not enough evidence that the universe was planned to believe it was a result of a plan.
There is also not enough evidence that the universe was unplanned to believe it is not a result of a plan.
To me, the logical position is say that we don't have enough information to know whether the universe was planned or not.
The reason I choose agnosticism to describe that position is that the other two possibilities (theism or atheism) suggest that the person has reason to believe one of the two position is more accurate. The best way, in connotation if not denotation, to describe a discomfort with both propositions to declare one's self agnostic. Otherwise, you communicate a message you don't mean to suggest. In this context, saying you are an atheist is not a statement for a lack of belief, it's a statement that one does believe the universe was created without a plan. It's therefore a positive statement that needs to be proven, whereas agnosticism is the neutral basis, not making a claim.
On a second point, as a practical matter the word "materialist" doesn't really mean much anymore. It's become the functional equivalent of "discovered." If the word "materialist" had a useful meaning, it would certainly have been shown to have been falsified by the discovery of objects not made of matter.
As a matter of logic, I disagree with the notion of the "science of the gaps". The idea that unknown gaps of knowledge will most likely be discovered to have materialistic explanations. The fallacy of this logic is (1) the definition of materialism changes to include whatever new object is discovered, and (2) Science is methodologically naturalistic, and therefore it's discoveries will always reflect metaphysically naturalistic results.
You may be familiar with Khun's theories of the role of paradigms in science? The scientific method is engulfed in a naturalistic paradigm, and the circular nature of their research process and definitions makes it impossible to see anything but natural results.
We really do seem to go around in circles here. I believe I have said before that I agree all this, except that the end result is we don't know. What we don't know we should't believe. The claim that a planning mind is (or could be) involved is a claim which is not supported and is not worthy of belief. That is all atheism needs.
I don't 'believe' the suggestions about something from nothing either, yet. Not without proof. You could call me an unbeliever in 'something from nothing', though that breaks down pretty quickly when Hawkins comments (his views deserve some credit) and we quickly get to what we do know being natural.
I agree that materialism is really neither here nor there. That's why I don't see my atheism as dependent on any materialist or naturalist theories. It is simply based on a lack of any persuasive evidence of a forward - planning mind which one might label 'god'. It does not insist that materialism explains everything or that we trust that it will in time or that god is not possible . It just says what we don't know we shouldn't believe - yet - and what we do know looks from natural, not from a mind. Thus atheism - not believing in what we don't know - is the only logical conclusion.
That is why I lean towards materialism/naturalism as the best explanation of what we do know. That at least is known to exist. That is a given. God isn't a given and it yet needs to be given some kind of credence. 'First cause' does have some points for it, but also some against. We simply don't know and 'don't know' logically requires don't believe -yet.
If you are agnostic, you don't believe either. Again we come up to why, if you don't know about sortagod and don't believe in personal gods, atheism (which is the logical default position), is a term you don't feel able to adopt.
I'm not saying you are semantically wrong as much as asking what you mean by agnostic, which to me looks like a rejection of the belief position deriving from the 'don't know' knowledge position.
The problem for me is that the justification for not accepting the default atheism is dependent on making atheism (apparently) hold views and tenets which (so far as I can see) it doesn't (though some atheists may) and I suppose this is what is bothering me.
If I accept your position as valid, it means that I have to accept what seems to me a misrepresentation of atheism and its logical position. This is what pinged my alarm bell.
"The fallacy of this logic is (1) the definition of materialism changes to include whatever new object is discovered, and (2) Science is methodologically naturalistic,"
This is accusing science of prejudice as indeed atheism is accused of prejudice by saying that it assumes that materialism can or will explain everything.
This is not how it works. So far, despite the best efforts of the theists, no discoveries have been provably shown to support a forward - planning mind. Mystic's appeal to David Chalmer's logical zombies made me take a month off for study but in the end it was unsupported by any real evidence and I don't think it went so far as a cosmic mind anyway. Believe me, that is the best I have seen for 'god'.
Thus, so far nothing arises that makes materialism/naturalism anything less than the best explanation for what we know at present. I say that it is irrational and against the evidence at present to regard a 'mind' as anything but an unsupported hypothesis. It does not so much assume that nothing else could exist or become evident but that - as yet - it has to make any kind of appearance other than as supposition or hypothesis. The 'given' of the natural/material is - at present- all we verifiably have.
That at any rate is where my atheism is supported and, if materialism says that solid matter explains everything, then that's why I say atheism is no god - belief and nothing more. It does not (for me) include any materialism - beliefs.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-22-2011 at 02:29 AM..
I think we are at a basic understanding, if not agreement, on the substance of what we believe. Now the question is, "what does one call those beliefs?"
I think the best word for a concept is the one that communicates the concepts as clearly and as simply as possible. Accordingly, I think the word "agnosticism" best describes the position of non-belief.
I know there are more technical ways of saying it, with distinctions between what is known and what is believed, with hyphenated names like agnostic-atheist, or agnostic-deist, etc.
But in common parlance, if you want to communicate the fact you believe the universe was created by a god, you say your a theist.
If you want to communicate that you believe there is no god that could have created the universe, you say your are an atheist.
If you want to communicate the fact that you don't know how the universe was created, and you don't exclude a god or a non-god, then you say you are agnostic.
That is the clearest and simplest way to communicate the message, even if other definitions exist in the world.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
As far as scientific biases, how can we deny that the scientific method is explicitly methodologically naturalistic? And if we don't deny that fact, why wouldn't we assume it would create biases toward paradigms that are metaphysically naturalistic?
I think we are at a basic understanding, if not agreement, on the substance of what we believe. Now the question is, "what does one call those beliefs?"
I think the best word for a concept is the one that communicates the concepts as clearly and as simply as possible. Accordingly, I think the word "agnosticism" best describes the position of non-belief.
I know there are more technical ways of saying it, with distinctions between what is known and what is believed, with hyphenated names like agnostic-atheist, or agnostic-deist, etc.
But in common parlance, if you want to communicate the fact you believe the universe was created by a god, you say your a theist.
If you want to communicate that you believe there is no god that could have created the universe, you say your are an atheist.
If you want to communicate the fact that you don't know how the universe was created, and you don't exclude a god or a non-god, then you say you are agnostic.
That is the clearest and simplest way to communicate the message, even if other definitions exist in the world.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
"If you want to communicate that you believe there is no god that could have created the universe, you say your are an atheist,"
I do not want to communicate that but I am still an atheist. It is a small and subtle but important distinction perhaps best set out like this.
"I know there is no no god that could have created the universe," Illogical as it requires knowledge I don't claim to have.
"I believe there is no god that could have created the universe," rather illogical as I don't have enough information to say one way or the other.
"I don't have any convincing evidence for a god that could have created the universe, so I don't believe in one." That's my position. not the previous.
Quote:
As far as scientific biases, how can we deny that the scientific method is explicitly methodologically naturalistic? And if we don't deny that fact, why wouldn't we assume it would create biases toward paradigms that are metaphysically naturalistic?
Again, I'd say a small but important difference.
"Science is methodologically naturalistic, and therefore it's discoveries will always reflect metaphysically naturalistic results."
It has to work with what's available. The method would, I believe, have produced evidence for a mind or supernatural if it was there. You have mentioned dark matter and there's the quantum stuff. I do see your point in that I do distrust the tendency to rummage for evidence of god in the woo woo stuff. I can see how that could look like materialist bias. To me the materialist explanations have worked better than god - claims and that's why I think it is the best default position until it is pretty clear that we definitely have something that is evidence for 'god' or the supernatural. I can also see your point that where we have that strange quantum stuff we wait for the materialist explanation to become evident where we don't know how it works rather than suspect 'god'. Maybe it's looking like bias, but perhaps the problem is that the supernatural theory is self - defeating as anything we can't explain we have to wait until we do. What we can explain up to now looks like natural despite the efforts of theists to find spoor of god.
I suppose I have to say to the theists, 'what would you suggest as definite evidence of the non - materialist/goddunnit explanation?' I have a watching brief on NDE's and don't rule out something goddish. But neither can I rule out something in our heads. I have got to take the 'in our heads' default until the evidence is compelling that it has to be something outside our heads. It s far from that yet, but I reckon it's not science/materialism's fault that the alternative theory has to make up so much ground before it can even begin to look credible rather than merely possible.
So I have to say I'm logically obliged to not give credence to the supernatural/immaterial without something more compelling. If and when there is I might have to say like Anthony Flew that I cannot any longer use the term atheist. I would have to give credence to 'god'. Until then atheism seems to me to be the only rational and logical belief position arising from agnosticism.
As I said in the religion forum. I can understand you wanting to keep you options or acceptance perhaps wider open than I do. I can relate to that and maybe I'm a bit too biased towards the material and maybe science is, too. It could be said the other position is a bit too apt or eager to accept the immaterial with a 'goddish' element than is really justified. I don't think it's anything we need fight over.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-22-2011 at 05:53 PM..
I've had a few rum-and-cokes, so I may not make any sense right now, but I'm going forward none-the-less.
How do you know we haven't already discovered a mind, yet instead of describing it as a mind we've broken it down to it's component parts and think of it as natural cause-and-effect? Recall our discussion about the difference between the flower and the mind, and how the classification of sapience is arbitrary. One could reasonably say that the big bang was a plan, if they wished to describe it that way. In the end, it's all physical cause-and-effect, whether or not we describe it as planned is up to us.
This is the part of the bias of science, that leads from methodological naturalism to metaphysical naturalism. We will end up describing anything we see as natural and physical after we find it, even if a century ago we would have called it supernatural. It's simply our naturalistic bias that creates a non-falsifiable definition of naturalism, and a non-falsifiable view of a naturalistic world.
If a century ago we had a list of things that were considered natural, we would have found things outside of that list that should rightfully be called supernatural today. But instead we cheated and simply changed the definition of natural to include those things. If you can believe that, then you will see why any of the things we consider supernatural today, if discovered in the future, will be called natural when they are discovered, even if they should rightfully be called supernatural.
To that I can only say, show me the money. If there is a 'mind' lurking in what seems to be natural forces, demonstrate it. If you can do a better job than Mystic Philosopher, you deserve the Nobel prize rather than him.
I do keep my eyes (and hopefully mind) open even though it's for the theists to make their case. So far the results have been disappointing, not to say deliberately misleading.
The argument that what was once considered supernatural is now considered material is down to the unexplained being given a discovered mechanism, such as instinctive behaviour in animals becoming explained by the DNA code. The 'it must be a mind' argument was based on not knowing and was a false one. The genetic explanation supports unplanned evolution through natural selection, not planned design. I don't think I need to revisit why it doesn't look planned except by a psychotic incompetent.
True, the theists are now trying to find 'god' in the unexplained aspects of DNA. It is arguable and unproven and that is logical reason enough not to believe it.
I can understand your argument about everything being absorbed into the materialist fold but that is really again and again how what we DO find, explain and know, looks; and the spoor of god turns out yet again to be a misinterpreted natural feature.
Thus I have to say it is theism's fault rather than materialism's for evidence for god not being forthcoming.
As I have said to Mystic several times, I am not in principle opposed to everything or anything outside the materialist box and I don't mind a cosmic mind since I am sure that none of the man - made religions has anything to do with it except in a very general sense.
In fact as a questioning teen in search of God I reasoned that even miracles and goddunnit had to work some way. Even acts of pure divine will had to have some mechanism. That it 'just happened' without the atoms getting some sort of instructions just made no sense. So, in a way, materialism has to be involved even where goddunnit is concerned.
What it comes down to is whether it looks planned materialist/natural or unplanned. So far the attempts to prove 'codes' or 'order' in what is known (unknown is just that - unknown) haven't convinced me. The animated films of DNA snapping into patterns like a machine are attempts to fool us and the misinterpretation of the Fibonacci series or Zipf's laws as evidence of a god - given computer code are also...well, attempts to fool us.
I have an ingrained dislike of being fooled. Science makes mistakes sometimes. Scientists themselves can become irrationally attached to one theory and go into denial mode. But science itself doesn't try to fool me. I have repeatedly found that theism and the various attempts to find the supernatural or alternative knowledges repeatedly try to fool me as well as themselves and then get shirty and abusive about science (and me) when when I point out the errors, illogic and misrepresentations.
It is perhaps understandable and even excusable that I am by now far more inclined to give credit to scientific materialism than to speculative immaterialist hypotheses.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-23-2011 at 04:07 AM..
First, I want us to keep in mind that I am agnostic to the idea of a planned universe, I am not a Deist. Accordingly, I don't have to prove there was a plan anymore then I have to prove there wasn't a plan. If it is your position that there is no plan, then the burden is upon you to demonstrate that.
Secondly, even if we agreed on every documented fact involved with evolution, and I suspect we do, we could reasonably disagree on whether those facts constitute a plan. In fact one major point of disagreement here is that you conclude that the evolutionary process can not be called a plan, where as I claim that it is a subjective decision to determine whether or not we call any physical chain of cause and effect "intelligent." The difference between the flower and the human mind is a difference of degree, not kind. If we are to define intelligence as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge", then the flower acquires knowledge of the suns position and applies it by turning toward the sun. DNA acquires knowledge about the historically best means to survive, and applies it to the next generation of the species. These are all normal physical processes of cause-and-effect, just like the brain's thoughts are physical processes of cause-and-effect. It is up to us whether or not to call this cause-and-effects a plan.
So we are not disagreeing on scientific facts. We are disagreeing about what they mean, or what it is possible for them to mean.
Finally, you say you give more credence to scientific materialism rather than immateriality. I ask that you give me a meaningful definition of "materialism" so that I know whether or not that is a vacuous statement.
Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 10-23-2011 at 09:55 AM..
I'm not sure whether an agnostic atheist really has anything to prove, as my feeling is that matter looks unplanned and it is for those claiming a creative mind to show it, but I can see why you might ask why I should a priori take matter to be unplanned. Let me in my clumsy layman way try to explain why.
I have culled some of this from my laptop notes. There are some bits about the idea of a cosmos without compelling evidence for a a planning mind behind it - not disproof of one, but no reason to see anything other than natural (unplanned) processes. Some items have links, others don't. sorry.
First a definition or explanation of materialism. Mind, I'm not saying I'm stoutly defending it. It seems to be assuming a lot it can't know. I'm just saying that I prefer it as a starting point because I see it as existent without the need for much proof, whereas the idea of a planning mind needs to be demonstrated. But as you say, why should I take the material (that is, unplanned) as a preferred theory? I'll explain below.
"Materialism is the simplest (or most simplistic) explanation of reality: the belief that all that exists is the physical; there are no higher realities; no psychic or spiritual truths independent of the physical world.
Materialism itself is a meme, a specific, culturally determined way of thinking about reality.
A slightly longer definition: Philosophical materialism (physicalism) is the metaphysical view that there is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical, empirical or material. Regarding the "big questions", the sceptical or Materialistic explanation of the universe is that everything is matter and energy, and there is nothing else. Spiritual substance is a delusion. Consciousness is explained simply as an emergent phenomenon of the physical brain. There can therefore be no such things as the "supernatural ", paranormal phenomena, post-mortem existence, or occult phenomena. These are either delusions or reducible to physical forces. Materialists are not necessarily atheists (as it is possible to identify God with the material universe, as in Pantheism). However, Atheism is often a corollary of Materialism, especially in the sense of a denial of a supernatural personal God or any sort of higher creative power. Materialists do not deny the reality of such things as love or justice, beauty or goodness." Materialism
Now I am not getting into he materialism/physicalism debate because to a certain extent you are right. Whatever 'matter' is, it is taken on board as material/natural until there is some evidence that it isn't. That really might require me to say why I tend to see unplanned natural processes inherent in matter rather than some mind planning it all.
Life itself doesn't look planned. For example, Jerry Coyne asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" (see pseudogene) and why he or she would not "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species". Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer.
The counters to these that God has his reasons. maybe he thought they just looked nice are pretty feeble excuses.
A few examples of poor design.
ectopic pregnancy.in the human female
Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the plantaris muscle of the foot,
The common malformation of the human spinal column,
The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches
The route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. in the case of the giraffe, this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve
The structure of humans' eyes (as well as those of all mammals). The retina is 'inside out'.
Sturdy but heavy bones, suited for non-flight, occurring in animals like bats. Or conversely: unstable, light, hollow bones, suited for flight, occurring in birds like penguins and ostriches which cannot fly.
There are many indications that life felt its way along in a bumbling unconscious way rather than being planned out.
As regards consciousness, theists or critics of the materialist approach have argued that human perception is faulty. So it is. We require science to correct many misconceptions and to show us the existence of things we can't perceive.
It would be handy if we could see heat or harmful sunrays or poisons. We are not especially well equipped. A planner could have done a better job. To say that the planner had its reasons for making us as we are is not producing evidence for a plan but excusing why there isn't evidence.
As to materialism,
"we have good empirical evidence that nothing happens in or to a person's body except what conforms to physical and chemical laws. The physical world seems to be causally closed: that is, for everything that happens in the physical world, there seems to be a wholly physical cause. There is no real scientific evidence that, in order to find a causal explanation of why your body moved in such-and-such ways, we have to appeal to anything other than physical causes."
There are the arguments that someone having their brain damaged should still function as before if consciousness was not a product of the material brain or that anaesthetic should not work unless feelng was a product of the brain in response to a nerve signal. Questions about what exactly it is seem beside the point.
Looking outside the earth we have indications that there are stellar and galactic collisions. we find the space between mars and Jupiter filled with asteroids. Comets plough into planets. Moons and planets are peppered with impact craters. None of this looks like it was planned but rather more like the whirlwind hitting a dumping yard and producing a lot of pretty useless planets.
Just on one, we didn't get a jumbo jet but we did get arguably some molecules getting pushed together and doused with chemical. That is what the evidence and an explanatory theory indicates and as I have argued, the counter does not persuade me . I'm still open to a good one though.
In the light of a failure to produce any really valid evidence for a planning creative mind and the feebleness of the responses to evidence for unplanned natural processes, I'd say that materialism had made a pretty good case. Where's the case for a planning mind?
I look at crystals growing, snowflakes forming, diamonds made in volcanoes and trees growing from seeds. We know that al these are due to natural processes that would work just as well if a mind hadn't planned it all in the first place.
I could go on but you get the idea. I could say that I see no mind involved in human affairs. I see no reason to believe in a mental contact with some sort of cosmic mind. I found the argument for a planning mind ranging from poor science to frankly dishonest non -science.
That by default would make me favour natural processes of matter (whatever that is) but there is also reason for me to suppose that there is no sign of a mind where there ought to be.
Now it's a given that all I need to remain an agnostic atheist is to be not convinced that there is a reasonable case for some sort of other thing, and since matter is anything that exists that isn't god's mind, it seems is where we have ended up, a cosmic planing mind Aka god is what seems to be all that's left that isn't 'matter'. But to an extent I am trying to sell the idea to you, too of going along with the materialist theory in the absence of any evidence for a Mind.
It's not that easy because like the basics of logic and verified fact, few outside the atheist - theist debate seem called upon to explain why matter, reason and facts are to be accepted first off.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-23-2011 at 12:56 PM..
If there is a burden of proof in this friendly debate, it must surely lie with you. I claim only to not know if the universe was planned, if that is even something that is knowable to begin with. Further, I don't claim to have a belief one way or the other about the issue.
This is contrasted with your position, which is that you don't know but you have a belief that the universe was not planned. That is an assertion and If this debate is about anything it is about you showing the reasonableness of your belief.
On the general issue of planning, you have demonstrated that we don't understand why the plan would have been created in such a way as nature reveals. You may have even shown that nature and the universe was poorly planned. But one could say the same about war in Iraq, and yet few would suggest that was not the result of a plan. I would suggest that most things in life you would call planned, you would also judge as imperfectly planned. Thus observed defects in nature or the universe do not support the idea of a planned or unplanned universe, they only suggest that we do not understand why a perfect plan would be made so, or that the plan is imperfect in our eyes.
Further, if such a plan exists, we can't be sure that human's play an important role in that plan. Perhaps there is a plan, but it isn't about "us", and we are an insignificant side-note to the plan. Maybe the plan was completed at the big bang, for purposes we don't understand. Maybe the plan had to do with the nature of the universe and galaxies, and the fact that humans reside in the milky-way is nor more relevant then rocks on Mars.
Bare in mind, our argument here is different then the creationist argument that there must be a plan and it deals with the exceptional-ism of human beings. Instead, or argument is whether there is good reason to believe the universe is not planned, regardless of why it was planned. This is a distinction between Deism and traditional theism. Deism requires a plan, but it doesn't say anything about how or why that plan came to be.
This distinction leaves open the possibility that it is not knowable if there was a plan, because we have no idea what the plan would have involved. So evidence that " life felt its way along in a bumbling unconscious way" perhaps shows that the plan didn't involve life appearing to have felt it's way along in a meaningful way, but not much more.
Your statements about materialism show how you believe, not what you believe. It only demonstrates that you believe things that are shown to be true, but of the things that are not shown to be true, it gives no insight about what is possible or impossible. It doesn't exclude the possibility of anything existing, it only shows that you will not believe it until it is shown to be true.
Anything that is discovered will be described as physical and material. You are aware that things will be discovered in the future that you will then describe as physical and material.
You can't use those words to describe what can not exist, only what you believe at this point to exist.
I'll explain later when I have more time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
