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.
Hi TotN. Thanks for explaining. I am familiar with your reasoning from our previous exchanges, but it’s nice to see it summarized, as you’ve done here.
It’s my understanding that you’re open to the idea of an eternally existing energy, and you’re also open to the idea that a god of some kind exists, but you’ve ruled out the God of the Bible as a possibility. Is that right?
This is an excellent question. I am a mortal human being, like any other mortal human being. As a result I do not possess the super power necessary to "know" things with absolute certainty. As a result the best I can do is to reach conclusions based on observed likelihood.
For example, the accuracy of E=MC² was firmly established with the first successful nuclear detonation. But is E=MC² accurate 100% of the time? I do not possess the super power necessary to "know" that is true with absolute certainty. Conversely, I cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no circumstance under which energy might be created anew, or eliminated utterly.
So, things must be evaluated according to their likelihood, based on observation and experience. Based on observation and experience, what is the likelihood that there exist some few flying reindeer? Roughly the same likelihood that a corpse returned to life and flew away. But isn't it true that IF there exists an omnipotent Being, and IF that omnipotent Being chose to cause a corpse to return to life and fly away, then a flying reanimated corpse is possible? Well... yes. In which case it's also true that said omnipotent Being COULD cause reindeer to fly, if He so chose. Or conversely, that flying reindeer are possible if God has chosen to endow Santa with certain magic powers.
So, an omnipotent Being could exist in exactly the same way that Santa could exist.
But what is the likelihood?
It really boils down to the question of which is the more likely based on observation and experience. The law of conservation of energy, or the conclusion that there must exist an omnipotent Being? Is there a difference between these two concepts, or is each potentially equally valid?
The law of conservation of energy (energy can neither be created or destroyed) was formulated over the course of centuries of careful observation and experimentation. It is considered a law precisely because it has never been observed to be in error.
The concept of God is formulated entirely upon assumption, assertion, and a large measure of human emotional need, by individuals who were (are) largely ignorant of the various observable natural laws by which the universe seems to function. Or to state it more succinctly, no such omnipotent Being can be observed, only imagined.
So... which conclusion is the more "likely" to be true?
This is an excellent question. I am a mortal human being, like any other mortal human being. As a result I do not possess the super power necessary to "know" things with absolute certainty. As a result the best I can do is to reach conclusions based on observed likelihood.
For example, the accuracy of E=MC² was firmly established with the first successful nuclear detonation. But is E=MC² accurate 100% of the time? I do not possess the super power necessary to "know" that is true with absolute certainty. Conversely, I cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no circumstance under which energy might be created anew, or eliminated utterly.
So, things must be evaluated according to their likelihood, based on observation and experience. Based on observation and experience, what is the likelihood that there exist some few flying reindeer? Roughly the same likelihood that a corpse returned to life and flew away. But isn't it true that IF there exists an omnipotent Being, and IF that omnipotent Being chose to cause a corpse to return to life and fly away, then a flying reanimated corpse is possible? Well... yes. In which case it's also true that said omnipotent Being COULD cause reindeer to fly, if He so chose. Or conversely, that flying reindeer are possible if God has chosen to endow Santa with certain magic powers.
So, an omnipotent Being could exist in exactly the same way that Santa could exist.
But what is the likelihood?
It really boils down to the question of which is the more likely based on observation and experience. The law of conservation of energy, or the conclusion that there must exist an omnipotent Being? Is there a difference between these two concepts, or is each potentially equally valid?
The law of conservation of energy (energy can neither be created or destroyed) was formulated over the course of centuries of careful observation and experimentation. It is considered a law precisely because it has never been observed to be in error.
The concept of God is formulated entirely upon assumption, assertion, and a large measure of human emotional need, by individuals who were (are) largely ignorant of the various observable natural laws by which the universe seems to function. Or to state it more succinctly, no such omnipotent Being can be observed, only imagined.
So... which conclusion is the more "likely" to be true?
It is NOT necessary to the beginning of life for God to be omnipotent, just the source of life. All the human imaginings and desires reflected in the Omni's are superfluous to the concept of God as the source of life.
It really boils down to the question of which is the more likely based on observation and experience.
You would think, but even the criteria we use to establish what is most likely and/or true remains subject to debate. Are we to believe what we do based on observation and experience? Or faith? Or what our religion teaches us? Based on observation of what? Based on what sort of experience...
Fine tune what criteria or process leads us to establish what is most likely fact vs fiction, or at least rule out what is less likely, and we begin to get closer to the truth of these matters. For example, it has even been debated in this thread whether we know how life began. The fact(s) should clearly establish that we have yet to understand exactly how life began on Earth.
Fun to consider the more likely possibilities though! The criteria and process I'm inclined to use and encourage points to a god or creator being a least likely explanation for how life began. On our planet or anywhere else in the universe...
This is an excellent question. I am a mortal human being, like any other mortal human being. As a result I do not possess the super power necessary to "know" things with absolute certainty. As a result the best I can do is to reach conclusions based on observed likelihood.
For example, the accuracy of E=MC² was firmly established with the first successful nuclear detonation. But is E=MC² accurate 100% of the time? I do not possess the super power necessary to "know" that is true with absolute certainty. Conversely, I cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no circumstance under which energy might be created anew, or eliminated utterly.
So, things must be evaluated according to their likelihood, based on observation and experience. Based on observation and experience, what is the likelihood that there exist some few flying reindeer? Roughly the same likelihood that a corpse returned to life and flew away. But isn't it true that IF there exists an omnipotent Being, and IF that omnipotent Being chose to cause a corpse to return to life and fly away, then a flying reanimated corpse is possible? Well... yes. In which case it's also true that said omnipotent Being COULD cause reindeer to fly, if He so chose. Or conversely, that flying reindeer are possible if God has chosen to endow Santa with certain magic powers.
So, an omnipotent Being could exist in exactly the same way that Santa could exist.
But what is the likelihood?
It really boils down to the question of which is the more likely based on observation and experience. The law of conservation of energy, or the conclusion that there must exist an omnipotent Being? Is there a difference between these two concepts, or is each potentially equally valid?
The law of conservation of energy (energy can neither be created or destroyed) was formulated over the course of centuries of careful observation and experimentation. It is considered a law precisely because it has never been observed to be in error.
The concept of God is formulated entirely upon assumption, assertion, and a large measure of human emotional need, by individuals who were (are) largely ignorant of the various observable natural laws by which the universe seems to function. Or to state it more succinctly, no such omnipotent Being can be observed, only imagined.
So... which conclusion is the more "likely" to be true?
It is NOT necessary to the beginning of life for God to be omnipotent, just the source of life. All the human imaginings and desires reflected in the Omni's are superfluous to the concept of God as the source of life.
Life is the result of the ongoing process of organic chemistry. Organic chemistry is driven by quantum mechanics. No God is observed to be needed.
You would think, but even the criteria we use to establish what is most likely and/or true remains subject to debate. Are we to believe what we do based on observation and experience? Or faith? Or what our religion teaches us? Based on observation of what? Based on what sort of experience...
Fine tune what criteria or process leads us to establish what is most likely fact vs fiction, or at least rule out what is less likely, and we begin to get closer to the truth of these matters. For example, it has even been debated in this thread whether we know how life began. The fact(s) should clearly establish that we have yet to understand exactly how life began on Earth.
Fun to consider the more likely possibilities though! The criteria and process I'm inclined to use and encourage points to a god or creator being a least likely explanation for how life began. On our planet or anywhere else in the universe...
When we are dealing with these unknowns, there is really no reliable data about the unknowns upon which to base or assess probabilities or likelihood. You want to assume the usefulness of known data about our physical Reality to assess the probability of the unknown. That is your prerogative but there is no logical reason why this would be either useful OR reliable.
When we are dealing with these unknowns, there is really no reliable data about the unknowns upon which to base or assess probabilities or likelihood. You want to assume the usefulness of known data about our physical Reality to assess the probability of the unknown. That is your prerogative but there is no logical reason why this would be either useful OR reliable.
The scientific method would tend to disagree with you, and has for a good long while now been helping us to assess not only probabilities and likelihood, but facts and truth as well. Slowly but surely, more and more still being revealed to us by science. Less and less by holy books and religious teachings.
When we are dealing with these unknowns, there is really no reliable data about the unknowns upon which to base or assess probabilities or likelihood. You want to assume the usefulness of known data about our physical Reality to assess the probability of the unknown. That is your prerogative but there is no logical reason why this would be either useful OR reliable.
The scientific method would tend to disagree with you, and has for a good long while now been helping us to assess not only probabilities and likelihood, but facts and truth as well. Slowly but surely, more and more still being revealed to us by science. Less and less by holy books and religious teachings.
Maybe we need to do a little teaching for a few of our religionists who try to mix science and religion.
When I was teaching science we would do a lab where students were given a purpose, a list of materials, a set of procedures, and space to make observations, and a space to make conclusions. Each lab group would then conduct the "experiment". It didn't matter if the students at a particular table were male or female, smart or dumb, Black or white...whatever. If they conducted the experiment correctly, the outcome would be the same. Invariably, there would always be one or two lab groups that didn't get the correct results. And then we would go back and go over exactly what they did, and we would always learn that they didn't measure correctly, or skipped a step, or whatever. The point being that if you do the experiment the same way, you'll get the same results.
Simple example: if you administer dilute hydrochloric acid to a piece of limestone, it will fizz. It doesn't matter which country in -- limestone + HCl = fizz. It doesn't matter if it's winter or summer, day or night, hot or cold. if you administer dilute hydrochloric acid to a piece of limestone, it will fizz. You can extrapolate and come to a wrong conclusion. Just because a rock or mineral fizzes when you administer HCl doesn't mean you have limestone; you may have calcite, dolomite, marble.
That's not the way faith and religion work, however. A man contemplating the meaning of life in America is unlikely to come up with the same conclusions as a man in Thailand or Saudi Arabia. Science, including the field of archaeology, may support some specific religious claim, but science seems unlikely to prove any religion.
My advice to religionists -- stop trying to merge science and religion, because when you do you are most often being deceitful. And when you are deceitful you just broke another of YOUR commandments.
The scientific method would tend to disagree with you, and has for a good long while now been helping us to assess not only probabilities and likelihood but facts and truth as well. Slowly but surely, more and more still being revealed to us by science. Less and less by holy books and religious teachings.
Irrelevant comparison. Your misuse and misunderstanding of the role of the scientific method as it applies to the unknown expose a distinct lack of philosophical discipline. There is a huge difference between the lack of evidence and evidence of a lack when it regards evaluating what already exists versus what is not known to exist. Your unjustified and unprovable presumption that God is NOT what already exists is your Achilles heel in such matters.
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.
