Original Sin?

just thought I would check in to see if anything new had been said in the last umpteen pages...... nope!

Quote: FrGamble

I agree we need to be open to the possibility we are wrong or lack a complete understanding. In fact it is essential to any philosophical or scientific thought. I just don't want anyone to think because we don't know we should use it to claim there is a God or that there is not a God.

But that is exactly what you do. You claim there is a God, that there must be a God, because of our current understanding of science and the universe, and what "must" be in that great unknown area where we don't know.

Quote: Dalex64

The "unbreakable laws of physics" have been defined by our understanding of the universe. Every single one of them.

If you really dig into it, the laws
are really theories that test the
same way reliably. We have no
idea if a galaxy in a far away
place has the same laws exactly.

We're in the same place we've
always been in, we always think
we know far more than we do.
We actually know very little
in comparison with how much
there is to know.

One truth stands out. We are light
years away from crediting some
god for any of it, god is the last
choice on any list of choices.
Those who make god the first
choice are making assumptions
they have no evidence for, and
no foundation.

Quote: Dalex64

But that is exactly what you do. You claim there is a God, that there must be a God, because of our current understanding of science and the universe, and what "must" be in that great unknown area where we don't know.

There is always so much desperation
among god people. They were told
there's a god, taught it as children,
so by gosh and by golly, it's got to
be true. I read there are 4th and 5th
graders who still believe in Santa
because they've been sheltered
from the truth. Some of them
experience real trauma at that age
when they find out the reality of
Santa.

That's where god people are, except
they're adults. They will keep the fantasy
alive no matter what. The trauma the
truth would cause is not worth it.

Quote: Dalex64

But that is exactly what you do. You claim there is a God, that there must be a God, because of our current understanding of science and the universe, and what "must" be in that great unknown area where we don't know.

Not at all. I only think that science provides evidence to support a belief in God. Science cannot prove there must be a God or that there isn't. Science does not have standing in these philosophical or theological issues. It points to the universe or multiverses or everything having a beginning but it does not make any conclusions. Evenbob recently admitted there is so much we don't know and even these laws are really proven theories that work and so we trust them. It is logical that there must be a God or some first non-contigent cause or an unmoved mover. The impossibility of an infinite regress and things popping into existence without a cause is why there must be a God. These are logical truths that science and everyone takes for granted as self-evident. The best any honest atheist can logically do is admit these things and claim that "God" is either unknowable or a impersonal supernatural force power that is beyond our understanding. To claim there is no God or possibility of God is to go against evidence and logic, it is wishful thinking and fantasy. They hold unto this false reasoning because they desperately want there to be no God. There is no other explination. I will say that sometimes there are good explanations why they desire there not to be a God, but that is usually emotional personal reasons or because they have been brainwashed against the possibility.

Quote: FrGamble

The impossibility of an infinite regress and things popping into existence without a cause is why there must be a God..

Sigh..

'Bertrand Russell also mentions the story in his 1927 lecture Why I Am Not a Christian while discounting the First Cause argument intended to be a proof of God's existence:

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.'

Quote: FrGamble

Not at all. I only think that science provides evidence to support a belief in God. Science cannot prove there must be a God or that there isn't. Science does not have standing in these philosophical or theological issues. It points to the universe or multiverses or everything having a beginning but it does not make any conclusions. Evenbob recently admitted there is so much we don't know and even these laws are really proven theories that work and so we trust them. It is logical that there must be a God or some first non-contigent cause or an unmoved mover. The impossibility of an infinite regress and things popping into existence without a cause is why there must be a God. These are logical truths that science and everyone takes for granted as self-evident. The best any honest atheist can logically do is admit these things and claim that "God" is either unknowable or a impersonal supernatural force power that is beyond our understanding. To claim there is no God or possibility of God is to go against evidence and logic, it is wishful thinking and fantasy. They hold unto this false reasoning because they desperately want there to be no God. There is no other explination. I will say that sometimes there are good explanations why they desire there not to be a God, but that is usually emotional personal reasons or because they have been brainwashed against the possibility.

I disagree with so much of this post, it's almost as if you are trolling?

Your infinite regress is only unpossible when you get to control the parameters. How can you think that time scrolls backwards to a certain point, and then just stops? Are you just trying to make it intriguing to attract non thinkers? If you can imagine infinity going forwards, you should be able to imagine infinity going backwards. Or time not doing anything at all.

"They hold unto this false reasoning because they desperately want there to be no God." So much of your post I view the exact opposite way. I don't desperately want there to not be a god, it would make things easier if there were. I think it is the religious folks that are to lazy to think themselves, and I understand that but still, they want to toss anything they don't feel like answering, off on to some mysterious beings lap. Handy indeed, I just don't see it.

Non believers haven't been brainwashed into believing something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist? Thats cray cray.

Quote: petroglyph

I don't desperately want there to not be a god, it would make things easier if there were.y.

Imagine how great it would be
if there was a god, and he'd
laid down rules to follow? You
wouldn't have to think about
anything, just follow the rules
and you're home free.

Quote: Evenbob

Imagine how great it would be
if there was a god, and he'd
laid down rules to follow? You
wouldn't have to think about
anything, just follow the rules
and you're home free.

The hardest thing any human being can do is to submit to another and recognize that I can't and don't make the rules. To follow rules is not an easy way. I can understand why you don't want there to be a God. It is so much easier to pretend I am god and to do whatever I want. I don't have to think about anything. I could make my own meaning and do whatever I would like to do, just make up my own rules and I'm home free. I get the appeal of such a simple view of life, I really do.

Petro, thanks for your thoughtful reply. Disagreement is not a bad thing, it gives us something to talk about in a respectful way and to think through things.

The reason why thinking ahead into the future for eternity makes sense is because it is logically possible. Thinking backwards for eternity is not possible because it is illogical. Think about some examples. If you had a stack of blocks you could keep adding to it forever and it makes sense. But every new block you put on the stack would rest on the one before it and that one depends on the one before that and so on and so on. However, if there are these blocks to rest new ones on there needs to be a foundation somewhere that the first and all the other blocks rest on. Without a foundation or beginning of the blocks there would be nothing to support them and there would be no possibility for any new blocks or even the stack at all. This is what contingency is and it is why Shaw is wrong to ask the simplistic question of what caused God? This is a failure to understand the nature of God and what non-contigent means. I've pointed out to Evenbob a couple of times where Shaw has these philosophical and theological misunderstandings about God but he doesn't really listen to me.

I would be happy to keep talking about this if it still doesn't make sense or you have more good questions.