View Single Post
Old 04-10-2007, 03:12 PM   #112
Mike Doolittle
Telling people how it is
Mike Doolittle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a shoe with my old lady
Posts: 3,758
Rep Power: 20 Mike Doolittle is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike Doolittle
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Originally Posted by Nicato View Post
Now, I'm willing to accept that there are things beyond our understanding, but I am not willing to say two words about them and I certainly can't take it from science that there are, since science can only tell me about what we do know, today.
We're getting somewhere here, because I mostly agree. Except, you should understand by now, with my previous dark matter analogy, that science does in fact direct us to the plausible existence of things that are unobservable and immeasurable. I can understand why you perceive this to be a paradox, but that's exactly the kind of narrow thinking you have to let go of.

The natural world may, in fact, be all there every was--there is certainly more evidence for that than there is for your god.
If you subject that claim to your own criteria, it falls apart Ė what positive evidence do you have that the natural universe is all there ever was?

This just doesn't wash. Faith--like all concepts--is reasonable or it is unreasonable.
Indeed. Faith is reasonable. We can see why God might and should exist. But we can also see that we have limitations in understanding God.

Apparently it is you who has no sense of context. [snip]
Key word: "example."
For something that is just an example, you sure like to spend a lot of time telling me that's what I'm arguing, then responding to what you're telling me I'm arguing. Straw. Man.

So, being without the universe, the finite point is no longer required to have a first-cause.
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently: To suggest the point is outside of the universe seems to suggest that it was supernatural. But rather, the point itself was the universe and all that is in it. I can understand how things that seem paradoxical might be confusing, but these are exactly the kinds of questions physicists have to ask. Imagine as Hawking said all spacetime is exists within a point of infinite density. Something triggers this to begin expanding. The question is, what caused this to happen? How did this place of infinite density get there? How does a whole universe just pop into existence? It's the most mind-boggling question in quantum physics. How did it happen? Why? From what? How can we study it if all we can observe is within our universe to begin with?

Now, for the last time: where specifically is there evidence for purpose?
Let's ask Paul Davies:

Paul: I accept that Darwinian picture. But the appearance of design Iím talking about refers not to the objects of the universe Ė not to the specific physical systems Ė but to the underlying laws. And the difficulty you have if you want to argue along Darwinian lines is that, somehow, the laws have emerged as a result of natural selection. But we donít readily see anything like a population of universes with a population of competing laws slugging it out, you know, red in tooth and claw, so that only a universe that is felicitously adapted, as far as the emergence of life is concerned, comes out at the end as the survivor. I might say that there have been some rather crude attempts by some physicists and cosmologists to link a sort of cosmic Darwinism to Darwinism on Earth, but I donít find these attempts very convincing. So I think that when we are dealing with the universe, and the laws of the universe (and for all we know there is only one universe and one set of laws), itís very hard to use this sort of Darwinian mechanism to explain the appearance of design.

Phillip: So we are not looking for a watchmaker but we are looking for a legislator?

Paul: Precisely!

Now, it's not my fault if you don't want to read what I took the time to write. But I *have* devoted considerable space in these threads to addressing these questions.

It's a paradox because you're arguing for a first-cause when every cause in universe requires a preceding effect. You've studied physics and yet I'm explaining this to you?
You are confusing causality within the universe with the existence of the universe itself.

If a universe collapsing on itself is considered disordered, then shouldn't a universe currently expanding to the point of its eventual death also count?
Not at all. Finity does not inherently contradict order.
RIP "littledoc"!

My MySpace Page
My Gaming PC Blog
Mike Doolittle is offline   Reply With Quote